Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,000   Posts: 1,524,361   Online: 805
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: Efke 100 speed

  1. #11
    galyons's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    273
    Images
    2
    I shoot efke in 25, 50 and 100 in 120 and 25 and 100 in 4x5. I rate the 100 at 50. Most of my testing and experience has been with ABC Pyro + in a Jobo. This film has great latitude. I have used D76 1:1 20c with 10 min and had very good results. ( a few of these batches were 35mm).

    Have you tested to determine PEI and development time for your most frequently used films on your equipment?

    Don't be discouraged by the initial disappointment. These are great films to work with! Just get them dialed into your system!

    Cheers,
    Geary

  2. #12
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,174
    Images
    20
    Okay, here's my first test of PL100 at EI 100 in PMK. Linhof Tech V, Xenar 150/4.5, handheld, probably around 1/125 sec at f:11:



    What a nice looking film! And available in 11x14, no less! Here's a detail:



    This is 4x5", processed in a Nikor stainless steel tank, 10 min. at 68 deg. F, agitating every 15 seconds. No PMK afterbath, but I did use a 2 minute presoak, which came out blue-green, so I'll stick with that procedure. The scan is strait from the neg with some curve adjustment, but no dodging or burning. I'll probably rate it at EI 80 for a little more shadow detail.

  3. #13
    Flotsam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    S.E. New York State
    Posts
    3,221
    Images
    13
    I agree.
    I'm very happy with my results, grain and tone, from both Efke 50 120 and Efke 100 35mm.
    I find that the 100 needs about ISO 40 for solid detail below III. Maybe further experimentation will find otherwise.
    That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.
    =Neal W.=

  4. #14
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,167
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by dnmilikan
    The low densities of these negatives indicated that the film was over exposed at the speed that Jim had rated the film.
    My flabby prints indicated that the film was both underexposed and underdeveloped. I've gone back to a rating of 50, I place the shadows on Zone IV and I now develop my PL100 in the 1:1:1:7 dilution of ABC pyro for 12 minutes. (Normal) This seems to have solved my lack of density problem.

  5. #15
    Flotsam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    S.E. New York State
    Posts
    3,221
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by c6h6o3
    I've gone back to a rating of 50, I place the shadows on Zone IV
    I haven't brushed up on the zone system in a while but I thought that detailed shadow areas were generally placed on III. By placing them on IV aren't you effectively adding additional exposure? In other words, wouldn't you get the same results by rating at EI 25 and placing your shadows on III?

    I'm curious because I started this thread wondering if anyone else found that Efke 100 needed fairly extreme ( over 1 stop) ISO adjustments to expose properly. Do your other films generally expose at their marked speeds?
    That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.
    =Neal W.=

  6. #16
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,167
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Flotsam
    Quote Originally Posted by c6h6o3
    I've gone back to a rating of 50, I place the shadows on Zone IV
    By placing them on IV aren't you effectively adding additional exposure? In other words, wouldn't you get the same results by rating at EI 25 and placing your shadows on III?
    Yes

  7. #17
    juan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    St. Simons Island, Georgia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,637
    Images
    4
    Jim is talking about printing on Azo. Go to michaelandpaula.com - to the Azo forum/Developing Film to a post titled "ABC, pyrocat, film choice" for a long discussion.
    The essence is that Azo may require a more dense negative than other papers. Read the whole thing, as they say.
    juan

  8. #18
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    ..

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,641
    Since Efke is a thicker film, doesn't that impact resolution ( see Image Clarity by John Williams)? If so, can exposure/development be adjusted to minimize resolution problem?

  10. #20
    juan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    St. Simons Island, Georgia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,637
    Images
    4
    Aggie, I don't know anything about this other than the discussion over at Michael and Paula's site. I made some 4x5 negatives this weekend, one side shot with shadows at Zone II, the other of the identical scene with shadows at Zone IV, as Jim suggests. Perhaps traffic will allow me to get home in time tonight, and with enough energy left, to make some prints. Then I may have an opinion. Or more questions.

    Doug, the discussion is not about resolution, but about getting "the glow" from the PL100/Azo combination. Jim's observation is that getting "the glow" with Azo requires a more dense negative - not contrasty, but dense.

    Doug loaned me his BTZS book a month or so ago, and I read it with great interest. It gets far more intricate than I feel like getting with my personal photography right now, but I noticed one thing that struck me. I know many people get very good results using that method, so this is just observation, not criticism. In the book, everything moves along with a lot of precision until it gets to the topic of metering. The book recommends incident light metering in the sun, then metering in your own shadow to determine SBR of a distant scene - not metering the actual values of the scene itself (as I would do with my spotmeter.)

    That tells me personal metering habits may be far more important than we (I ?) have given them credit for.

    Again, I recommend anyone using Azo to read the thread at Michael and Paula's site - there's a great deal to at least think about there.
    juan

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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