"Old fashioned Films"

Several film manufacturers trade on the mystique of so-called "old fashioned" film. As a

traditionalist, the idea alone appealed to me... sounded so alluring and romantic and seduced me

to try. (I'm sure others know the feeling!)

 

Well, I just shot my first sheets (4x5) of Efke 25. Too be honest, I'm not sure what to make of it.

 

What the heck is a "50s style film" supposed to look like anyway???

 

On one hand it's claimed to be "grainy". But then they make such a big deal out of being the las

25 ISO slow film in existence. Of course, Efke offers 50 and 100 speeds, as well.

 

I realize the "thick emulsion" thing has be touched on in other posts though nothing definitive or

conclusive has been written.

 

What are the characteristic qualities - the distinguising traits of the so called "old fashioned" films.

Simply put, what should one SEE in an Efke or Foma neg that you can't achieve with Plus-X or

FP-4 or even TXP? (Yes, I realize the obvious speed differences)

 

Folks, is this all just smoke and mirrors? Just a lot of hype? Or is there truly something to be

gained here?

 

Perhaps John from J and C Photo would care to chime in....

Another victim of marketing hype! Film is film. Well, not entirely, but the differences are in curve shape, grain, local contrast, etc. It's debatable if the terms thick and thin emulsion ever really meant much. Dial in your exposure and development, then make your decision based on speed, grain, shadow contrast (toe), and any differences you can discern in overall tonal quality. Quality and physical properties may also be factors. And price!

Yes, I agree with your objective approach to selecting film. Although I am familiar with the term

'toe' as it relates to contrast, I must admit that I don't know how to read those curves. How do I

interpret them for practical purposes?

Shoot a frikken role of that TMY 400 garbage, and then a roll of classic Tri-X, and answer the question for youself.

 

Or Acros 100 vs FP4....

 

If I want to emulate the look of newer B/W emulsions, I'll under expose the classic films by a stop to get the same density range.

Scott, in a few clear words, can you - or anyone - desribe the look of "modern" BW emulsion

and also the "Classic" BW look? I would really find that helpful.

The Efke films are based on the old Adox emulsions. These were among the first thin emulsion films. The goal of a thin emulsion film was to produce finer grain and greater sharpness. Most films today are thin emulsion films.

 

Thick emulsion films like Super XX were grainy but had a very high potential Dmax, making them well suited for Zone System use. If you were shooting large format, the grain wasn't such an issue, so you could go up to N+4 with Super XX in a very flat scene. Most modern films can't go much beyond N+2.

 

Other differences are in the grain pattern of a traditional film as compared with a T-grain film, like T-Max, the characteristic curve, overall Dmax, and spectral sensitivity. Do some comparisons, and you'll see the differences.

 

I used to shoot T-Max 100 as my main film, until I figured out that it was easier to control grain by shooting a larger format, and a larger format gives you the flexibility to choose the film on the basis of tonality alone. Now I shoot mostly Tri-X, some Efke PL100, Ektapan until I run out, and I have some T-Max 100 that I use occasionally. I also have some Super XX in the freezer that I'm saving for something special. Among the modern films, I like Delta 400 Pro, but it's not available in sheet sizes.

Here's an Efke PL100 test shot I posted a while back on apug.org, but was lost when apug updated their software. Scan is direct from the neg, PL100 in PMK pyro, Linhof Tech V, 150/4.5 Xenar, handheld, no filters.<div></div>

Guys;

 

Due to advances in emulsion and gelatin technology, newer B&W films can be significantly thinner and lower in silver content to get the same results as older film.

 

Some older films contained a large percentage of 'dead' grains that never developed. Gelatin / silver ratio had to be higher in older films.

 

The older films tended to curl more or need a heavier gelatin backing to lie flat when dry.

 

So, there was an 'old' film look, and there is a 'new' film look. Whether you are sensitive enough to see it visually or not, IDK. Coating wise, they are different. They may have the same speed and curve shape, but their grain and sharpness would differ. They are harder now than they used to be.

 

I could go on and on with changes from the 50s until now, but that should give you an idea. Yes, things are different.

 

Are they important? IDK, you are the judge.

 

Modern films are sharper, finer grained, and thinner for a given camera speed. This is true of color as well, and is true of products from all manufacturers.

 

Ron Mowrey

Thank you, David. As usual, the sort of intellligent and direct answer we've all come to expect

from you. Very nice shot, incidently.

 

Speaking of Super XX, do you feel that J and C's 'Classic 200' is in fact comparable, as they

claim it to be?

 

Also, have you shot with the Efke 25 in 4x5 ?

Rowland, would you say than that the "old look" has more to do with sharpness or the lack of it

than any other quality?

 

I know it's otten difficult to put into words something that's visual and perhaps subtle to boot, but

I just want to get a sense of what this old look actually looks like.

I haven't tried Classic 200 or ClassicPan 200, but my impression from reviews of these films by people who were familiar with Super XX is that they really don't compare except in film speed.

 

One comment I've heard a few times about Super XX is that "skies would really light up" with that film. I'd guess that would be a spectral sensitivity issue. Super XX was also twice as expensive as other films as its day, sometimes attributed to gold chloride content.

 

There is something about Ektapan that really is unusual. I never really liked it until I tried it with Hollywood-style lighting for portraits and discovered there was really something to the tonality of Ektapan that I couldn't get so easily with other films.

 

This isn't a great portrait (I was just experimenting with the background shadow), but it gives some feel for the Ektapan look. The scan is direct from the neg. I shot this on 8x10" Ektapan, processed in ABC pyro, and the lens was a 10"/f:6.8 WF Ektar at f:22. Main light is a 10" fresnel spot strobe high and camera right; accent on the shirt from another strobe in a 5" open reflector closer to the subject, lower and camera right; no fill.<div></div>

Last night I developed six 4x5 sheets of Ansco Superpan Press that expired in 1947. The film is definitely thick, and curled a bit at the edges. It was a lot more snug in the film holder. I processed each sheet individually in some staining developers that I'm working with, and was amazed at how responsive the film is to expansion development, even after all these years. It stains very well, and has a heavy, gelatin backing that I haven't seen before. It curls quite a bit as it dries. The images themselves are not remarkable; just some of my kids on the front stoop, as I wasn't sure that I would be able to coax an image from such old film, but I'll post a scan after I print tonight. Even without printing the negs, and after processing the first sheet, I found myself wishing I had more of this stuff!

And I'm on my last two boxes of Super XX expired in 1980, and they still look wonderful.

 

I actually processed some Super XX 4x5 side by side with some delta 400 and TX 400 last week. They all looked good to me but the old Super XX had more matte to the emulsion side of the film and 'felt' softer during handling wet. This is true.

 

The old film also looked thicker or more swollen when wet. (also true).

 

But the newer films are finer in grain for the same speed. Silver may develop differently, I have not seen electron micrographs of the T-grain films compared to the old K grain films.

 

Sharpness is up in the new films. It is due to the thinner coatings, but edge effects may also be different leading to different micro vs macro image effects.

 

That is something that cannot be dismissed in evaluating 'old' vs 'new'.

 

 

Ron Mowrey

Here is a 1/2 size image of a full frame 4x5" Super-XX negative. It was shot in the 1950's; by Irwin Klaw; scanned here with an Epson 2450 flatbed. Jackie Miller; a redhead pinup.<BR><Br><IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-480.jpg><BR><BR>Here is a section of the Jackie Miller image; like it is about 6ft wide. So are the defects the old Super-XX film; the "terrible amateur grade" Epson flatbed; or both? :)<BR><BR>"Old fashioned Films"; for an old fashioned 5ft 11in pinup<BR><BR><IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-479.jpg>

Super-XX had a real short toe; and was used for making B&W negatives from color originals.

I must say that I am really enjoying this thread. You guys have all entered into this discussion in

the spirit I had hoped.

 

I just came up from my darkroom after working on those first attemps at Efke in my 4x5. After

comparing the negs to a similar shot with FP4 (which I suppose you could say is also "old

emulsion", there's no doubt that the FP4 is much sharper. I would have guessed that the 25

ISO Efke would have been sharper, especially in a 4x5, but there you have it. Perhaps that is

the vintage look: a smoother, less-detailed image. That's my initial impression based on limited

use of the Efke film.

 

Please forgive me for posting this shot again but it seems relevant to this discussion.

 

Hey Jay, I look forward to seeing those shots from the '47 Ansco!<div></div>

Hey Kelly, you enlarged the wrong part of that shot. ; - )

I have shot Classic Pan 400 in 35mm and was disappointed.

 

To me, it just looks like my camera is malfunctioning. I have gotten a few nice shots with

it, but it is generally Thin and Flat.

 

I have a giant box of Arista.Edu (supposedly FOrtePan) in 4x5 that I haven't tried yet.

 

jmp

i prefer old lenses for certain things....

<br>

<br>

<img src="http://www.streetzen.net/bk/park07.jpg">

<br>

<br>

<img src="http://www.streetzen.net/bk/park08.jpg">

BTW, I would not rank the Foma films among 'classic' emulsions (like Efke and Forte, which are very different from each other, though) - their T200 is a modern flat crystal type (loke Delta or TMax), their Fomapan 100 is hardly distinguishable from APX100 (if souped in Rodinal 1+50 - that's what I used, don't know about different developers), and the Fomapan 400 is has finer grain than HP5+!

Hi Roman, glad you joined in! That's interesting about the Foma 100. I have a 9x12cm camera

and I was wondering which sheet film to order (in 6 weeks when JC gets inventory) the FOMA

or the EFKE in ISO 100. So they are different? I do like APX and used the 100 almost

exclusively before Agfa murdered it. The shot below was made with TXP. For studio work

using artificial lighting that about all I use. At least I'm happy with that.

Hi,

yes, they are definitely different. I have not used that much Efke 100, but the results are generally much grainier than what I get from Fomapan 100. While Efke has it's own 'special' look (that works for some stuff, and does not for other), different from prety much every other film in that range I've tried (FP4+, Plus-X, APX 100), Fomapan 100 is 'just another 100 ISO film' - by which I mean, it works just like any other 'modern' emulsion; to me, it comes closest to APX100, but I've heard from other users that they find it much closer to original Agfapan (pre-APX) - which I'm to young to know myself ;-)

I don't use sheet film, mainly 6x6 or 6x4.5cm roll-film, and grain is not a problem with 30x40cm prints. I shoot it at EI 80 and develop for 9 min. in Rodinal 1+50 (which may be a bit contrasty, but I use a SOFT color head for printing...).

Also, the 35mm and 120 versions of Fomapan don't have the problem of curliness that you get with Efke.

Roman, I think we may have similar taste. I believe you recommended the Fomatone MG, as

well. That's on it's way and now I'll definitely be ordering the Foma 100 for my 9x12.

 

I agree that Efke has a certain look and therefore is right for some images and not for others. I do

believe it's good for portriature. Wow, it really does scratch easily, doesn't it!

 

I only wish that Foma made 4x5 film. The price certainly is good. Perhaps they do but I didn't

see it on JC website. Do you know if it exists?

 

Why don't you use APX100 for your 6x6?

>Why don't you use APX100 for your 6x6?

 

Simple - Foma is much cheaper, no matter if I get it by mail-order from FotoImpex in Germany or from a shop in Prague (where I go about once a year - it's only about 3 to 4 hours from where I live...)

 

There's one thing I don't like about the Foma roll-films, though - the base material is colored turqoise (to suppress haloing effects, I guess), so it needs a bit more exposure than APX when printing.

 

BTW, I just checked on the FotoImpex page (www.fotoimpex.de) - they do carry Foma sheet film, but only metric sizes (9x12, 13x18 and 18x24 cm). Maybe you can get more info on the Foma homepage: www.foma.cz

I just checked Foma's hompage and you're right - they only make metric sizes. I still need to find

a 4x5 film that I like. I really miss that APX 100. Sounds like the Foma might have been a good

substiture.

 

About price... B&H Photo in NYC sells APX100 / 120 for only $2.09 a roll! I realize you live in

Europe and the price structure is not the same but remarkably the Agfa 100 is CHEAPER than

the Foma 100 roll film. If price was the same where you live, would you prefer the APX?