Bluefire Film

This post may be more appropriate in another forum, but I would like

the opinions of the people here, not there.

 

 

I'm not one for getting excited about lens testing and definition in

line-pairs or MTF curves - I've long ago realised that even a simple

miniscus can sometimes produce a good image, and besides, I also

believe that the optical quality of an image should be judged

relevant to the camera and lens that produced it. Having said that,

I remind myself that I have also seen some shots taken with first-

class equipment that could have come from a Lomo! Let me get to the

point:

 

 

 

I print most of my work to frame and hang on the wall to A3 size.

(There we go again, using stationary size designations instead of

traditional photographic dimensions like 16 X 20). I enjoy B&W work,

but have found that film grain is a real problem when I scan B&W negs

using my Minolta Scan-Elite 5400. I do not have a flat-bed scanner

that is capable of a decent scan of MF negs, nor do I have a wet

darkroom (sob!). I am trying to acheive, using 35mm, what I used to

acheive using MF. Or the best I can...

 

 

 

I get much "better/smoother" results as far as grain is concerned, by

using colour negative film and converting to B&W in Photoshop.

Any "grain reducing" software also softens the image. So what's the

problem, you ask? Well, maybe it's just me, but unless I have real

B&W film loaded in the camera, I just can't seem to get my mind into

B&W mode, and I don't automatically "see" in B&W! I find this brain

fumble frustrating. I love to just load a roll of HP4 or TX in my

Kiev 4a or Pentax S1v or Nikkormat and shoot real B&W. I also love

to do my own developing (don't need a darkroom) using my favorite

developers, and get my "fix" of hypo fumes.

 

 

 

In the July 9th issue of AP, there is an article and test by Geoffrey

Crawley of "Adox Bluefire" high-definition film. Evidently it is

sold out of Calgary, Canada by a company that has "acquired" the Adox

name, Adox Fotowerk Inc. As they can only use the Adox name inside

Canada, the film is labeled "Bluefire Police" in the US and Europe.

Evidently there is a different group that has registered the

name "Adox" in the US and Europe and also calls itself Adox Fotowerk,

but who do not market this film.

 

 

 

According to Crawley, the film "is likely to be Agfa Copex Rapid" as

the edge marking ID is Pan Line and the casettes have Agfa-style and

located serial numbers. He also says that the Agfa film is available

in a "large number of formats." Although it is a slow speed

emulsion, and requires particular developers and development

techniques, I wonder if it is worth the trouble to give some of it a

try? It should really bring my Jupiter and Helios lenses into their

own. Imagine using this film in MF!! The tests show remarkable

definition and virtually zero measurable grain. Used for general

photography, including some landscape shots, Crawley's tests produced

very nice images as far as tonal scale and contrast is concerned,

using the appropriate development techniques.

 

 

 

I wonder if this is the film that Carl Zeiss reportedly used to

obtain the very high performance figures for their new RF lenses?

 

 

 

There is more info <a href="http://www.frugalphotographer.com/"

target="_blank">here</a>.

 

Sorry - even tho' I'm setting the post to HTML, it still won't show

paragraphs, only if I set it to plain text, which is difficult to

read, so here's the link URL:

 

http://www.frugalphotographer.com/

There was an article about it in a recent issue of Amateur Photographer magazine in the UK!

Graham:

 

This isn't answering your question about the film you mentioned, which I guess is in keeping with Photo.net tradition ;-)

 

But

 

try Efke 25 in Rodinal, dilutions 1:25, 1:50 and 1:100. You can check the Massive Development chart for times & temps. I think it has a very nice, smooth tonal range and some beautiful detail. Eventually I am going to work out the ISO for Diafine which I think might be pretty good. I also like to use Ilford PanF in Diafine, which you might try as well.

 

I find that for producing negatives for scanning, flat negatives work best. I also have found that limited agitation works best with most developers to minimize adverse grain patterns during scanning - 15 to 30 seconds in the first minute and then only 2 inversions per minute after. A little longer (30-1 minute) for longer developments. Plus temperature control should be good - keep everything the same temperature throughout the development process, including water washes. And (unfortunately for the life of my fixer) using Kodak Stop is key for control.

 

Finally I turn off all automatic adjustment features of the scanner and scan the negative as a positive (i.e. as if slide film) to minimize grain magnifying processes done by software and maximixe the amount of raw information that I get from the negative. Inversion is done more successfully in Photoshop, as is tonal range adjustment and sharpening.

SL - I said "In the July 9th issue of AP,"

 

Jorn - I have not tried Efke 25 - but now I will. Thank you for the tips.

All I can say is oops,sorry!

Try C-41 B&W negative film to force you to think in B&W terms?

 

For A3 size, I personally find my obsolete Nikon Coolscan III does a fine job with the B&W films I use and my flatbed is good enough for the larger formats. It could be due to differences in the hardware but it could also very well be differences in what we like in a print, which is fine. Sharpening technique is critical because you can easily sharpen your grain if you are not selective in its use.

 

As soon as I need to start using tripods, slow films and special developers with a rangefinder, I don't see the point of using a 35mm rangefinder at all. Better to pull out the big guns like MF and LF. Again, one man's opinion.

 

Have you ever considered setting up a wet darkroom?

Mike - Perhaps I must also try C41 B&W again as you suggest - I have not taken it very seriously since I tried a roll of the Kodak T400 C41, which gave pleasing tones, but also visible "grain".

 

I agree about the slow film, tri-pods and 35mm RFs - dare I mention here that my landscape work is done with an Olympus OM1n?

 

I would dearly love to have a wet darkroom again, and when we built a dining room onto our house recently, the down-stairs guest cloak-room became a full size bathroom with no windows at all - ideal for a darkroom, but the best beloved was having none of it! Guess I'll have to wait, but my enlarger is staying packed away in the loft, out of evil-bay's reach.

 

I guess I should just keep the Iskra and a new FB scanner at the top of my wish-list.

Graham

 

As Jorn said, try the Efke 25 in higher dilutions of Rodinal. You may also like to try Efke 100 and Fuji Acros.

 

I have settled on 1+100 for most films, agitating 15s for first three minutes (5 inversions), then one inversion every three minutes. You should have little or no grain, and sharp negatives (assuming you focus right!). In fact, even with a film that it supposedly grainy in Rodinal (APX400), I haven't seen that much grain using that agitation scheme and Rodinal.

 

If you are careful, a flatbed like the 3170 or above does a more than adequate scan of b+w for up to A4 (I haven't printed larger), as long as you turn off the Epson scan sharpening. Then experiment with first a local contrast enhancement (20/50/0 or so), then try differing sharpening amounts and thresholds. You can even try some of the sharpening actions for PS or Gimp - some work quite well. The sharpening part of Noiseware (without using the noise reduction) can also work quite well.

 

Best thing though is to load up the Iskra and go shooting! You should be able to get hold of Acros quite easily, and Efke can be got from Retrophotographic (I think you're in the UK?)

 

If you want to find out more about the Bluefire, try asking on some of the submini / Minox forums.

 

Good luck.

Forgot to add - as they say in the engine world, "there ain't no substitute for cubic inches" - same applies to photography :-) Of course, not having a MF scanner puts a spanner in the works....

 

 

Paul

Graham,

 

I can offer some sources for you to check and some comments that you may not like to hear (ignore them if that is the case).

 

The Bluefire film is a mystery. Check the Minox forum, its archives or Mr.Minox may visit here to give his own take on it.

 

There is also mystery surrounding the Agfa Copex- does it still exist ?, Has it taken other forms? No one appears to have a definitive answer.

 

The Gigabit film sold by a shop in Germany (easily found on the web) is touted to have similar or "better"resolving powers of up to 600 lp/mm (compared to Agfa Copex). You need to buy the spcial developer for it as well and follow the instructions scrupulously. This film is available in various formats (35mm, MF and 4x5).

 

Zeiss used this film and Kodak Farbwelt 400 ASA color print film (Kornelius Mueller of Zeiss says this film is capable of 200 lp/mm equivalent to the now discontinued Kodak Ektar 25) in its tests of new Zeiss ZM mount lenses.

 

To see (literally) in B/W try and find the dark amber coloured Wratten #90 filter. Whaht you see through this filter would closely resemble what you would see in a typical B/W print.

 

If using high resolution films, you may want make sure that your camera setup is least prone to shakes and vibrations, the film is held flat (for 35mm film, rest the film for at least 30 seconds to let the film flatten out before taking the shot, for MF it is opposite), use a decent lens that is capable of recording details.

 

All these factors (vibration, lens resolution) applies while printing in the dark room also. The print paper will only see what your enlarging lens can provide and the image will be sharper with lesser shakes and vibrations during an exposure.

Zeiss tested their Macro Sonnar lens with Gigitfilm, which is in fact

Agfa Copex Rapid Pan film. Agfa Copex Rapid must be developed with

Gigabit developer or SPUR Nanonspeed developer to get the expected

result. Interms of grain, Agfacopex Rapid developer SPUR is finer than

Ekfe or Agfapan APX 25.<p>

 

Bluefire Police film by Frugalphotographer.com is not Agfa Copex, it is <a href="http://www.tura-film.de/english/index.htm">Tura Pan film</a>, which must be developed in Bluefire Police developer--

an improved version of once popular H&W Control film. The combination

of Bluefire Police film and Bluefire Police developer yields very fine grain results.

Martin, are you sure?

 

I ask because I followed the links and the Tura site doesn't mention Tura Pan. Also, www.frugalphotographer.com shows bulk 35 mm Bluefire Police film in boxes labeled Adox.

 

Cheers,

Dan, the Tura Pan film has never being sold as consumer film, it is

a customed film used forPolice/ traffic surveillance. Frugalphotographer aquired the right to "Adox" name in Canada, hence Canadian Adox=Bluefire Police=Tura Pan. Some people suggested that

Tura Film do not have their own film manufacturing facilities, all their films are made for them by Agfa. Personally I believe Tura

is a private labelled and specially formulated film. However, since

I have more than five hundred feet of 16mm Agfa Copex Rapid, I never

venture to buy any Bluefire film. If any one has any bluefire film,

please use a 20x loupe to examine the emulsion, if you find tiny

uneven colored spots on the emulsion, then it is for sure Agfa Copex Rapid. The color spot is a hallmark of Agfa Copex Rapid. <P>

Thank you all for your comments and advice -

 

PC - I still have a fresh bottle of Rodinal to experiment with - I'm going to try your suggestions as well as Mikes.

 

Vivek - the not seeing in B&W is a mental thing, not a mechanical thing. Using a #90 would really make me feel like a geriatric...

Martin - AP usually verify the facts before they publish, especially Geoffrey Crawley, and I think he has correctly identified the sample he tested as Agfa Copex Rapid.

 

The Adox brand name in Canada is owned by a Canadian company called Adox Fotowerke Inc. Is this company in turn Frugalphotographer? I don'r find any evidence of this. Maybe Frugalphotographer have the distribution rights?

Graham,

 

If you use photoshop, look into the Photokit Sharpener package. There is a free downloadable trial. In the latest jamesphotography scanner bakeoff, my Coolscan III shot placed much higher than I thought it would, even against much higher spec scanners. I think much of the success had to do with how I sharpen my images.

Mike - Thanks, I have found the PixelGenius site and will download the sharpener software tonight from home - it looks good. Please, what is jamesphotography? A publication? Is there a website?

<a href="http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2005/results.html">Scanner Bakeoff Results for 2005.</a> We were all mailed a test slide which we were instructed to scan and judged on a number of different criteria.

Regarding photokit sharpener - it uses a three-step scanning workflow consisting of capture, creative and output sharpening. It was designed by the authors of the book series "Real World Photoshop", which I believe is one of the better ones for photographers.

 

I find for most subjects a medium edge capture scan does the best job of cleaning-up the initial scan. Subjects with a lot of fine detail are more suited for narrow, subjects with wide expanses of smoothness should go with wide. For some subjects, I will add some creative sharpening (e.g. eyes and mouth in a portrait). My flatbed usually needs more sharpening than my dedicated 35mm film scanner.

 

The output sharpening works very well. It allows you to target your final, resized image at the very last step to various printing processes or web presentation. Trust it for inkjet printing - it looks a little overdone on screen but the ink bleeds a little when it goes down on the paper. For web presentation, I normally just add some narrow edge to bring out the fine details lost in resizing.

 

I've been VERY PLEASED with all of my prints and web photos since adopting this package into my workflow. Most, I used to do manually but its very time consuming and I think they have a few tricks up their sleave that I cannot emulate.

Mike - And I thought I could scan....

Well, as the debate rages on whether Bluefire is Copex Rapid or something else (don't forget Tura could be relabeling film they don't make before selling it to the Canadian incarnation of Adox Fotorwerk), I can tell you from experience that Copex Rapid under its own name is a capable film is available in 30.5 m rolls, camera perfed 35 mm format -- if you're willing to buy a case of something like 20 bulk rolls and can find a dealer who'll sell to a "walk in" customer (as opposed to an established microfilm consumer). I can further confirm that Copex Rapid can give grain fine enough to be invisible in a 2400 ppi negative scan, which is better than Acros 100 (the finest other film I've tried). Resolution is hard to call with my current setup, but appears to be better than the lenses I have available to expose with.

 

However, far from requiring a specific soup, it can be developed to pictorial contrast in quite a range of developers, and even deliver speed close to what Frugal Photographer, aka Adox Fotorwerk (Canada) claims for it in the simplest of homebrews. I've shot a fair bit of it in 16 mm, and now develop in Caffenol LC+C with excellent results and EI 64-100 (without a densitomer, that's the best figure I can give).

Fugalphotographer.com's owner David Foy had answered the question of

what is Bluefire Police film. He said "Tura Pan film". See thread

<P>

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005oxn

<p>

Hence I doubt that Bluefire Police is identical to Agfa Copex Pan

I use Agfa Copex Pan film extensively in my Minox and Edixa 16 cameras <P>

 

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/981978-lg.jpg"border=3><P>

Minox B, Agfa Copex Rapid in SPUR

 

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/983844-lg.jpg">border=3><P>

Minox B, Copex + SPUR<P>

 

<img src="http://www.photo.net/bboard/image.tcl?bboard_upload_id=18234584"border=3><P>

Edixa 16 , Copex Rapid in diluted Rodinal<P>

 

<img src="http://www.photo.net/bboard/image?bboard_upload_id=18640384"border=3>

<P> Maid of the Mist, Edixa 16, Copex Rapid in Rodinal<P>

Under 30x loup, the Copex+Spur combo gives finer grain than Agfa APX 25, but not as fine grain as Kodak Technical Pan in diluted Rodinal.

Copex+SPUR combo has better fine detail rendition. From David's website pictures, it seems that Bluefire Police has much finer grain

than Agfa Copex Rapid, that is why I don't believe it is Copex.

 

AS for Adox Fotowerk, I remember when the Adox site first came out

it showed the same picture in David's message. Hence I think, at least

the Canadian Adox was owned by David, however that website never really completed, there could be some dispute about the right to

the name "Adox". At this moment, there is no www.adox.com site,

the www.adox.ca site is active, but "under construction", go figure.

Since I have used Agfa Copex Rapid souped in both SPUR and Rodinal,

I can say for sure SPUR is a better developer, it gives finer grain

and finer detail rendition. In one word, SPUR or Gigibit developer is the best developer for Copex, no other developer comes close.

Check out the picture in http://www.adox.net/index.htm with the picture in David Foy's photonet message, at once you can see

Adox.net and Adox Fotowerk trademark are owned by David.