Gast
Hello forum members,
I have a question about EFKE sheet film.
I developed the EFKR PL 100 in Rodinal, and when viewed under a magnifying glass, it showed significant areas of out-of-focusness that were clearly visible at 30–40% enlargements.
I don’t have this problem with Agfa 100.
What could be the reason for this?
Is the film really that much worse than the Agfa?
I look forward to your replies
Regards, Hans-Günther
Gast
Hello Mr Wollstadt,
There are, of course, many possible reasons for the out-of-focusness in sheet film.
Whether AGFA or efke is better or worse is something everyone must decide for themselves. The films do, however, differ considerably.
The efke, for example, has a different base and a much thicker emulsion. This is why it has such a wide range of grey tones. The Agfa, with its modern thin-layer emulsion, is slightly more sharp.
However, if you can already see this difference on the negative with a magnifying glass, then it is not a difference caused by the emulsion, but there must have been a problem with the flatness of the film.
I would say that with 4x5 inch film and prints from 50x60 cm upwards, you can see the difference in sharpness on the print using a grain sharpener or a good magnifying glass.
Best regards from Berlin,
Mirko Bädecker
FOTOIMPEX
Gast
Hello Mr Boeddecker,
But that can’t have been the case for all 50 sheets.
During my development tests, I found that the Efke 100 was only 64 ASA. Could that also be down to the development process?
Best regards, Hans-Günther
Gast
Hi there,
I can’t confirm that it’s out of focus. From my tests, the Efke had at least the same level of sharpness as the other films I use (Tri-X, T-Max 400).
Personally, I develop the film with PMK in a drum. I don’t have exactly 100 ISO either, though that’s no disaster. Every light meter is a bit different, and every developer produces a different speed. Even the enlarger influences the speed!
The Agfa certainly doesn’t deliver ISO 100 either, does it?
Have you ever shot both films side by side, using the same camera settings and lens etc., and compared the prints closely? Have you adjusted the prints using a grain sharpener?
Regards, Martin T.
Gast
64 ASA on efke???
Well, if any film has a true 100 ASA, it’s the efke 100.
Which developer did you use?
Yes, of course, sharpness also depends on the developer.
Best regards,
Mirko Bödecker
Gast
Hello,
I’ve tested Rodinal at 1:100 and F09 at 1:100. I can’t really explain why this is the case, but I’ve had my colleagues’ results checked.
I can’t confirm the 100 ASA rating, as it only covers Zone 1 at 64 ASA, though that’s not too bad.
Regards, Hans-Günther
Gast
Yes, I carried out these tests using both films and the same settings during a workshop with Andreas Weidner.
The result in print: the EFKE is out of focus and the Agfa is in focus, and both were adjusted using the grain sharpener.
Best regards, Hans-Günther
Gast
What did Andreas say about that? Do you have a copy of that negative report you could send me?
Regards, Martin Trippen
Gast
I really ought to stop messing about all the time and get hold of a decent film.
At the moment I’ve still got a pack of Foma that I’m testing. If that doesn’t meet my standards either, I’ll only use Agfa or Kodak from now on.
I can post the film to you, or hand it over in person if you pop round to the Mainz Photography Club again.
Best regards, Hans-Günther
Gast
Hello Mr Wollstadt,
No matter which film you use, you’ll always have to tinker with it to get it just right – and as for the suggestion that the Efke isn’t a decent film, I must of course firmly reject that.
I can’t say for certain whether, with your development method, the AGFA might have slightly more sharpness than the Efke, but it is neither poor nor out of focus. The Efke (and I’m repeating myself here, but you didn’t address this) has a higher silver content and a thicker emulsion layer than the Agfa or Kodak. Due to these differences in emulsion thickness, there are certain differences in sharpness between a material that is 60 years old in terms of technology and a modern thin-layer film like the Agfa. On the other hand, the Efke offers these fabulous grey tones and tonal gradations. This is a fundamental difference in how the materials work, and that is how it should be. We certainly won’t be pressing Efke to adjust the silver content and layer thickness to match an APX or TMAX. Those who love the Efke love its grey tone range and tonal range. Those who love sharpness and fine grain are best served by APX, and for those who mainly prefer fine grain (and, to a certain extent, sharpness), Kodak is the first choice.
I could also classify Ilford here, but that would be too cumbersome.
Our own films are inexpensive, but shouldn’t be seen as a substitute for more expensive branded films. They offer different qualities and are also cheaper to boot.
The Foma is said to be very similar to the AGFA, but if even the Efke only reaches 64 ASA in your process, then the Foma probably needs to be set even lower.
In terms of sharpness, it’s better than the Efke.
Everyone has their favourite film, and if your favourite is Kodak, I can understand that.
Thousands of other photographers (especially in the land of large format, the USA) are absolutely thrilled with the Efke, and we receive emails almost daily from Efke fans who never want to work with Kodak again.
That’s just how it is with taste...
Best regards from Berlin,
Mirko Bädecker
FOTOIMPEX
P.S. What really interests me is whether the AGFA, in the same process where the Efke reached 64 ASA, actually had a higher or equal speed. That would be the first time such a thing has been reported, and I’d love to test that out myself.
Gast
Hello Mr Bädecker,
I’m sure I must have done something wrong during the development process, which is why I turned to the forum in the first place.
The grain loss visible on my developed films is significant and very noticeable on 30x40 prints.
I have been using the Agfa for some time now, so I am familiar with its processing.
Here, I only achieve 64 ASA, but that is perfectly fine.
I will test the Efke again, as I too value a wide grey-scale range. I intend to carry out these tests with Calbe A49 – or do you disagree?
Kind regards,
Hans-Günther Wollstadt
Gast
Hello Hans Günther,
Why not give PMK a go?
Best regards,
Martin
Gast
Hello Maretin,
What kind of developer is PMK?
Best regards, Hans-Günther
Gast
Hi there,
PMK is a pyrogallol-metol developer that produces fantastic results.
Feel free to get in touch:
06442-954840
Best regards, Martin
Gast
Hello Mr Wollstadt,
A49 has a very fine grain. At a dilution of 1+1, it produces fantastic results with Efke.
The grain cannot be compared to that of Rodinal – it is much finer. However, there are people who distinguish between objective and subjective sharpness, whereby subjective sharpness here refers to the impression of sharpness created by grain clusters, such as those produced by Rodinal and suppressed by A49. And that brings us back to the old problem: the user’s personal preference….
In any case, I can wholeheartedly recommend A49. When used undiluted, the efke's speed should still be around 100 ASA.
Best regards,
Mirko Bödecker
Gast
I would generally recommend Efke films. I haven’t noticed any noticeable deterioration in quality—i.e. visible loss of sharpness—with Efke. That said, I don’t usually bother testing them; others are better at that. I find the 64 ASA speed a bit odd; in my experience, films developed at 100 ASA and according to the instructions turn out quite dense. This actually leads me to conclude that there is considerable headroom in the speed, a conclusion also supported by the grey-scale reproduction.
Sure, this is a somewhat old-fashioned film, but that certainly has its advantages too.
Regards, Matthias
Gast
Hello Mr Wollstadt,
To make a valid comparison (such as with film), it is necessary to keep all parameters consistent. If you expose different sheet films of the same subject, there is still a possibility that using different sheet film cassettes could alter the base length, or that the films inside the cassette might warp or shift. I have measured my 8/10-inch cassettes and found differences in the base length of up to 7/10 mm. That is quite a lot. If you are also working with short focal lengths, the error becomes more significant than with long focal lengths. I have noted the variation in the focal length on my film cassettes and make the necessary corrections before exposure. I also tape my films into the cassettes. This also prevents warping and movement during exposure. I would also, for the sake of comparison, take several shots under the same conditions, not just two rolls of film, because when it comes to speed, it is also important to bear in mind that lens shutters do not always operate identically, and therefore exposure times differing by 1/3 of a stop are normal.
When it comes to choosing film stock, as Mirko has already explained, there are many factors to consider when making your personal selection.
I would also like to note that it is important to remember that photography produces images, not just technical results. We need this technical aspect for our work, but it is a shame if one gets lost in it.
Best regards
Werner Kumpf
wernerkumpffineartphotographie.com
Werner Kumpf
Gast
Hi Mirko,
I’ve dug this old post out again. Why was Efke even less sharp three years ago than modern thin-film stocks? And the new catalogue says that modern thin-film stocks are optimised for fine grain and are therefore less sharp.
To me, that’s either a contradiction in terms or simply a new insight.
Gebhardt
SamuliSchielke
Ludig Richter once compiled data from the technical specifications on another forum: resolution and granularity, without specifying which formats were involved.
APX 21 DIN 1:1000 150 lp/mm rms (i.e. granularity; the smaller the better) 9
Kodak Plus-X 22 DIN 1:1000 125 lp/mm rms 10
Ilford FP-4 Plus 22 DIN 1:1000 125 lp/mm rms N/A
Fomapan 100 21 DIN 1:1000 110 lp/mm rms 13.5
Efke 100 21 DIN 1:1000 90 lp/mm rms N/A
Fortepan 100 21 DIN 1:1000 90 lp/mm rms N/A
As for T-Max 100, I’ve just checked: Kodak gives 125–200 lp/mm and rms 8–18, depending on the development method.
I don’t know, though (perhaps someone else does), whether resolution really equates to sharpness. The Efke data sheet states that the film is sharp because it is single-layered, not because of the emulsion thickness.
My standard film, Fomapan 100, certainly doesn’t fare badly compared to Plus-X, considering the price difference and the fact that my enlarger doesn’t get that much resolution out of it anyway...
Samuli
Petzi
I wonder whether the focus issue mentioned at the start improves if you stop down significantly when taking the shot, for example to f/45 or f/64. If the out-of-focus areas visible under a magnifying glass are then reduced, it’s likely to be a problem with the flatness (or possibly also with the flange focal distance).
