Oh, Ferdinand......
"What are 'developers who work in a normal or aggressive manner'? Either normal or aggressive, but not both?"
Examples
Normal-boosting: ID 11
Strong-boosting: Microphen
Non-boosting: Perceptol
"Which are the 'other so-called 25s' on the market? I don’t know of any – apart from the MACO, and as we know, that comes from the same quarter. If you mean the TP: it doesn’t have an ISO rating. As we know, APX25 is no longer on the market."
Referred to APX. Admittedly, it’s soon to be obsolete.
"As for the 'effective speed' of films from other manufacturers, one could discuss this endlessly. Just this much: to my knowledge, it has never been seriously disputed that ISO sensitivity ratings are determined under scientific conditions."
Under the same "scientific conditions", the efke 25 ASA
Conclusion: It is nonsense to base the sensitivity comparison, on the one hand, on the downplayed fine-art-printing EI values (where the HP5 drops to 160 ASA) and, in the case of the efke 25, on the push-processing developers. That’s no comparison!”
True. I didn’t do that either. I think it’s nonsense to argue about a third of a stop at all. But you started it.
"You shouldn’t always see it as ‘picking holes’ either, especially if you read your catalogue carefully. That’s just pure idiosyncrasy!"
Then just write something positive about efke and FOTOIMPEX for once. Then I’ll stop. I promise.
"PS: What’s all this ADOX nonsense about, anyway? Are there many people who’ve ever seen an original ADOX print or printed one themselves? NO ONE disputes that films have improved over the last 50 years – everywhere. Only with ADOX are we supposed to have developed material 50 years ago that still meets today’s standards. Or does that have something to do with the fact that ‘miracles’ are ‘in’ at the moment (Miracle of Bern, etc., etc.)?"
Where on earth did you get that from? I, for one, have never used the phrase ‘today’s standards’ in such a context. And everyone should decide for themselves what is better or worse. We offer
alternatives to modern films. With material that possesses the properties and characteristics of films from the 1950s.
That has always been the general thrust of our argument, and it should remain so. Yet you constantly compare the negative aspects of such an emulsion with the advantages of a modern one (…whilst remaining silent about the undisputed benefits at the same time…).
Things like ease of processing and emulsion consistency have improved significantly. Drying processes and other objective quality parameters have also been improved considerably. However, the emulsions had to be adapted to the modern machines each time. And that means they have been constantly modified, which is why an Efke film produces images with a different look to a modern film.
Furthermore, high process consistency always means fewer opportunities for creative influence, and thus less creative freedom (e.g. for the fine art printers mentioned who bathe the efke in PYRO or for transfer processes, etc.)
Incidentally, it is undisputed that a single-layer 25 ASA film is among the most sharp films that can be produced.
And the fact that such a film exhibits a fantastic Schwarzschild effect (namely almost none) also distinguishes it from a modern multi-layer film.
On the other hand, it reacts more sensitively to overexposure. So, to take a very concrete example:
Advantage: Schwarzschild effect
Disadvantage: sensitive to overexposure
CONCLUSION: I would be wary of making sweeping generalisations that old is bad and new is good, or vice versa. Both have their pros and cons.
If you like the Efke look, you go for it. And there are tens of thousands of photographers worldwide who do.
If it were up to you, they’d all be fools who can’t grasp the great achievements of technology. I tend to think they are individualists who judge the finished image rather than some production parameters. The Efke look is unique and distinctive. Just because you don’t recognise it (which you can’t, if you’ve never photographed with Efke) doesn’t mean you have to seize every opportunity to disparage the film, and do so with such aggression that, by implication, everyone who uses it is made to look almost like an idiot.
First and foremost, of course, me – the one who spends all day spreading lies to cheat poor photographers and palm off rubbish film on them.
Do you really think that with such a strategy, one could successfully stay in the market for 12 years with steadily rising sales?
Do you really think the success of efke can be explained by customers being dissatisfied and being ripped off?
Everyone just buys a single roll to test it out at the start, and then the ten-packs fly off the shelves here. Time and time again.....
You don’t use efke films and, for some reason, you’ve got it in for me, FOTOIMPEX and everything we do. I don’t know why, but why don’t you just leave us alone or speak your mind. Tell me where I’ve stepped on your toes or what’s bothering you, so we can sort this out. I’m getting tired of splitting hairs.
Mirko
