crude film test - Efke/C&J initial impressions

[robert_cardon]

Initially I started to shooting B&W 4x5 to validate my camera

movements, since it was so much cheaper than color film, and could be

developed at home. I started using FP4 since it was cheaper than T-

max and friends told me it was much more forgiving of sloppy

development procedures that the newer T-grain fims. And in those

days, my development was haphazardly done (as it is today) in

tupperware trays and tanks, without temp. control. The results were

good enough to provide focusing feedback and such.

 

Since then I got a Jobo and have pursued B&W a bit more seriously,

although quality black & white images continue to elude me. It's

always bad light, wind, dust on the film, and mostly a lack of decent

composition and subjects. But yet hope springs eternal! I�ve heard

all this talk about Super XX and the benefits of these old emulsions,

so I decided to try some of the Efke 100 and C&J 200. These are

reportedly made in Europe.

 

I ran both films in the PF�s ABC pyro in a jobo 3010 drum. While my

tests are hardly sceintific, I can report the folowing:

 

1) The 200 seems a bit slower in the pyro, than it�s rated speed of

200. I�d say it�s more like 100. I took identical shots with this

fim and HP5 and developed them together following the PF

recommendatations of 9 minutes at the HP5 dillution. The C&J 200

was bracketed at 80, 100, 125, 150 ISO. The HP5 was rated at 320 &

270. The neg densities are not exactly identical as you�d suspect,

and no doubt the 200 didn�t get the �optimum� development regime, but

the density results are fairly close on the light box.

The 200 stains nicely, with less overall base stain than HP5.

However, the HP5 was seemed less grainy and definitely sharper than

the 200. Now it could be that this film is well suited for special

purposes, but for all around landscape pictures where you don�t need

to push too much, I think the HP5 is a much better choice.

 

2) I did the same with the Efke 100, taking identical shots with it

and FP4 & HP5, and developing it along side the FP4 and HP5 in their

respective PF pyro dillutions and times.

In the FP4 dillution and time, the E100 seems to be best at around 60-

80 ISO, and stains well, and doesn�t look too much different than the

FP4 negs of equivalent density. In the HP5 mix and time, I got

excessively expanded highlights, so I�d avoid that combination for

normal development. Here too, I�d have to give a slight edge to the

FP4 in terms of sharpness and grain.

 

4) I printed an HP5 neg and Efke100 neg of almost identical

densities, and of the same scene, and on a straight, unfiltered

print, I couldn�t discern a noticable difference in the results when

both negs were printed to the same density. I mean it wasn�t like

one print was from Moto Foto, and the other was made by Edward

Weston.

 

The upshot seems to be that there�s nothing wrong with FP4 and HP5,

in fact, they seem to be very good, even though HP5 is not reported

to push well. In the final anaysis, I still believe content is King

(along with having a �name� well-known to the art world) and that it

probably doesn�t make that much difference if you use T-Max or Tri-X,

Delta or Agfa, kind of like the difference between using Sheik or

Trojan condoms.

 

There ae no magic bullets; the essence always boils down to what the

picture says ... yet I still want to try that Efke 25:):)

 

RJ

[bryan_weiss]

After reading the posts regarding Efke and J&C films on the AZO forum for many weeks I took the plunge. I've been processing Efke 100 and 25 in Roninal 1:100 up to this point and have been more than happy with the results. I would pick these films any day. However, processing by inspection using ABC and printing on AZO using Michael Smiths Amidol formulation was a revelation. I think if you try this you will see the difference.

 

By the way, J&C 200 should be rated somewhere between 50 and 80 in ABC. I rated the Efke films at their stated ISO for my tests.

 

Check out the AZO forum for more information.

[ken_schroeder]

Robert, I don't think choice of film is your primary constraint. From your own words, ("bad light, dust, devellopment haphazardly done"), I believe your technique could use a bit of fine tuning and simplification.

[z_z1]

I'm with Rob on this one. All things being equal an interesting subject expertly captured will go a lot further than the "ultimate" combination of snake oil. By todays standards Weston et al used really crappy lenses, film, cameras and light meters. If they used a meter at all as in Weston's case. A true artistic vision was what came thru and has indured all these years. How may technically perfect, tack sharp, 10 zone range B&W prints have you seen that were REALLY boring? Lots! Many of mine to be included in that group as well. Everyonce in a while that flash of inspiration hits and I take a truely artistic picture. It doesn't happen as often as I would like, but it sure shows when it does. My first wife was an "artist" in every sense of the word. She was very good and has paintings hanging in all the right places. She gave photography a whirl and could give a rats behind for technique etc. The stuff she cranked out was amazing. I would just about have to hose down the darkroom each time she was in there. Chemicals flying everywhere! She prefered to use an old Pentax pre Spotmatic. Couldn't grasp the idea of using a meter, just relied on what the little chart on the box of film said. It was maddening as hell!

[bryan_weiss]

If film, lenses, equipment and processing don't matter than we should just give all that up and shoot with today's standard, digital. Just as Weston shot with the standard of his day.

 

It's kind of ironic that the 50+ year old films being discussed in this thread are probably the closest thing we have to the "crappy" films Weston might have used.

[z_z1]

I don't get your point Bryan, and I don't think you got mine.

[bryan_weiss]

Eric,

 

Your point seemed to be that the "artist" part of making pictures somehow overrides the "technical" side. So if you're an artist equipment and processes have a minimal impact. Using your logic then an artist can do as well with a modern pocket digital point and shoot and doesn't need all the equipment we hold in such high esteem.

 

The start of this thread was a post that admits the procedures and methods used to test were lousy and had no real meaning. Yet you agreed with the conclusion that there are minimal differences in these films.

 

You and Robert seem to want to classify these 50+ year old films as being not significantly different from modern films yet you mention the films of Westons time, which is as late as 1948, as being "crappy". So are these films crappy or not significantly different from modern films?

 

The reality is that both the "artist" factor and the "technical" factor need to be present to create great photos. I don't discount the effect a true artist has on beautiful work. But that is truly only part of the equation. The equipment used and the minor and major differences in that equipment plays as much a role in the final product as the person behind the camera.

[david_goldfarb]

Weston didn't use the standard of his day except in his earliest images. The standard of his day was soft focus and allegorical settings. He began producing the images that are familiar to us as "Westons" when he set aside his Verito and started using an old fashioned, cheap, Rapid Rectilinear that was sharp when stopped down.

 

His entire life he made contact prints using the most primitive of darkrooms--a bulb and a contact frame--well after enlargers and smaller cameras were the norm, and he used more or less the same old fashioned developing solutions--ABC pyro for film and his own amidol formula for paper--long after these were considered arcane.

[bryan_weiss]

Which is pretty much what people are doing today with the large Efke, JandC 200, Bergger, SuperXX etc old style sheet films and getting wonderful results. As I indicated in my first post I was amazed at the images ABC and Amidol with AZO produced.