joe_s6

<p>Yes, it's from the days of bare-bulb flash, when electronic flash was the new thing. It allows for<br>

the various synchronization requirements of the various flash types used.<br>

Nothing to worry about these days. I have that same lens, it gives good results.</p>

I recently purchased an 1946 Kodak Ektar 127mm lens after seeing what great images it produces

at the Ektar group on Flickr.

 

The lens arrived today, and the shutter speeds seem a bit stiff to move. Is that normal with

this lens? It's veryy clean, and the speeds seem to be functioning alright. Am going to test

it out this weekend.

 

What are anyone else's takes on this lens? I've been searching for more examples of images

made with one, but not finding much out there. I know Ektars seem to be in demand, and

hold their value well.

 

Is there any other Ektar I should be on the lookout for? These seem nice, but more expensive

than even my standard German lenses!

 

Any/all help appreciated.

 

Joe

I would hope so, it was a terrible emulsion.....Acros is infinitely better.

@Christopher Gervais:

 

Croatia! :-)

 

Nope, I've not had any problems from them film at all (other than not having enough of it on hand when I needed it).

 

Others can do all the testing they like, if that's what it takes to convince themselves of something. My eyes tell me they don't like T-grained films, find Efke 25 sharper and finer grained than any other (APX 25 is a close call in that speed range), and prefer Rodinal over other developers for these films.

 

I don't have to prove anything to anybody when it comes to all this stuff. If I like it, and it gets me the results I'm after, that's good enough for me.

 

Oh, and one other thing. I just don't understand why someone would constantly be on the lookout for "cheap" film, "cheap" paper, "cheap" developer, "cheap" fixer, etc. Film and those sundries are the already the least expensive link in the chain.

 

Why take advantage of purchasing a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad (sorry, I just don't take Nikon or Canon seriously) then spoil the shot you (supposedly) worked so hard for with cheap film and paper? Doesn't make any sense to me.

 

It seems like the photographer's version of having a Rolls in the driveway, but not being able to afford the gas. If you have to think about fuel economy, then you shouldn't own the Rolls.

 

Whew, glad to get that off my chest.

If you mean you can't measure it from right out of the bottle, maybe you should go back to the sandbox.

 

These types of questions frustrate me no end. "I can't do it it's too hard...but I love it, so what else can I use that's different but looks the same?"

 

Go to the freakin $1 store, get a small plastic measuring cup, measure out 1oz then add enough water for what your preferences are.

 

Gee, that was SOOOOOOOO hard, now wasn't it?

@Fred Obturateur:

 

Your guy gets a cookie! I've never heard of him. However, EK never changed the formula of Tri-X, merely installed new coating machines which gave finer grain to the film.

 

In shooting both, there is no difference worth noticing, and it certainly looks NOTHING like T-Mud.

 

As someone else also said, Neopan 400 is the closest thing to Tri-X around. Period.

Well, unfortunately Agfa is no more, and Ilford couldn't PAY ME to use their products. That leaves Neopan 400 (a beautiful film...people used to say it's what Tri-X would be with finer grain). Looks spectacular in Rodinal.

 

Then there's also Fomapan which has the closest tonality to APX I've seen. Efke 25 & Efke 100 are beautiful fine-grained films that also sing in Rodinal.

 

Don't believe the doom&glooners who wail about EK's demise as if there are only days left. Hopefully, if they drop anything, it will be those god awful C41 b&ws, and T-Mud films. Tri-X is just too well known and universally used to get rid of it.

 

Not saying the price wouldn't go up, but I shoot MF mostly and LF occasionally. Those prices are still reasonable for me. Go with B&H, Adorama, Freestyle.

 

It sounds like your local suppliers are deliberately trying to price film so high that noone will buy it.....then they'll try to sell you one of those ridiculous d*****l cameras (and I use the word 'camera' loosely).

Freestyle also sells Diafine, so you should be all set. In fact, I don't think it would hurt to process the bunch in Diafine, since they've been sitting for so long.

 

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_prod.php?cat_id=301&pid=5558

 

Good luck with your film.

@Christopher Gervais:

 

I don't "rate" films in a traditional fashion. I use my eye/brain + experience to judge exposure based on

 

1.available light

2.contrast of scene

3.DoF wanted (usually infinite using critical focusing method)

 

My standard time so far has been 1:50 for 10min @20gradC in Rodinal.

 

This gives me a nice tonal range, plus is easy to print in the darkroom (the internet/scanning is not my final goal). Plus, the grain is so fine it is sometimes difficult to focus even with a 30x grain focuser.

 

Haven't had any problems with curling, can't tell you why not. Will be picking up some of the Efke 50 to try out soon. I expect great things from it as well.

 

ps:

here's a spot for you to check out

 

 

As you will see in the latest examples, Efke 25 has shadow detail for days.

 

Good luck

NOT BY A L-O-N-G SHOT!

 

Efke 25 is remarkable....simply the sharpest film I've ever used. Fine grain, and brilliant tonal range. Efke 100 is a nice 2nd choice.

 

Acros does look nice in Rodinal as well (Rodi for the Efkes of course)

but it's not as sharp, and just doesn't have "it".

 

Fomapan 100 is the closest to APX 100, and the Fomapan 200 has tremendous latitude. Easily processed from 100-800 without having to compensate. Best results from Rodinal...let's face it, there's nothing else out there that comes close to the magic of it.

 

All of the T-Mud and Deltoid films are severely wanting IMO.

 

Try the Efke 25, you won't go back to anything else.

Your example looks horrendous, but I wouldn't blame it on the film. Your developer is questionable, and why on earth is it in RGB?

 

Efke 25 is a beautiful film. I've been shooting it for going on 2 years w/out problems of any kind. I process in Rodinal, and the results are just fine. Efke 25 is the sharpest film I've ever put through Zeiss glass.

 

Check out and maybe you can get a better idea of what you're doing wrong.

Since 2007 has started off better for me, I'm committed to purchasing 100 rolls of Plus-X and Tri-X (in alternating films) every month this year for the entire year.

 

Better to have 1k rolls of Kodak in the freezer than not be able to find it at all. Once I settle on a new E6 film, will do the same there. Sure wish they still made their Lumiere Warm films, that was nice color.

Richard,

 

After Agfa went under, I tried the Foma papers. Really nice stuff...good blacks, and excellent shadow details. A nice "all around" paper to print with.

 

Then I tried the Efke (Fotokemika) fiber Varycon papers. WOW! These are more like the old Agfa Portriga and Brovira papers from the good old days...and my choice as my new main paper.

 

Don't be fooled by all the hype...Ilford isn't the only game in town, not by a long shot. I got mine from Freestyle (who are also bringing back the classic Agfa Neutol paper developers as well).

The Fotokemika website (manufacturers of Efke films/papers) lists both the 25 & 50 speed films as "orthopanchromatic".

 

Nevertheless, here's a group for Efke 25 shooters:

 

 

I use it, and find it looks best in Rodinal, and printed on the Fotokemika Varycon fiber papers.

 

JMO YMMV

I really don't believe the Rodinal+Tri-X=grain argument. Here is a scan from a print using that same combination. I like it just fine, and really don't see any grain to speak of. Had more grain from D-76 when using that years ago.

 

HC-110 will give a "softer" look to Tri-X, not as "sharp" as Rodinal. So don't waste your money there, unless that's what you're wanting.<div></div>

Ilford nas NOTHING which looks as near to Agfa as Agfa. The only other film would be Fomapan 100. The Foma films have the closest tonal pallette to APX than any other.

 

Check with Mirko @ Fotoimpex or Robert @ Fotohuvis (sp). Even their site lists Foma as the closest match.

Well, Forte films have a look (IMO) which scream FORMER EASTERN BLOCK COUNTRY{B]. Efke is super fine grained, but as far as I know not available in 100' rolls. I print 20x20s from it with no problems.

 

X-tol isn't really a great developer for either of these films, and it does't take a lab just to process. Grab a tank, reels, & chemistry (Rodinal for starters) and save yourself some $$ plus enjoy total control of your images.

 

If your actually wanting grain, then go with Forte & X-tol.

If your skies aren't dark enough, just do like everybody else, and burn in that section. It's not that difficult. Or like as suggested previously, a polarizer will also work with both your color & B&W shooting flow.

 

Personally, I don't see what's so hard about having to add/remove a filter. Geez Louise, have today's photographers gotten so lazy they can't even remove a filter? Let's see how well you would have done working in the early 1900s with their "restrictions". I doubt there would be as many photographers as today.

"Joe, when you said your trials of Efke 25 were successful, did you try the green filter test to convert it to ortho? Or did you just shoot it as the orthopan film that it is. I shot some Efke 25 this past Friday...it was really bright out and my subject was an asian female and had a tan. I didn't use a Y2 filter as I normally do but still I got darker tones than I did when I shot my sister with it, who is caucasian."

 

I shot it as the orthopan film that it is. However I was shooting architectural shots, not portraits. Your shot looks fine to me, I'm not sure I'd want much darker skin tones than that. Of course the Asian skin tones appeared darker, that has to do with the film's sensitivity to her tanned shade.

The Efke25 is an ortpopanchromatic film, not straight ortho however. My trials with it were most succesful, shooting alongside Plus-X on a sunny day.

 

I've ordered a couple of rolls of the Rollei ortho from Robert Vonk, which should be here before too long. The shots I've seen from it look quite promising.

 

I'm planning on processing it in Rodinal and Amaloco 74.

Of the 3, I prefer Acros. Finer grain than the other 2, and I process it in Rodinal 1:50. Previous processing in HC-110 (also 1:50) gave interesting smooth tones, but the Rodinal's accutance really gives a nice pop to it.

Try looking in your yellow pages for someplace local, OR Google something like "120 film processing". Just remember it's only a Holga, don't expect premium 120 performance from it.

The 1st image seems the most clear, with the most details. Just some few highlighted areas blown out (back of hand etc).

 

The 2nd is way too contrasty, no shadow details, looks like PanF to me.

The "room" appears to be a somewhat normal exposure. If you had wanted this to be more of a "portrait" one of 2 things needed to be done.

 

1: Use an angle with light going onto the face, rather than coming from behind it.

 

2: Use a flash. I use a Lumedyne system with my Rolleiflexes (and 4x5, and just about everything else).

 

Problem solved.

Follow Robert's advice, he's a fountain of knowledge, and a good friend.

 

Just from looking (and ignoring any other advice given), based on my own experiences with this fantastic film.

 

Your image appears underexposed, and overdeveloped. D76 is not prime for Efke 25. Rodinal seems to be perfectly suited for it. My current time for this is 10min at 1:40 @ 20gradC with standard agitation.

 

There's really no need for sharpening with this film. It is by far the sharpest film I've ever put through any camera. Ignore advice to drop this film & switch to anything else. These slower films are filled with potential, but don't expect to have it right away.

 

As you say you are still new to the process, shoot it for at least 6 months exclusively, and keep notes of what you're doing. You will be amazed at the difference between now and then.<div></div>