"classic" black and white films

In the latest Freestyle catalogue films like Efke and Berger are
offered for sale. They are supposed to be of the same emulsion as
films from 60 years ago were. Has anyone been using these? I would
assume developing in D76 or D23 would be the way to go? Has anyone
tried a developer better suited to the "classic" emulsion?

schrieb:
In the latest Freestyle catalogue films like Efke and Berger are
offered for sale. They are supposed to be of the same emulsion as
films from 60 years ago were. Has anyone been using these? I would
assume developing in D76 or D23 would be the way to go? Has anyone
tried a developer better suited to the "classic" emulsion?


I used ultrafin+ with efke25 and 50 it worked out well imo.
No visible grain. The lens is the limiting factor.
But u have to dev fast the efke 25 needs only 1 minute to develop.
And it is not a bad idea to use hardener and a wetting agent. i used
mirasol.

thanks for ur attention
robert

In article ,
Robert Wählt wrote:

schrieb:
In the latest Freestyle catalogue films like Efke and Berger are
offered for sale. They are supposed to be of the same emulsion as
films from 60 years ago were. Has anyone been using these? I would
assume developing in D76 or D23 would be the way to go? Has anyone
tried a developer better suited to the "classic" emulsion?


I used ultrafin+ with efke25 and 50 it worked out well imo.
No visible grain. The lens is the limiting factor.
But u have to dev fast the efke 25 needs only 1 minute to develop.
And it is not a bad idea to use hardener and a wetting agent. i used
mirasol.

thanks for ur attention
robert

I've used them but don't like them compared to new higher resolving films
or for that matter HP5 & TriX.
--
Carry me caravan take me away, take me to Portugal take me to Spain,Andalucia with fields full grain. I have to see you again and again. www.gregblankphoto.com

wrote:
: In the latest Freestyle catalogue films like Efke and Berger are
: offered for sale. They are supposed to be of the same emulsion as
: films from 60 years ago were. Has anyone been using these? I would
: assume developing in D76 or D23 would be the way to go? Has anyone
: tried a developer better suited to the "classic" emulsion?

I've been using Efke25 and Efke50 with tfx-2. The developer is from
photographers formulary and I develop the film at 73F using semi stand
development. I aggitate 5 secs every 3min for 20min.
--




-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

In article .com,
" writes:

In the latest Freestyle catalogue films like Efke and Berger are
offered for sale. They are supposed to be of the same emulsion as
films from 60 years ago were. Has anyone been using these? I would
assume developing in D76 or D23 would be the way to go? Has anyone
tried a developer better suited to the "classic" emulsion?

I've shot a few rolls of Efke KB25 and KB100. I developed them all in
D-76, IIRC. I liked the KB25 a lot, but the KB100 was too grainy for its
speed, at least for my taste. I haven't shot more simply because I decided
to standardize on Ilford Pan F+ 50 as my low-speed film.

Efke's ISO 25 and 50 (but IIRC, not their ISO 100) films are
orthopanchromatic, meaning they've got reduced sensitivity to the red part
of the spectrum, compared to most modern films. This might or might not
suit your subjects and style of photography.

The emulsions of these films do have a reputation for being rather soft,
so using a hardener (such as a hardening fixer) is recommended. I did so
when I shot them, so I can't comment on the consequences of not following
this advice.

--
Rod Smith,
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

I'd say that a hardener is a *must* with Berger.
Two years ago I used it for some 8x10 work.
The negs were the most fragile of any I have.

Collin
KC8TKA

wrote in message
oups.com...
In the latest Freestyle catalogue films like Efke and
Berger are
offered for sale. They are supposed to be of the same
emulsion as
films from 60 years ago were. Has anyone been using
these? I would
assume developing in D76 or D23 would be the way to go?
Has anyone
tried a developer better suited to the "classic" emulsion?

It would be interesting to know what Freestyle means by
this. Emulsion research went on continuously from the
beginnings of photography. 1946 emulsions were significantly
different from those of ten years earlier (finer grain,
greater stability, etc.) and emulsions of the mid-1950's
again significantly improved. I don't know why anyone would
want to go back to this stuff. Presumably, they are made by
small factories without the technical knowledge to make or
coat modern emulsions. Why bother when you can get perfectly
good film from Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, which are head and
shoulders better than those of the past. I rather think
Freestyle is just trying to make al virtue out of a vice.
As far as developers are concerned, there has been less
change. Modern films generally develop much faster than
those of the past so some of the high energy developers used
in the 1930's and 1940's are no longer necessary and would
not be satisfactory. I am refering to developers like Kodak
D-61, once a standard press and photofinishing developer.
D-76, D-23, and similar developers are good for modern films
and of course would work with the obsolete types except the
developing time would be rather longer. Modern developers,
like T-Max, Microphen, DDX, Xtol, would also work well.
Be careful of judging tone rendition of old films from
published photographs in books or magazines. You are seeing
gray scales distorted by the half-tone process. Modern films
really do not look much different.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

In article et,
"Richard Knoppow" wrote:

Be careful of judging tone rendition of old films from
published photographs in books or magazines. You are seeing
gray scales distorted by the half-tone process. Modern films
really do not look much different.

I tend to agree, often you see even in new reproduction
work imagery that is "better" than the silver print....
mainly because lots of fudging goes into some high end repro
work.
--
The sometimes insomniac.

www.gregblankphoto.com

"Greg "_"" wrote

I tend to agree, often you see even in new reproduction
work imagery that is "better" than the silver print....

I have a few AAdams originals and books with the same
works. The quality of the images is noticeably better
in the books. Somewhere he writes: "I spend
much more time on a print if I know it will be used
for reproduction." [quoting from memory, but IIRC
that was the gist of it].

Paul Strand considered his books to be his prints.

mainly because lots of fudging goes into some high end repro
work.

Fudging? Fudging? As in dodging, burning, masking,
unsharp masking, hot developer, cold developer, water
bath developer, massage, ferricyanide retouching,
bleaching -- everything just short of taking a brush
and painting the image in -- that we all do in the
darkroom isn't fudging? I know: 'Tonal Corrections'.
They do pretty much the same thing at the printers,
just with a dot-screen in front of the negative.

Richard Knoppow

(snip...)
Presumably, they are made by small factories without the
technical knowledge to make or coat modern emulsions...
(snip...)

There is also the possibility that they don't have access to
the patents and other intellectual property held by Kodak,
Ilford et al. for their new stuff, like Kodak's T-Grain emulsions.

I've played with some of the "old" film, mainly Maco IR820C
and Rollei R3. These are old-style thick emulsion films that
require all the 1950s handling, including the presoak that
modern films don't need.

These are niche products, and can only be viable if a
small company is making them. One of R3's claims to fame,
for example, is Technical Pan-like red sensitivity. There
is also a certain interest in shooting period-style film in
old cameras, though my Crown Graphic takes perfectly
acceptable 1950s newspaper photographer pictures on
TMax 100.

Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Que les nuages soient notre
Grid: CN89mg pied a terre..."
ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - Hospital/Shafte