camerafreak
To put it bluntly: I’m furious.
Not only does the 50 Efke no longer match the current ADOX R50 (requiring easily 20–30% longer development times compared to the old film to achieve the target gamma), but nobody has seen fit to inform customers.
Whilst checking my R50 from the last delivery, I was on the verge of committing ritual murder: two-thirds of the ADOX rolls labelled ‘R50’ on the outside contained 400 Ilford film.
How about a bit of quality control in Berlin? Surely we shouldn’t be the ones having to test the film.
On the one hand, Mr M. from B. is whingeing about the cruel reality of the market economy; on the other, I have to expect to receive goods where I have no idea what to expect from one batch to the next. ADOX isn’t
that much cheaper than mainstream film for me to want to stick with it in the long run.
Mirko, I’d like to hear your thoughts on what you envisage ‘ADOX quality’ (a great old name, by the way, which used to stand for high manufacturing standards) will look like in future.
Oh, and I’d also like to hear your thoughts on fototec.de.
Regards,
Michael
MirkoBoeddecker
Michael,
I’ve honestly been wondering whether I should reply to this.
What on earth is that tone of voice, if I may ask?
I can’t confirm your figures; to do so, I’d have to come into your lab and work alongside you under identical conditions.
There are certain differences between individual emulsion batches, and as production volumes continue to decline, these variations are likely to increase.
The 50-speed films are an absolute niche product. They are rare items produced in very small batches. The tolerances inherent in this production method are inevitably higher than for mass-produced goods such as Delta 100 or Tmax 100.
Both films, the latest ADOX R50 batch and the one from the previous year (which was still in efke packaging), fall within the tolerances that have applied for the last 20 years.
A film is always better on the day of production than its actual average value.
An R50, for example, is at 60 or even 80 ASA. It then normally drops to its average value within the first 6 months and then slowly continues to decline. By the end of the printed shelf life (which varies depending on storage, of course), it usually hovers around 1/3 stop below the tolerance for the average value.
Normally, this still falls within the overall tolerance range for variations in exposure, shutter speed, aperture, developer etc., and the average user won’t notice a thing.
Anyone working with great precision and using a densitometer must, of course, calibrate each emulsion individually. However, as this is highly dependent on the developer, everyone must test this for themselves.
The same applies if you have precisely calibrated an XY emulsion and are now using a new emulsion.
Neither we nor any other manufacturer has ever claimed that our figures are so accurate that one can rely on them blindly. Even in our heyday, this was extremely labour-intensive, and at current market levels it is simply unthinkable.
It is entirely possible that a very good emulsion, depending on its stage of maturation, may be 10–20% above the normal value, and a mediocre one, depending on its stage of maturation, 10–20% below.
This would result in differences of 20% or more when comparing one film to another.
The last 50-exposure film from the 2004 production run was very good. Contrary to all expectations, it deteriorated very little and was extremely stable in storage. A real cracker of an emulsion. Unfortunately, we haven’t managed to replicate that quality, and the new one is now back within the normal range.
Mix-up of roll films: This concerns a total of 2 boxes. Unfortunately, around 200 films have entered circulation where the tubes labelled with R50 stickers actually contained 400-metre films.
This was noticed a good two weeks ago and all R50s still in stock were checked.
This took so much effort that we can now safely write off the profit on the entire batch. It is therefore very much in our interest to avoid such errors.
However, the label on the film is correct.
The cause of the error has already been identified and this should not happen again.
We can only carry out spot checks. If 100 out of a delivery of 5,000 films are incorrectly boxed, it is annoying, but it is virtually impossible to detect this through spot checks.
We will, of course, exchange the films for you.
I have already commented extensively on the domain in the relevant thread.
When, in your opinion, did I complain about the market economy?
There is a certain discrepancy between consumers’ expectations and what can realistically be achieved.
This discrepancy is easy to explain. For years, people have been accustomed to a certain standard of quality and price, and that is what they are now using as a benchmark.
Currently, prices are rising and quality is declining.
There is a reason for this from a production perspective.
Price and quality depend on production volume. If this changes, the parameters change too.
For the customer, this is naturally incomprehensible, and they get annoyed because they now have to pay more but get ‘less’ in return.
For us, this is frustrating because we’re doing everything we can, yet our margins are shrinking, meaning we’re earning less and, to top it all off, getting the blame from customers.
To shed a little light on this dilemma, I’m writing to you.
Best regards,
Mirko
Gast
Hmm,
I feel deeply sorry for them – Efke is selling fewer and fewer films, so few that every other mail-order company in Germany stocks the film, then in the USA, Greece, Sweden, Norway, the Balkans, the Netherlands, France… I think it’s sold in Poland too, and under the Maco brand it’s distributed across half the world.
But no, Efke is selling fewer and fewer!
They’ve simply been sloppy – no more and no less.
An attentive observer
MirkoBoeddecker
Unfortunately, it seems you haven’t been paying quite that much attention, or perhaps you’ve let your observation skills go a bit rusty... :)
Sadly, Maco withdrew completely from production at efke two years ago.
All Rollei films now come from a different source, and since then we’ve been doing our best to keep efke running at minimum capacity.
Added to this is the collapse of the X-ray film market and the technical film market.
That amounted to hundreds of thousands of square metres of film.
Photographic film was always a small niche within the overall production capacity that ran alongside the main business. Now, almost only this niche remains.
The last few years have been difficult, but things are starting to stabilise, and since the Agfa disaster, things have also been looking up (e.g. with paper orders).
Fortunately, new distribution partners have also joined us, and so one thing leads to another.
A 35mm film roll is approx. 0.06 square metres.
A modern film coating machine runs at a minimum of 100 metres per minute.
This means that in one minute, material for 1,666 films can be coated.
Agfa’s machine ran at 200 metres per minute = 3,333 films per minute = 1.6 million films per emulsion per day, or around 5 million films per day.
This means that in a single day, more films could be produced than the entire global annual demand.
efke is luckier – the machines run more slowly and the old ADOX emulsions are less prone to defects than more modern ones. Nevertheless, even for efke, 5,000 square metres is peanuts.
They produce that in just one shift in a single day. As for R 50, this quantity is enough to supply all the listed distribution partners for two years or more.
These volumes present significant fixed-cost problems. Agfa was unable to resolve this.
We have resolved it together with efke and are continuing to work in very close cooperation, but anyone who claims the factory is operating at full capacity simply has no idea.
Regards,
Mirko
camerafreak
On the day it is produced, a film is always better than its actual average value.
An R50, for example, is rated at 60 or even 80 ASA. It then usually drops to its average value within the first six months and continues to decline slowly thereafter. By the end of the printed shelf life (which varies depending on storage conditions, of course), it usually hovers around 1/3 stop below the tolerance for the mean value.
Normally, this still falls within the overall tolerance range for variations in exposure, shutter speed, aperture, developer etc., and the average user won’t notice a thing.
Anyone working with great precision and using a densitometer must, of course, calibrate each emulsion individually. However, as this is highly dependent on the developer, everyone must test this for themselves.
The same applies if you have tested an emulsion XY precisely and are now using a new emulsion.
[right][post="6719"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]
At no point did I talk about *speed*, but rather about the fact that you have to develop the batch for significantly longer to achieve an identical gamma curve.
And yes, I measure every emulsion using sensitometer strips and a densitometer. Roman and I have sacrificed quite a few films for this reason...
Neither we nor any other manufacturer has ever claimed that our figures are so accurate that one can rely on them blindly. Even in our heyday, that was extremely labour-intensive, and at current market levels it is simply unthinkable.
However, such deviations do not occur with other manufacturers; there is virtually no difference between tested APX emulations and the latest batch...
It is entirely possible that a very good emulsion, depending on its stage of maturation, may be 10–20% above the normal value, and a mediocre one, depending on its stage of maturation, 10–20% below.
This would result in differences of 20% or more when comparing film to film.
How should the batch be classified in that case?
We’ll of course exchange the films for you.
Never mind, after the R50 experience, I prefer the English product. I need to be able to rely on my equipment.
This discrepancy is easy to explain. For years, people have been accustomed to a certain standard of quality and price, and that is what they now use as a benchmark.
Currently, prices are rising and quality is deteriorating.
However, this is approaching a tipping point: at a certain point, the discrepancy becomes too great to be tolerable.
Michael
MirkoBoeddecker
Michael,
But that’s getting close to a limit: at a certain point, the discrepancy becomes too great to be tolerable.
Everyone has to decide for themselves where their limits lie.
Yours seem to be rather narrow, and if you get better results with Ilford, then use Ilford films.
Everyone should use the films that produce the best pictures for them.
Ilford, Foma and all the others are just as affected by all these market issues.
Only Kodak and Fuji still produce large-format films in the old style without reorganising production. The quality is within very tight tolerances, but unfortunately the products are simply discontinued if the volume X required to maintain these tolerances is no longer achieved.
They can’t do anything else, or they could widen their ‘tolerance window’ slightly and carry on regardless.
Ilford has opted for this approach to survive. I think that’s better than discontinuing the products and closing down operations.
Before tempers flare up again...
So what exactly happened again?
Michael has to develop for 20–30% longer to get the R50 to the same gamma as the previous batch. He measures with the Densi and wants to work precisely to gamma.
That would mean, for example, developing for 6 minutes instead of 5, or adjusting the exposure.
Michael can’t live with the fact that the new batch has this deviation from the old one (after all, he’s also lost at least one roll of film through all the testing) and is now switching to Ilford in the hope of finding more consistency and being able to save himself the testing in future.
Of course, I regret that because we’re losing an R50 customer, but I can understand it.
But developing for 6 minutes instead of 5 is, of course, not impossible, nor is it the end of photography.
It’s just a little more fiddly, but the images look exactly the same afterwards (once the process has been adapted).
Anyone who doesn’t work with a densitometer, a grey scale and a calibrated light meter under standard lighting conditions probably won’t notice any difference anyway.
Regards,
Mirko
PS
Certainly, the variations between emulsions were smaller with Agfa.
That’s exactly what I’m trying to explain.
That’s why Agfa isn’t around anymore!
This type of production is no longer viable at today’s market levels.
Quality (consistency) = Dependent on quantity.
Gast
@camerafreak:
Goodness me!
Just cut a test strip from the film.
With a new roll of film, the first 3–4 frames are always the Kodak IT 8 grey scale for me.
You can also increase the gamma without the contrast range becoming too harsh by raising the temperature of the developer. It’s in every data sheet; I’ve tried it and it works.
You’ll never get the full film contrast onto paper anyway, so there’s no need to be more of a stickler than the Pope.
And as Mirko already says, just use a different film.
P.S.: On the subject of densitometry, as I’m a photographer and don’t do reprographics, in 99% of cases a visual inspection of the negative is sufficient.
SimonWeber
Anyone who doesn’t work with a densitometer, a grey scale and a calibrated light meter at Normlich probably won’t notice any of this anyway.
I completely agree. That’s how it is for me – I haven’t noticed anything either.
I also think it’s a bit over the top how everyone here is picking on Mirko (domains, etc.) ...
Oh well. Maybe I’m not demanding enough :)
Simon
camerafreak
@camerafreak:
Goodness me!
Just "Michael" would have been enough...
Just cut a test strip from the film.
With a new film, I always use the first 3–4 frames for a Kodak IT 8 grey scale.
That makes sense for me, as I work exclusively with roll film...
And it wasn’t a “new film” but a film where supposedly only the outer packaging had changed. I had the old Efke calibrated and was familiar with it.
Just to be clear: I have no problem with films being changed, but the distributor should also *communicate* this.
You can also increase the gamma without the contrast range becoming ultra-sharp by raising the temperature of the developer. It’s in every data sheet, I’ve tried it and it works.
However, that doesn’t meet my expectations of process consistency. Especially as there are developers that don’t really cope well with a rise in temperature. The old Beutler ones, for example.
After all, you’ll never get the full film contrast onto paper anyway, so there’s no need to be holier than the Pope.
Oh...
...and I’m not Catholic.
Michael
Gast
Hello!
Am I mistaken, or is the entire photographic industry in Europe currently on the verge of slipping to Swema standards?
But at least they state the development time right on the packet.
Oleksander
Wolf_XL
...I’m really starting to get fed up with this – or are they expecting customers to act as beta testers, Microsoft-style? It may well be understandable that production-specific variations are unavoidable with Efke – but in that case, the very least they could do is let me, as a customer, know about it. Or just put a list of the different batch numbers and the corresponding development times online. Please don’t forget that not all your customers are schoolchildren, students or pensioners with plenty of time to test film... If, as a working professional with relatively little time for my hobby anyway, I’m losing the energy for such thrilling activities as film testing, I might as well give it up altogether soon...
Gast
Wolf is right, and to make matters worse, the people who have the time (school pupils, students) generally can’t afford to test films, and pensioners have no desire to do so.
It really isn’t on that we’re treated here like supplicants to a state-owned enterprise.
[color="gray"]It reminds me of the statement by the director of the VEB Sachsenring combine: the Trabant is in such short supply because it’s so popular, and spare parts because the car lasts so long (in grey, so we don’t get sidetracked).[/colo
Werner
Stagirit
When I’m working, I buy films that guarantee quality.
That’s why films from Kodak, Fuji and Ilford are more expensive than those from Efke.
But even with those, the emulsion numbers aren’t there for nothing.
If I buy a film that’s manufactured somewhere in Croatia and costs 2 euros a roll, I can’t expect the same performance as a film that costs 5 euros.
Those 3 euros just come back in through the back door.
I don’t buy my calliper from a Chinese shop either.
You can always complain, but you should remain reasonable about it.
I’ll just not buy Efke, full stop.
That’s called the law of the market, and if nobody buys Efke, then Impex will drop it from their range too.
Gast
Stargirit,
Yeah, yeah...
The price difference between Efke and Kodak is perhaps 50 cents to 1 euro, if you know where to buy Kodak. For Mirko’s sake, I won’t say here where that is.
Werner
camerafreak
If I buy a roll of film made somewhere in Croatia that costs 2 euros, I can’t expect the same quality as a roll that costs 5 euros.
A roll of FP4 in 120 format costs just 2.26... on the open market, at least.
You can always complain, but you should remain reasonable about it.
I simply won’t buy Efke, full stop.
That’s called the law of the market, and if nobody buys Efke, Impex will drop it from their range.
And I’m not buying any more now either. I prefer to take photos rather than test them, and if there’s a risk that I’ll get erratic results unless I check the batches, I’d rather give that sort of film a miss.
Michael
Stagirit
Goodness me! I don’t buy my film from Impex either.
I can get my 120 Neopan 400 for almost half price too, but I buy my paper and chemicals here.
It’s just this outrage that bothers me. Of course, you could ask why Impex stocks the film.
Apparently because there’s a demand for cheap black-and-white film.
It wouldn’t matter to me, because I always test the film first.
When I go into production, I simply can’t use cheap film.
After all, I don’t take product shots with a Holga either.
Gast
Goodness me! I don’t buy my film from Impex either.
I can get my 120 Neopan 400 for almost half price too, but I buy my paper and chemicals here.
It’s just this outrage that bothers me. Of course, you could ask why Impex stocks the film.
Apparently because there’s a demand for cheap black-and-white film.
It wouldn’t matter to me, because I always test the films first.
When I go into production, I simply can’t use cheap film.
After all, I don’t take product shots with a Holga either.
[right][post="6738"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]
People don’t buy the film because it’s cheap, but because it looks like it’s from 1950. Have you ever noticed how many people get upset about the modern ADOX boxes?
I reckon they’d prefer the film to come in lead-type printed boxes with the embossed text ‘ADOX R17’ and ‘17/10 DIN orthopanchromatic’, on metal spools with wooden cores!
Wolf_XL
...it’s probably less about the fluctuations in the material itself and more about the way it’s being sold to us...
camerafreak
It wouldn’t matter to me, because I always test the film first.
When I go into production, I simply can’t use cheap film.
You’d almost think you don’t understand what I’ve been writing all along:
I test all my films, using a sensitometer and densitometric analysis. Including sensitivity determination. But I can’t go to all that trouble every few films.
As I’ve already written, I prefer to take photographs or work in the darkroom.
Michael
MirkoBoeddecker
I’m afraid I have to intervene briefly again, as it seems that certain things are now being taken as fact here that simply aren’t the case.
1) The film has NOT been altered
2) The film does not vary so much within a batch that it would be necessary to communicate anything. In fact, the variations have remained relatively constant since 1998.
3) The average user does not need to correct anything, nor will they notice a difference, nor will their images change.
4) Whether Efke varies more than Ilford remains to be proven; we’ve seen all sorts of things in that regard too.
5) I have no control over what Michael and his Densi are up to, nor whether his measurements are accurate.
So it would be helpful if anyone who hasn’t actually noticed any changes in development times with the Efke themselves didn’t talk about it as if they had.
Otherwise, this will end in complete chaos.
Regards,
Mirko
