Data sheets for Efke/Adox CHS

mdeutgen · 2008-06-26T20:21:04+00:00

Hallo, ich bin auf der Suche nach Datenblättern zu den Efke-Filmen (es kann auch Adox CHS draufstehen) und habe mich gewundert, dass ich so etwas nicht find...

mdeutgen

Hello, I’m looking for data sheets for Efke films (they may also be labelled AdOX CHS) and I’m surprised I can’t find any. The information inside the Efke packets didn’t really convince me; other suppliers show that it can be done better. Does anyone know if there are any original Efke data sheets available in PDF format, and if so, where can I find them, please? Martin

Gerd

There’s some information on the Efke website. The ADOX websitehas more or less the same information in German. What exactly do you want to know? Gerd

mdeutgen

There’s some information on the Efke website. The ADOX websitehas more or less the same thing in German. What exactly do you want to know? Gerd

Gerd, I’d already found what I was looking for on Mirko’s site; I couldn’t access the Fotchemika site when I visited (God knows why). What I’m looking for is the whole thing as a PDF so I can print it out properly and file it in my darkroom folder – I have a computer-free darkroom and I want to keep it that way! Martin

MirkoBoeddecker

Hi Martin, Our website actually has a built-in feature that makes it easy to print the pages. I’ve uploaded it for you as a PDF. Best regards, Mirko CHS 25 CHS 50 CHS 100

mdeutgen

Mirko, That would have been my last resort – compiling this data myself. Thanks for saving me the trouble. But wouldn’t it make more sense if there were proper data sheets for all products sold under the ADOX label, just as competitors provide? It doesn’t have to be exactly the same as Ilford’s or Kodak’s, but it should at least be on a par with Foma’s. We’re also welcome to discuss this directly; we don’t have to do it in this thread. Martin

cmox

Mirko, That would have been my last resort – compiling this data myself. Thanks for saving me the trouble. But wouldn’t it make more sense to have a proper data sheet for all products sold under the ADOX label, just as competitors do? It doesn’t have to be exactly the same as Ilford’s or Kodak’s, but it should at least be on a par with Foma’s. We’re also welcome to discuss this directly; we don’t have to do it in this thread. Martin

A list of development times for every conceivable scenario would actually be quite nice, wouldn’t it?...

mdeutgen

A list of development times for every conceivable scenario would actually be quite nice...

In my view, that belongs in a proper datasheet. And not just the developers from our own stable, but also the standard developers from our competitors. However, in my opinion, there’s no need to list the more obscure ones. Martin

MirkoBoeddecker

...have you seen our comprehensive developer chart (page 21 in the catalogue)? Best regards, Mirko

cmox

...have you seen our comprehensive developer chart (page 21 in the catalogue)? Best regards, Mirko

Yes, of course. I’ll have a look now: So, Xtol 1:1 for ADOX 25... :( Okay, that was unfair, as it’s a third-party developer. Let’s take Adolux ADX... no good either, for any film at all. <IMG src='http://forum.fotoimpex.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cry.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':'(' /> So, I reckon there’s a bit of room for improvement. You don’t have to test everything straight away; results from other people are published here and there as well.

mdeutgen

...have you seen our comprehensive developer chart (page 21 in the catalogue)? Best regards, Mirko
Yes, of course. I’ll have a look now: So, Xtol 1:1 for ADOX 25... :( Okay, that was unfair, as it’s a third-party developer. Let’s take Adolux ADX... no good either, for any film at all. <IMG src='http://forum.fotoimpex.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cry.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':'(' /> So, I reckon there’s a bit of room for improvement. You don’t have to test everything straight away; after all, other people’s results are published here and there.

Mirko, please take this thread in good spirits and don’t see it as a massive criticism of you or your team. I don’t think cmox and I have highlighted any major issues here, but merely pointed out potential for improvement. As far as I’m concerned, I deal with data sheets on a daily basis (not exactly in the photography sector) and the standard there is simply that all essential data is included on the data sheet, because you pin it up somewhere and then work with it. Your reference to the development table in the catalogue is also justified in this case, and I’m using that too after a few adjustments (I’ve highlighted the development lines relevant to me with a highlighter, or coloured them in the PDF). However, cmox isn’t entirely wrong either when he says some developers are missing. Martin 1 typo corrected

cmox

Just a quick addendum... the table often contains entries like this: ADOX ATM 49 – Adox CHS 50 – 10–15 minutes 10–15 minutes is a huge range. Wouldn’t it be better for most users to specify a single time that produces a normal level of contrast?

cfb_de

Hi cmox, Does that really help you? I could just pick any time from my table for the HP5+ that produces a ‘normal’ contrast at 400 ASA speed. You know nothing about my development process, my enlarger, my exposure measurement, and certainly not my idea of a good development. I’ll mention it anyway. Adapted to the current conditions: 11.5 minutes with Rodinal 1+50. My thermometer reads 22°C. *My* thermometer! And you don’t want to know how I’m feeling right now. Seriously: tables like this provide a starting point for testing film and developer yourself. It may be hard to believe these days, but even in the internet age, proper film development remains a craft and is still a trade taught in professional circles. Starting at 10–15 minutes, you begin with 10 minutes. Then 12, then possibly 15. In other words, you use a roll of film cut into three sections, exposed to sunlight across three stops, and know exactly where you’ll end up. That’s actually enough; it costs one roll of film and three hours of your time. And then you do the same again with another roll of film, but in rainy weather. Another three hours. You can be more precise using sensitometry and densitometry with the appropriate measuring equipment. You can do it, but you don’t have to. A properly tested development and exposure usually falls between grades 2 and 3. Best regards, Franz

cmox

Hello cmox, Does that really help you? I could just pick any time from my table for the HP5+ that produces a ‘normal’ contrast at 400 ASA speed. You know nothing of my development process, my enlarger, my exposure measurement, and certainly not my idea of a good development. I’ll mention it anyway. Adapted to the current conditions: 11.5 minutes with Rodinal 1+50. My thermometer reads 22°C. *My* thermometer! And you don’t want to know how I’m feeling right now. Seriously: tables like this provide a starting point for testing film and developer yourself. It may be hard to believe these days, but even in the internet age, proper film development remains a craft and is still a trade taught in professional circles. Starting at 10–15 minutes, you begin with 10 minutes. Then 12, then possibly 15. In other words, you use a roll of film cut into three sections, with three stops of exposure, in sunny conditions, and know exactly where you’ll end up. That’s actually enough; it costs one roll of film and three hours of your time. And then you do the same again with another roll of film, but in rainy weather. Another three hours. You can be more precise using sensitometry and densitometry with the appropriate measuring equipment. You can do it, but you don’t have to. A properly tested development and exposure usually falls between grades 2 and 3. Best regards, Franz

Well, with the times and movement specifications given in the data sheets from Kodak and Ilford, I’ve actually always managed to get something usable. Fine-tuning was rarely necessary. You’re certainly right that you can squeeze out those last few per cent of quality if you test it yourself, but a good guideline from a table is a really good starting point... and perhaps it works just as well as it has done so far.

cfb_de

Hi cmox, Right. So I’ll just follow the standard guidelines—HP5+ at 22°C (my thermometer is properly calibrated, and my calibration standard is even certified)—for 11.5 minutes, and I’ll skip any mention of the specifics of my process. After all, the table is meant to be simple. Anyone who uses this information ends up complaining bitterly about this poor standard table. In such standard tables, 17 minutes (i.e. until the solution is completely spent) would be a more useful recommendation. That, in turn, doesn’t suit me at all and has led to a lot of trial and error. Which is why I prefer to work with Rodinal at 16°C. That’s when it produces a fine grain. But it no longer fits into any ‘standard table’. Best regards, Franz

cmox

Hi cmox, Right. So I’ll just record HP5+ at 22°C (my thermometer is properly calibrated, and my calibration standard is even certified) for 11.5 minutes in the relevant tables, and I’ll skip any mention of the specifics of my process. After all, the table is meant to be simple. Anyone who uses this information ends up complaining bitterly about this poor standard table. In such standard tables, 17 minutes (i.e. until the solution is completely spent) would be a more useful recommendation. That, in turn, doesn’t suit me at all and has led to a lot of trial and error. Which is why I prefer to work with Rodinal at 16°C. That’s when it turns out with fine grain too. But it no longer fits into any ‘standard table’. Best regards, Franz

Reading this, I wonder how I managed to produce images over the last few decades with those handy tables and not-always-perfect thermometers and stopwatches. With a run-of-the-mill process using perfectly ordinary tins and a familiar agitation rhythm, this has actually never been a problem, unless you had plutonium in your drinking water, wanted to strictly follow the Zon system, or had other unusual considerations in mind. All parts of the process have an influence, of course, but they tend to cancel each other out, and if not, they do so for most film developers. And then you can always adjust the times yourself. So why do film and developer manufacturers specify times at all, rather than stating that you have to calibrate everything yourself? I personally don’t know anyone who has the expertise and equipment to run a process that’s precise from start to finish, but I know plenty of people who work normally or even rather sloppily – and for them, a table is useful. Of course, it should be a good one and based on a run-of-the-mill process suitable for amateurs, obviously, but at least you have a starting point and know roughly what to expect. Well, I didn’t want to go into that much detail. Just this much: A good table in the catalogue, on the website or even in the packaging is also good for sales, quite simply. So, why not?

Beef

Hi So, I’m bringing this up again... Aren’t there any ‘proper’ data sheets for the ADOX films? I’d be more interested in other things like the density curve or lines per millimetre. Or are the CHM films ABSOLUTELY identical to the Ilford films, so that one can use those data sheets? I read somewhere that the emulsion used in ADOX films is from ILFORD. Regards, Andi

cfb_de

Are there no ‘proper’ data sheets for the ADOX films now? I’d be more interested in things like the density curve or lines per millimetre.

Hi Andi, The ADOX CHM doesn’t need proper data sheets, as Ilford has already published them and they can be applied 1:1 to ADOX CHM. ADOX has developed a really fine film: the perfect doppelgänger ;) Is this information enough for you, or do I have to face a lawsuit from Ilford? Best regards, Franz

mdeutgen

Hi So, I’m bringing this up again... Aren’t there any ‘proper’ data sheets for the ADOX films? I’d be more interested in other things like the density curve or lines per millimetre. Or are the CHM films ABSOLUTELY identical to the Ilford films, so that one can use those data sheets? I read somewhere that the emulsion used in ADOX films is from ILFORD. Regards, Andi

Andi, I started this thread in the first place because I was looking for the relevant data sheets for the CHS films. I too was interested in things like spectral sensitivity, density curves, etc., and wanted to have that in a PDF (Foma can do it, the big ones anyway), and I found that rather odd. It would also be interesting to have a table of standard developers; not everyone has the Impex catalogue in their darkroom (I’ve had one ever since), and personally I find it in very poor taste when a manufacturer refers exclusively to its own developers in its film data sheets (Agfa and Kodak are prime examples here), although I can understand why they do it. Other manufacturers handle it a bit differently... I definitely wasn’t talking about the CHM here! Mirko has worded that paragraph in the catalogue in such a way that the reference practically jumps out at you between the lines! And to put your mind at ease, I’m currently using CHM 125 as my roll film, and I can apply the times I’ve worked out for the FP4plus directly to it; it works with APH09, Rodinal and ID11. Incidentally, I had the same experience about 12–14 years ago when I was using Orwopan 100. Martin

VolkerSchulz

I don't really understand your problem. The development times for several developers, including third-party brands, are listed in the catalogue. You just print out the page and file it away. Done! It doesn’t bother me that the times aren’t listed for every possible developer. It’s no different with Ilford, Kodak, etc. There, too, their own brands are listed first, followed by 2–3 common third-party brands. As for the development times (11–15 mins), the question is: what sort of enlarger do you have? Mixed light or condenser. For the condenser, use the shorter time; for the mixed-light enlarger, use the longer one. Or you could develop to a medium ISO and take the average between 11 and 15 minutes. Happy shooting! Volker

Beef

Hi Thanks for the replies. @Franz : Yeah, that’s brilliant about the CHM films. I was impressed by the Ilford films, but they were too expensive for me in the long run (I mean, for how much I use) :) So the CHM is a good alternative ;) @Martin : Yeah, it looks like there’s not much information available on the CHS films… I’ve looked everywhere. The times aren’t that important to me, as you usually have to adjust them to your own process anyway... but it would be nice to have a rough guide. When I was rummaging around on the ADOX website today for any data sheets on the CHM, that’s practically when I first found out what CHS actually is :) The description actually sounds good... but all you really learn is that the film has a lot of grain and the images look as if they’re almost 100 years old :lol: I’d also have been interested in more detailed data such as curves, resolution, etc... @Volker : Yes, the development times ;) So with Ilford, when I look inside the pack here, of all the films I’ve seen, MOST of them list third-party developers. You could practically say that almost ONLY third-party developers are listed :lol: And with Fomapan, I’ve also got Kodak, Ilford and Tetenal listed, among others ;) And here’s a reminder for everyone: if anyone doesn’t know the times for a particular film-developer combination, just select it from the fields at the top left of the Film/Developer Directory ;) Cheers, Andi

Nächste Seite »