Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,556   Posts: 1,545,046   Online: 907
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33
  1. #21
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by OzJohn View Post
    Collectively we don't need to repeat the Kodachrome saga and not use it for 10 years but profess lifelong love for it then complain bitterly when the manufacturer drops it.
    Exactly.

    Buy lots of film...and then SHOOT it so you need to buy lots more!

    I have been a sinner myself as of late. I normally shoot a lot. But I don't think I have shot more than a couple frames of film in the past month with my current schedule (14 - 18 hour days during the week).
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  2. #22
    ath
    ath is offline
    ath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    890
    Quote Originally Posted by OzJohn View Post
    ...obscure Euro products (that often seem to be of dubious manufacture)
    ...
    should be supporting Ilford ...
    Well, be careful when bashing European products. After all Harman (not Ilford) is in the UK which is still part of Europe. Might be confusing when being so far away....
    Regards,
    Andreas

  3. #23
    kauffman v36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Miami
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    279
    Images
    11
    while it is not agfa, adox products are coming surprisingly close to agfa in terms of results. i also use ilford products, and support them in every way possible, but if everyone JUST bought ilford then every other european company would for sure go out of business.

    Bodies: 1DIII, RZ ProII, Walker Titan 45
    Other: CanoScan 8800F

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    530
    Images
    133
    I have had this issue too and could identify the plastic bag as the culprit. It is made of a folded sheet welded together at the edges. This welding creates up a breaking point where you get light leaks easily if you bend the material too often. Mirco should chose on more spacious boxes and think over the assembly method for the bags.

    Ulrich

  5. #25
    kauffman v36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Miami
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    279
    Images
    11
    Ulrich,

    ill check the bag today, the funny thing is it happened the very first time i opened the box. so unless someone at adox had been folding my black bag over and over (which i doubt, lol) it had never been folded other than when it was packaged.

    Bodies: 1DIII, RZ ProII, Walker Titan 45
    Other: CanoScan 8800F

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,749
    [QUOTE=2F/2F;1160946]
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post

    I may be wrong, but I read it as Bruce saying that Kodak's quality is top notch, and hard for other manufacturers to match. I didn't read it as him saying that Kodak's quality has gone downhill.

    If this is what he meant, then I agree. I feel the same way about Ilford and Fuji, though. I've never had so much as a minor problem with any product from either of these "Big Three." But I have had at the very least minor quality issues with every product I have used by one of the "alternative" manufacturers. The only ones that have totally destroyed shots for 100 percent analog purposes have been Efke/Adox films and occasionally Fotokemika paper. However, if I really wanted to save those shots, I could use digital methods.
    You're right now that I read it again I totally misunderstood what Bruce was saying, and he clarified it in a subsequent post.

    I agree with what you are saying too. I cannot recall having a problem with any product from Kodak, Ilford or Fuji product that wasn't my own fault.

  7. #27
    Trond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Harestua, Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    661
    Images
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by OzJohn View Post
    In Australia we can get very few of these obscure Euro products (that often seem to be of dubious manufacture) and that does not concern me one bit.
    Well, they may be obscure to you, but they are certainly not to me! Foma and Fotokemika are well established players in this field, and I have used their products for years, in addition to products from Ilford, Kodak and Fuji.

    And I can assure you that Adox MCC 110 is a high quality product, matching that of Agfa MCC 111. If they didn't now what they were doing, I doubt they would be able to make anything even remotely similar.

    I haven't experienced the issue discussed in this tread, but I'm sure it will be resolved. I just got some more Adox MCC 110 24x30cm paper from Fotoimpex, and the boxes are now bigger compared to the old ones I have.

    Trond

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    530
    Images
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by Trond View Post
    I just got some more Adox MCC 110 24x30cm paper from Fotoimpex, and the boxes are now bigger compared to the old ones I have.
    Proving that Mirco has an ear for his customers.

    Ulrich

  9. #29
    ADOX Fotoimpex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    385
    Robert,

    please post a scan of one of your prints. I think at this point every one has a different imagination of the lines you are talking about.
    This is definitely not a common problem.
    I would very much welcome if the other gentleman who states that he had the same problem please do so as well so we can compare the lines, identify the problem and look for a fix.

    Another gentlemen stated that he found inconsistencies with our CMS 20 film. As this is practically impossible I would welcome some more clarification on this issue as well. I would imagine it is rather a chemical problem and not a film issue as we have sold CMS 20 from the same frozen coating batch over the past 5 years with absolutely identical parameters and up to today zero claims.
    The film will give inconsistent results if it is not developed in ADOTECH developer however. ADOX has never released the film to be developed in anything but ADOTECH.

    None of the products mentioned above btw. are of Eastern European origin.

    It is also difficult for me to judge a statement refering to "efke/adox" films. There is no such thing as "efke/adox" films.
    Please let me know if you encountered problems with an ADOX or with an efke branded film and ofcourse it would be interesting to know here as well what the actual problem was.

    Best wishes,

    Mirko

  10. #30
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by ADOX Fotoimpex View Post
    The film will give inconsistent results if it is not developed in ADOTECH developer however. ADOX has never released the film to be developed in anything but ADOTECH.
    This seems to be nothing more than an attempt to get people to buy your own developers rather than fact. This first sentence could not possibly be true. What is it about your film and developer that makes it so they must be used together or else they provide inconsistent results? Black and white film is black and white film, and black and white developer is black and white developer. I've never encountered any film or developer that give "inconsistent" results as long as you do the same thing every time.

    And the second sentence ("ADOX has never released the film to be developed in anything but ADOTECH.") is not true at all. Adox's own description of the film mentions two other developers in regards to how they can be used with the film:

    "If used in pictorial photography the film achieves 20 ASA of usable speed in ADOTECH developer. If used for high contrast purposes the usable speed increases to 80 ASA. If developed in non dedicated low contrast developers (HC 110, cafenol etc) it can be exposed at 6-12 ASA."

    The claim that CMS 20 needs Adotech to be consistent in results and quality is highly ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by ADOX Fotoimpex View Post
    None of the products mentioned above btw. are of Eastern European origin.
    The definition of "Eastern Europe" is highly variable. I know it is not technically accurate, but for many people "Eastern Europe" is still anything east of a line drawn through Berlin, including the Balkans. Don't let it offend you. It is just a shorthand, sloppy definition made by us dumb non-Europeans.

    Quote Originally Posted by ADOX Fotoimpex View Post
    It is also difficult for me to judge a statement refering to "efke/adox" films. There is no such thing as "efke/adox" films.
    Please let me know if you encountered problems with an ADOX or with an efke branded film and of course it would be interesting to know here as well what the actual problem was.
    There is such a thing as Efke/Adox films that can be categorized together for purposes of simplicity of discussion. By "Efke/Adox," the line of 25/50/100 "old-school emulsion" products is obviously being referred to – the ones that share emulsions, but come in different boxes. This is not news that they share common emulsions, nor is it strange terminology that you should have difficulty judging.

    Problems with these films are well documented just on this one Website, from pinholes and chunks of emulsion missing even when following the published special processing instructions, to banding, mis-stamping of edge notches, rough base material, etc. The only one I have not experienced personally is the banding. I am sure the makers have heard directly from users on quite more than a few occasions.

    The stuff can be beautiful when you get it to work flawlessly, but it is just plain not as well made as Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, or even Rollei products by any stretch of the imagination. Many people seem to have kind of come to accept that this is just the kind of stuff you have to deal with when shooting Ekfe/Adox old-school emulsions. In order to make our ways around all the technical problems with these films, some have come up with our own methods, which are even more careful than the published methods that say to simply skip the stop bath. To avoid problems with the emulsion, I use no stop bath, I use an alkaline fixer, and I never develop warmer than 68 F, which I usually do with all other films without the slightest hint of any issues. I also never develop sheet film together in trays, as the rough surface of the base and roughly cut edges can play hell on the soft emulsions.

    But I suppose it could be claimed that all these problems are just be because people are not using Adox chemicals!
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin