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!