wilfredo Posted October 16, 2006 Share #1 Posted October 16, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Any users of the these cheap B&W films in the house: AGFA ; EFKE; FOMAPAN; FORTE? How do they stand up against Kodak, Fuji, etc. ? Cheers, Wilfredo+ Benitez-Rivera Photography Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 16, 2006 Posted October 16, 2006 Hi wilfredo, Take a look here Cheap B&W Film. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ejd Posted October 16, 2006 Share #2 Posted October 16, 2006 Wilfredo -- I'm not sure they are particularly cheap. Efke/Adox iso 100 and 25 film costs in the UK about the same as Ilford, Kodak or Fuji B/W film -- about 2 to 2.50 pounds a roll. I have recently used a few rolls of the Efke/Adox 100 and the thing about it (the manufacturers say) is that it has a high silver content and is made using an old fashioned formula (1950s) which gives it an old fashioned look. The emulsion is softer when wet than are modern films. I developed them in Rodinal at 1+40 or 1+50. Following vic vic's advice I tried to agitiate the film very delicately during development to kep the grain size down. The negatives have plenty of contrast and look as though they have plenty of body somehow compared with the rather thin negatives one sometimes gets. The scans seem fine. I'm not the most discriminating user around here -- my impressions may be an unreliable guide! But I rather like these films. I have some iso 25 also and will try that. I don't see that the Efke is inferior to say Ilford or Kodak. Efke 100 may be grainier than say Ilford DELA 100, of course. Agfa is no longer made but I found some Agfapan 400 and 100 at a shop in London on Friday, so I took ten of each. Agfapan is also, I believe, a traditional type of b/w film with irregular grains. Some people seem to love it, others don't like it at all. My experience has been that it is fine. Lucky is a Chinese brand of films, and they may be cheaper than some of the others. I'd like to try Forte and Foma and other brands as well. John Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted October 16, 2006 Share #3 Posted October 16, 2006 Just started playing with Efke KB100. I also have a coupple of rolls of KB400 which I'm told is rebranded HP5+ as Efke dosen't make a 400ISO emulsion. If this is true that is great value as the price 2/3 the price of HP5+ in 36 shot rolls as well as in 30m bulk. Haven't shot any of the 400. I like what I see of KB100 though. The one roll I've developed was over cooked in Xtol 1+0. I have a second roll ready to be souped and I just need to fugure out where to go with the dilution and time. I'll see if I can fine a ahlf decent neg from the roll and post an image. - Carl Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted October 16, 2006 Share #4 Posted October 16, 2006 Ok, so at B&H in NYC it seems the price for Efke is about the same as for Ilford films, here it is cheaper. But then a roll of HP5 can cost you up to $8.5 (incl tax).... Anyway, here is a shot made on Efke KB100, souped in Xtol 1+0. M6, CV75/2.5, f5.6, 1/250. Not terribly exiting, but just to give you an idea Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 100% crop - Carl Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 100% crop - Carl ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/7245-cheap-bw-film/?do=findComment&comment=71537'>More sharing options...
vic vic Posted October 16, 2006 Share #5 Posted October 16, 2006 wilfredo hi.. hi all... dont look at most of the todays b/w films in terms of which is better or less... from the films im femiliar with very well: agfa (now called retro maco/rollei), ilford, kodak, juji, adox (which is also efke)... they are all different charactters... u have to try it and see what u like the most as your general use film or what u would like to have on some more specific ocasions... here is a little characteristic about them... -agfa apx 100... one of the finest films.. superbly beautiful texture on it when enlatged and super tonality... it is contrasty from one hand, but very smooth and deep in its tones. personally for me.. in rodinal it is the sexiest film of all among the slow-mid speed films. great punch, great sparkle through all tones (especially through the greys all along) -ilford fp4 125... super film, super flexible... u can get almost the same "deep" results as with agfa if u use it in rodinal (1+25) too... but unlike agfa.. it is a little bit more clean generally... in id-11 (1+1) it is very clean but stays to be punchy and sexy in print if developed well... -kodak plus-x... i dont have a great experience with it.. but from what i have used it has a very good character... something like agfa i would say but with different look - a bit more grey... -pan-f 50 ilford... the medium format look.. just like that... amazing tonality and in rodinal it also gets the great punch (1+25).... i use it at 64 iso, while agfa 100 and ilford 125 i use normally at 200, unless it is a very sunny day when i prefer the 100 iso set... -adox 50/100... the old fashion film.. looks great and deep... very deep... but a little grey comapred to the agfa apx100 without that sparkle.... in specifil lighting conditions it gets amazingly beautifull.. the more important thing about this film is its sensitivity - it is very much like orthochromatic film.. and it has its own look... so this should be the other important concidiration with using it.... -ilford delta 100... dolnt like this film although it is a super fine... amazing resolution of course but it has no sparkle and punch of more traditional films. -kodak t-max100... also amazing film but i dont like this one too... it is super smooth and has no texture to it even if enlarged beyound 12x16" print. it also has the medium format look sometimes but it looks as if u look the print through some glass on it... dont like it... -acros fuji100.. i think one of the best films alhough i dont use it alot... resolution of delta100, smoothness (grainless in this case) of t-max100 or pan-f, and punchy (almost like the fp4).... but personally - i prefer the pan-f for it :-)))) -hp5 ilford... this is another my fave film... the film that is always with me... use it on 800 or 1600.. 400 gives a very bad results in my opinion... to grey etc... 1600 if processed well (manily by agitating it properly) gives super good results... not that grainy.. but the grain makes it very sexy film - another most sexiest film to look at when printed. punchy, sparckle.. tonality - it has everything... the rodinal gives very textured film (textured but beautiful) while the id11 (1+1) gives a cleaner look but with less sparkle and texture... important thing is not to overdevelop this film with id11 when pushed to 1600 (it may become harsh especially in light areas).... -kodak tri-x... love it very much for sheet film 4x5 (the 320iso version) and medium too... otherwise i prefer hp5 which has better tonal supiration than tri-x... about the tri-x punch - no worries - hp5 has it enough too :-))) but both films are almost equaly good with different characters... the kodak has more grey though - ilford has more tonal supiration and when printing it is more flexible to achieve tonalities thoughout the whole range. -gafa apx400... not really fast film in class of tri-x/hp5.. but at least this one can be used at 400 (unlike hp5/tri-x that are better on 800+)... actually it can be even 200 if u want it to really pull for specific effects... grainy and beautiful.. a bit grey but personally i take the whole grey range in shift it either to darker grey or to lighter grey and then it is great. otherwise - u cannot achive the full tonal range in print as with the hp5.... so here at least a very unique artistic approach works great with shifting the whole tonality. needs experimentations though... rodinal of course (1+25)... -fuji neopan 1600.. another great film... noramlly at 3200... looks amazingly beautifull.. prints very well but very difficult to scan properly even with silverfast control and prooved to be difficult even on creo scanner with oxygen software. if u want cleaner look than hp5 gives better reults at 1600.. if u want very very deep tones almost night feeling and in contrasty situations.. than this is the most amazing film of all. the grain is not that big like ugly film of ildord delta 3200 and kodak tmax3200... actually this is a film of class of its own... it simply has its own character and u can see it in prints and even in scans even if it is not perfect to scan it. one mistake that i think most people make about this film.... forget about all the details in the backs and dark tones.. u will never get it.. why, cause if u try to get it u will loose very soon the smooth balck and dark tone look... the dark areas look very ugly (and irregularly grainy) on this film if they are not fully blackened. if u want the details in dark then better use hp5 - it has cleaner base of low exposed areas... use more developing time and gentel agitation and u will improve the details and textures of dark areas and tonality if that is what needed. with neopan1600 one should look at the overall impression of the negative/print... here this film really shines. another amazing charcteristic of it is that in harsh lighting (which can be very common in low light situations) the neopna retains some great smothness and tonality, while the ilford hp5 becomes a bitt too harsh Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejd Posted October 16, 2006 Share #6 Posted October 16, 2006 Regarding Adox/Efke films -- beware that there are two lines listed -- at least on the Retro Photographic Ltd - Black & White Specialist Photographic Products web site. One line is called CHS and comes in iso 25, 50, and 100, and is the old fashioned single-layer emulsion 1950s style with lots of silver. The other lines is called CHM and comes in iso 125 and 400, seems to be effectively fp4+ and hp5+, made in England, multi-layer emulsion, somewhat more modern style. I've been using the really old-fashioned stuff (the CHS 25 and 100). Carl may be using the CHM (? - not sure). The different names used by Efke and now by Adox who market these films makes it a bit confusing. Anyway, Victor's comments are very interesting. And Carl's images show the grain kept well under control, and the images look sharp and to have plenty of depth. John Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan States Posted October 16, 2006 Share #7 Posted October 16, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) On a lark I bought a brick each of 25 and 100 speed Adox. It was quite the flashback to the bad old days I must say. Developed in Neofin Blue, Rodinal and Ilfosol S it was grainy as hell. The 25 speed film was reasonably sharp, but the 100 makes your Leica lenses look like cheapo junk. Just like in the old days I found grain migration to be a problem with every developer I tried...Even D76. You must use a hardening fixer, and beware that the film cans are BARELY closed and can pop open on accidental dropping. If you really want an old style rendition WITH quality I suggest going with Plus X or the Ilford 125 asa variant. They are wonderful films with great latitude, good sharpness and smooth shadow detail. By the way, I realized that what REALLY made an old time tonal rendition was not so much the film as the lens. Get a super clean Summar and you will love the results. The attached photo is a poor scan of a shot made with a Summar, on Fuji Acros. Best wishes Dan Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/7245-cheap-bw-film/?do=findComment&comment=71602'>More sharing options...
SteveYork Posted October 17, 2006 Share #8 Posted October 17, 2006 Isn't formapan the same as what was once accupan? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted October 17, 2006 Share #9 Posted October 17, 2006 john - ya man - of course i mean the CHS the old style film of adox/efke... dan... very true.. the lens plays great part in the "look" of the photograph... i ave a dedicated old lens - vintage 90mm letizt elm... it is really tough lens to work with compared to the modern super quality and especiallly the super flare resistant lenses... but it has its own character and photos with it are amazing when well controled.... but the film has a very important influence... one should make a real b/w silver gelatin prints to apriciate the differenances between the characteristics of those films. scanings is not exactly the method to see the full differances betweeen film. about fp4 with modern lenses... i doubt that u can get the old-days-classic "look" :-))) the fp4 is modern film which is made in traditional way but still - it is modern... i think the more important thing is to put many variables (the film/developer, lens, printing method) in some combination to achieve the desired print with distinct "look" and "character". it is concidered that the old lens or old film gives lower contrast etc... well.. that is true of course generally, but then.. u can further control it... bellow are some example that will illustrate ... by the way im not a big fun of illustrating or examining those kind of things with internet files but just a little illustration. all images done with vintage leitz 90mm... 1. fp4... 2. apx100.. 3. neopan1600.... actually those are proof scans.. the print look even more punchy since i can allow it because of the tonal range of silver gelatin print Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/7245-cheap-bw-film/?do=findComment&comment=71642'>More sharing options...
Dan States Posted October 17, 2006 Share #10 Posted October 17, 2006 Victor, that first shot is just great. Excellent control of the tonal scale, on my monitor at least. I don't know about you, but when I first started using an uncoated lens like the Summar I nearly decided to trash my negatives before I even printed them. They looked flat and cloudy. I now know that even though negs from antique lenses look very different from what we get today they are more than capable of amazing results as long as you dont point the lens at the sun! I've found that even though the negs LOOK flat, if you develop a bit more there is actually a full range of tones in there. Indeed, it is easier to print withing the scale of the paper with these negatives. Sorry to spin off on a tangent, but I love darkroom talk! Best wishes Dan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted October 17, 2006 Share #11 Posted October 17, 2006 dan - hi - it is ok to talk about darkroom and spin theree.. im also darkrrom enthusiast myself :-))) ya - my first impression from the vintage lens was just like yours when i got it and had a roll developed :-))) a little trick with it: 1. i almost never make photos with modern lenses and vintage lens on the same roll of film... why... cause they need different treating in exposure/developemnt of the film... even on slides - i usually prefer to make special adjustments on vitage lens. 2. if u reduce the expoure a little and increase the development it will work great.. u have to make your own eperimentations with it... and the experimentations should be made in various lighting conditions since those old lenses are very sensetive to it unlike the new modern summicron/summiluxes that do the job in any light even with sun infornt of it :-))... 3. the decrease in exposure will reduce the base foging (the flareing of the lens) and the increase in development will get the tonality so that u can make a good controlable print on the VC papers in various sizes latter in the darkroom.. the negative will be less cloudy actaully. the problem that should be treated very carefully though is the harshness of grain in some lighting conditions with those old lenses... so.. a choice of developer/film is really important there. now... i got this lens primerly to have some distinct look sometimes... the inspiration was comming from the old photos as well as from the soft focus lenses like imagon on large cameras (unique rodestokk lens)... but in case of old photos.. my len at least has no that mistirous light glow as some other lenses may have (like the summar u talk about)... as soft lens it is not exactly soft effect i initially wanted with this lens.. but the great thing is that it got its own character that i ahve studied and love it very much. may be i should find some summar like that :-))) i love to take some old lenses and to give them a new distinct look with combination and special adjustemnts of film work (exposure/developemnt). does the summar u have has that GLOW of light??? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan States Posted October 17, 2006 Share #12 Posted October 17, 2006 Victor, a CLEAN Summar is a wonderful lens. (Too bad a really clean one is so hard to find). In extreme sunlight highlights have just a touch of flare...like the white tires in the shot above. While you are certainly getting the results you desire may I suggest a different dev method as an experiment? Over expose the film by about 1/2 stop AND give +10% development. You would need to use a fine grain developer and film combo like D76 and Acros or Plus x. Both films resist blown highlights well so a bit of extra time in a fine grain developer will not have a detrimental effect. I sort of stumbled on this as a way to hold shadow detail a bit better, which is the bug bear of un-coated lenses. Actually, I was digging through my fathers negatives taken in the 30's/40's and noticed that they were much more dense than what we are used to today, but print beautifully, with great shadow detail and well controlled hightlights. You are so right about not mixing lenses on a roll! There is really no good compromise development to be had. Best wishes again, Dan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted October 17, 2006 Share #13 Posted October 17, 2006 very true dan.. the old negatives of fathers and grandfathers look much desnser than todays of ocurse.... i will try what u say - ya pan-f acros should do the job.. id-11 in my case - dont have d76 but it is about the same... not worried that much about the shadows details but defenetly intresting how the grey and light tones will be with the processing u describe... i do something like this with agfa pax400 but with normal modern lenses and love the tonal shift and look.. but it is very different cause there i try to get the grain initially. i will look for the summar or alike when in nyc or europe... here, swome time ago i come across the old summitar f1.5 50mm but it was in bad condition and not really focusable. i have also my fathers and grandfathers photos made with summcron 35 and summarit 50 on m3 and m4 but the cameras weree stollen in georgia when we moved to israel... and so many negatives were lost.. but i see the prints - it is amazing to see this old stuff even without natural sentiments to it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandokan Posted October 19, 2006 Share #14 Posted October 19, 2006 Hi Vic - are you sure you are NOT a chemist? I have saved this page as there is so much good information on it. I have just had a HP5 film returned from a commercial professional developer - and it is just "grey" (prints, scanned CD images and prints) - I have had to adjust exposure in Lightroom to bring the images to life. I shall post some later. I now have a Nikon Scanner and will follow your advice and do my own developing! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuerst Posted October 19, 2006 Share #15 Posted October 19, 2006 Wilfredo, If I may make a suggestion for keeping the cost under control. I live in a small city in Eastern Canada and B&W film (beyond T-MAX 400 and KODAK CN, which I hate with passion) is difficult to find. Instead of looking for an odd role here and there, I bought a bulk loader and some reusable film containers and I order my film from a store in Toronto in 100 feet roles. Tri-X is about $45 CAD which means that it costs me about $2.50 CAD a roll. The film containers usually come DX codded or uncoded. I bought about 50 uncoded at $.99 CAD each and stuck some of my daughters star stickers on about half of them. No stars for PX-125 and red stars for Tri-X. It's much, much cheaper than buying it by the roll. Bojan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted October 19, 2006 Share #16 Posted October 19, 2006 bojan - very true indeed.. and it is not that difficult to use it that way. wilfredo - just add some black bag to load the huge film into the bulk loader and then u can use it in daylight... hi ravi - whats up man... ya happy it is helpfull.. and happy u want to develop the film yourslef... u will get better and better with time - trust me - u will... if any help neededd - dont hasitate to ask man.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilfredo Posted October 19, 2006 Author Share #17 Posted October 19, 2006 Lot's of helpful replies here. Thanks. Wilfredo+ Benitez-Rivera Photography Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.