Niall
I’ve seen people on this forum talking about Efke and Ados films as being ‘OLD’
What’s the difference between the old and new films and their emulsions?!
Niall
MirkoBoeddecker
Niall,
that’s a ‘dangerous’ question you’ve posted here :angry:
We’ve seen loads of posts on this and people seem to be firmly on one side or the other.
There are some people on the forums who’ll tell you that anyone shooting old-style emulsion is a complete idiot because technology moves on and all modern films are better than old ones, just as modern cars are better than old ones. I think that many old cars look better than modern cars and that the same applies to some films (this really isn’t meant to be a scientific statement :) ).
Those people will also tell you that if the resolution at a contrast of 1:1000 lines per millimetre is higher, it must automatically be a sharper, better and finer-grained film.
As we all know, the parameter for grain is RMS granularity, not lines per millimetre, and sharpness is a different matter altogether.
These people won’t listen to this and will keep repeating that modern = good; old-style = bad, and that lines per millimetre is the absolute criterion.
So be prepared – I’m expecting these posts right below this one.....
The difference that no one can deny is that photos taken with an old-style emulsion look different from those taken with a more modern emulsion.
For many people, this is already enough. They like the look of an older emulsion and the ‘natural’ grain (as opposed to T or delta grain) and thus prefer these films.
The real difference is probably the question of what was on the engineer’s mind when he made this film.
As for the old-style emulsions, such as our Efke/ADOX films, the emulsion formulation drew on both roll and sheet film technology. As grain was not a concern on these large-format films, the emulsionist’s primary aim was to create a film with a wide exposure latitude, good shadow detail, excellent grey scales and a natural conversion from colour to grey.
Building on this, they also sought to make the films sharper as more people began using 35mm Leica cameras in the 1940s and 1950s.
The most advanced product in this category is the Efke/ADOX film first introduced in the early 1950s. It is based on older emulsion technologies incorporating a high silver content, coated in a single layer and with a maximum speed of 100.
The slow-speed films were sold to photographers seeking fine grain for highly enlarged prints, whilst the ‘high-speed’ films, such as the 100, were aimed at sports photography and those shooting moving subjects (at that time, 100 was considered high speed).
The films are very sharp (single layer) and have superb grey-scale gradation and excellent exposure latitude (comparing 25 with 25, 50 with 50 and 100 with 100 etc. – do not compare 25 with 400, as higher-speed films always have better exposure latitude than slow-speed films).
However, as 35mm became increasingly popular, film manufacturers had to focus more and more on this market. Large format and 120 became a niche market, and so all modern films are primarily 35mm films, which are also produced on roll and sheet film bases.
The main difference is that these films are, first and foremost, faster and have relatively finer grain, as the small 35mm format requires fine-grained material.
All other photographic properties of the films were more or less neglected and ‘fell by the wayside’. The most important factors were fine grain and a speed of over 100 ASA.
To achieve this, the films were given a second or even third layer (Delta 3200 has as many as four layers!), pre-exposed encapsulated silver grains of varying sizes, and in the 1980s even tabular crystals (Tmax and Delta), all mixed into hetero-dispersed emulsion layers of different types.
And indeed, these films are very fine-grained and achieve up to EV 1600. The Delta 400 can even be as fine-grained as the Efke 100.
So if you really need 400 ASA or more, don’t like grain and want to enlarge your prints to over 8x10", these films might be the perfect choice for you.
On the other hand, the disadvantages (slightly exaggerated to highlight the differences): Images are not particularly sharp because the tabular crystals are stacked on top of one another, causing light to blur from one into the other; furthermore, the second layer blurs at the coating edge as it transitions to the next layer. Shadow detail is virtually non-existent, and the tonality is relatively flat.
So if you’re more interested in tonality and want your images to be sharp and crisp, you might want to try one of the old-style emulsions and use R09, FX 39 or Neofin Blaue (developers that prioritise sharpness and, in return, let the grain ‘settle’ wherever it ‘settles’, thus working completely differently from modern fine-grain developers and fine-grain films).
If you feel the grain is too large, reduce the speed or increase the film format.
If you shoot large format, the choice is easy. Here, old-style emulsions are always much better than modern ones.
Another factor to consider is that old-technology materials are easier to produce. We can run very small production runs at our partner factory on a profitable basis. High-tech films like Delta or Tmax need to be produced in large quantities. So, with the black-and-white market shifting from a professional to an artistic one, these old-style films might actually be even more ‘modern’ than newer ones, as they could be the only ones available in the coming years.
A sort of ‘back to basics’ approach, really.
Modern films are also highly stabilised. With such a film, you get very consistent results (on the other hand, you lose the scope to experiment by changing the developer or trying alternative processes). The films are hardened and the emulsion adheres very well to the film base. Old emulsion techniques do not allow the film to be hardened to the same extent. Therefore, you need to be more careful when processing it. But this isn’t a problem; it’s just something you need to bear in mind whilst working in the lab.
Cheers from Berlin,
Mirko
Niall
Thanks for your reply! What does an OLD-style film print look like?
And regarding a previous thread on the decline of black-and-white film and so on, it’s sad to see that Ilford is selling up in the UK – there’s no buyer as yet!
Niall
MirkoBoeddecker
Niall,
you need to see the difference. Obviously, the difference lies in the negative and not in the print, so only parameters affected by the film’s characteristics are visible (e.g. not the paper’s tone, etc. Sometimes people confuse this and think a sepia-toned picture must have been taken on old-style film ;-)
Usually what you can see is that the shadows have richer detail and the overall tonal range expands further, thus making the images more true to life. You can see more clearly whether surfaces were wet or dry, and all the textures come to life.
On the other hand: if you keep shooting the same film format: more grain.
You need to test this for yourself. As I said before, for some people a modern film is the best choice and for others it isn’t.
Everyone has to make up their own mind, and the best way is simply to try a roll and then stick with it or not.
Ilford: They announced yesterday that all black-and-white products will be discontinued.
This doesn’t surprise me, as the situation has been dire over the past few years.
These huge factories were relying on export markets in third-world countries that were so far behind that black-and-white film was actually still a mass-market product.
With these countries moving rapidly towards digital, the large plants will have to be shut down.
I expect these markets alone to be over 20 times larger than the combined demand of the world’s artistic photographers.
I saw a nice thread on apug.org where people asked Agfa to start selling APX sheet film again. Around 100 photographers signed it out of a total of 2,500 APUG members.
Nice try, but a long way from reality.
Regards,
Mirko
Niall
Hi,
Where did you see the announcement that Ilford was discontinuing its black-and-white products?
Niall
skahde
Niall,
You really need to see the difference. The proof is in the pudding. To make a valid comparison between different films, you have to expose them at their true speed and develop them to the correct contrast. Overdevelopment and underexposure are the quickest ways to ruin any film.
As an aside, when it comes to one film being better than another, there is hardly a film more controversial than Kodak’s TMAX 400. Use it outdoors, bathe it in a higher concentration of HC110 and you’ll hate it too. At least I did. But use it indoors for portraits, developed in XTOL 1+1 or even D76 1+1, and you’ll wonder what all this talk about ‘plastic-looking’ mid-tones is about. Take a look here:
http://www.heylloyd.com/photos1/photos1.htm. Or use it with a staining/tanning developer like PMK, Moersch Tanol or Pyrocat-HD and TMY – to my own surprise – shines even under outdoor conditions. It’s more a matter of ‘how’ than of ‘what’, which makes me optimistic that we may still do fine in the not-too-distant future when our choices of materials become increasingly limited.
There is one difference, though, between “old” and “new” that hasn’t been mentioned yet: spectral sensitivity. The sensitivity of most “old” emulations drops off earlier towards the red end of the spectrum, and no amount of filtering will compensate for that. Such films inevitably look different, and you may or may not like this kind of difference.
BTW. Mirko: can you name the source for the statement that Ilford has decided to shut down production of B&W products? I have yet to decide what to put on my next order!
Best
Stefan
MirkoBoeddecker
Niall, Stefan,
Some things are certain and some aren’t when it comes to Ilford.
What is certain is:
1) Ilford has separated its digital and analogue businesses
2) The analogue division went into administration last Friday.
What is not certain is whether black-and-white production will actually cease.
Although this was communicated by Ilford employees, I believe the final decision will be made by the new management, and one week is too short a time to make a definitive decision on such an important matter.
We shall see what happens. If they are able to make workers redundant under bankruptcy protection without redundancy packages, they might be able to continue.
If they have to pay off the workers with redundancy packages, that will be the end of Ilford.
This is how it is in our semi-socialist European democracies. It is legally impossible for companies to adapt to new market situations in a timely manner.
A market contraction of 25% per year will force any labour-intensive company based in Europe into bankruptcy – even though technically it could survive, because it is impossible to cut costs at the same rate. You have to keep paying redundant staff until they retire, or you have to pay them 1.5 years’ wages as compensation. Where are you supposed to get the money from if you are already struggling to survive?
No bank will grant you a loan to pay off surplus staff as it makes no economic sense.
On the day your debt to your employees and suppliers exceeds your capital, you have to declare bankruptcy.
So this is more of a technicality than the actual end.
I suppose Ilford saw this bankruptcy as their last chance.
We wish them all the best. Hopefully some jobs and parts of the factory can survive.
We saw this coming, so we have stocked up on HP5 and FP4 raw materials for 35mm and 120 film, enough for at least two years’ supply.
So, in the event of a few months without deliveries, we can continue to supply film.
Unfortunately, things have developed much faster than we anticipated, so it will take us a few weeks as well to have the first ready-made films available.
Mirko
Niall
I get the logic behind your argument!
But what you’re really saying is that they’ve all but admitted they’re closing
down B&W!
Right! Nobody actually said that!
Niall
cfb_de
Hi Mirko,
Ilford is "under administration". That’s completely different from bankruptcy. It corresponds to the German term "Verwaltungsvorstand", meaning that a venture capital group is trying to get the most out of its investment and has decided on a "take it or leave it" approach.
So, I don’t see any need to panic. They’ll be restructured, some people will be made redundant, but we’ll still be able to buy Ilford products for the next few years. Hopefully.
Otherwise: Foma is on the market, Agfa will remain on the market, Efke (oh, aren’t they discontinuing my favourite R50?) will remain on the market. Even those Maco or Lucky products will be sold tomorrow, too. Nevertheless, I won’t be buying it.
Do you have any information regarding this so-called German company producing the announced Rollei R3? Actually, I find it hard to believe that Ilford-based emulations are being produced in Germany.
Best regards,
Franz
Gast
Franz,
Who said that R3 uses "Ilford-based" emulsions?
Ferdinand
MirkoBoeddecker
Franz,
it’s not quite like that. Technically, following the withdrawal of a major investor, Ilford is insolvent. That is why they had to go into “administration” (they can no longer pay this month’s wages). Now, if no new venture capitalist or investor steps in to inject funds immediately to cover outstanding wages, the workers will most likely not turn up at the factory on the morning of 1 September. This information was not provided to me with a notary’s stamp, but it seems highly reliable as it comes directly from inside the factory.
We expect at least some disruption to supply over the coming months and have therefore stocked up on this raw material.
As far as I am aware, the R3 is not based on an Ilford emulsion. I believe it is rather derived from a technical (scientific) film because it is manufactured in such a specialist small factory dedicated to these products. But I do not know this for certain. I am just speculating, like everyone else.
It is being heralded as the great innovation of the decade, but we all need to see and test it first before we can comment.
Mirko
Niall
I think we can expect the worst from Ilford, which is a shame,
just when I was starting to enjoy developing and printing!
Ferdinand, I think I heard that AGFA are pulling out of black and white photography altogether!
Fuji are expected to restructure as well, so perhaps we’ll hear from them soon, too!
Niall
MirkoBoeddecker
Niall,
as Franz and I said before: there’s no need to panic, and certainly no need to stop black-and-white printing!
We’ll have to see what happens at Ilford. I don’t know how many coating lines they have.
If they have a small one and a big one, they can shut down the big one and carry on with the small one.
This market will survive, though not as the mass market for which these huge plants were built.
It’s not even so much a question of wages; it’s more a question of property value.
Did you read in that one newspaper just how big the Ilford factory is?
I’ve forgotten, but it was HUGE.
Multiply that by the property value in England and you’ll see why the owners are thinking about shutting it down.
Technically, they can survive anywhere, but if they have just one large coating line standing on valuable land, that is what the owners focus on.
Demolish it and sell the site at a profit, or keep it and see no revenue for years.
Demand is what it is and cannot be increased any further, ever again.
So it is all a question of adapting to the new environment.
By the way, I want to make it clear here that our other partners – even though they could theoretically profit by taking a share of Ilford’s market – will not necessarily profit overall, and so I am NOT HAPPY about the situation.
If the biggest buyer of B&W paper base and raw materials disappears, this will have a major impact on the availability of raw materials and their prices.
ILFORD has the world’s best retail channels alongside Kodak. There is no way we can get Foma or efke films into any petrol station in the US or England.
Most of this market will simply be lost, as casual buyers who at least still had some Ilford film locally will no longer be able to buy it at their local shop.
This would have happened gradually over the coming years, but a sudden change is always worse.
So we all hope that Ilford can continue. We need them as a supplier for the high-quality, high-price segment. Without them, our turnover will be negatively affected.
Mirko
Niall
I'm not sure I fully understand your answer. First you say 'don't panic', then you say that if ILFORD doesn't carry on, we've got a problem!!
Anyway, they've made about 330 people redundant out of, I think, a workforce of 740!
Niall
MirkoBoeddecker
Niall,
that’s true. About 350 people.
But I didn’t say we’d have a problem if Ilford stops. I just said it would be better if they carried on – but if not, we’ll find a way round it.
What I wanted to make clear is that if they do stop, it’s worse than if they carry on, but this won’t force you to stop using your darkroom or black and white photography.
Mirko
cfb_de
Mirko,
I do agree with you completely. And, as I said, Ilford will carry on. They are "in administration" and will continue to operate. No bankruptcy.
Their venture capitalist wanted a return on his investment and didn’t get it. So, he decided to appoint an administrator. It works the same way in Germany. The company is being scaled back to focus on “cash cows” and will survive. Investments will be written off. That’s life. I feel sorry for the employees.
We shouldn’t compare Kodak’s strange business plans with Ilford’s. Kodak is committing commercial suicide (selling films whilst simultaneously closing labs suitable for digital processing), whereas Ilford simply has to manage its business challenges.
Kodak’s issues have been resolved here: My local photographer has just bought a Frontier from Fuji. They process 130 films a day. Since they started that business, I’ve been using C41 again and get very good prints from them. They even print Ilford XP2 in true black and white. (Well, I do it better in my darkroom, but it takes much longer.)
At the moment, I see no reason to stop darkroom work. Ilford is alive, Agfa is alive, Foma/Efke will make a profit.
(Please stop Efke from discontinuing my favourite R50! It’s the only thing I buy from them.)
Just my two cents.
Franz
p.s.: @Niall: I’ve received your emails. But I haven’t had the time to reply. I’ll do so in the next few days.
MKL
Insolvency – bankruptcy – under administration
These terms should not be confused. In Ilford’s case, the £40 million in debts were no longer guaranteed by the main shareholders. This is why Ilford had to file for insolvency. As a result, the company has been placed under the administration of the accountancy firm Grant Thornton. G.T. will attempt to reorganise Ilford, initially splitting it into two business units – digital and analogue. The analogue division has already seen its workforce reduced by around half, which is one of the cost-cutting measures G.T. is implementing to make the remaining organisation more attractive to potential buyers.
In plain terms, this means that G.T. is deciding which business will remain active (in this case the digital unit) and which business faces a possible closure or sale (in this case the analogue unit). The future of the B&W products depends on whether a buyer can be found or not. Ilford took the risk of letting it die!
Bankruptcy would mean there is no chance of keeping it running under any circumstances.
We all hope that Ilford will continue its B&W product line, but it clearly depends on whether a new buyer is found or not. Even Ilford’s management has no further influence over this, apart from the possibility of a management buy-out, as happened with Agfa Imaging.
Michael
