Historical Film Brands With Common Manufacturer

[thronobulax]

I am aware (or was told here, anyway) that Jessups and Efke R100 were/are the same film under different branding.

I saw an eBay add today claiming that Adox is also the same as these. This perked my ears because I thought Adox
was a functioning company entirely separate from the old Efke firm. This is of interest because I discovered far too
late the Efke may be the sharpest film with best tonality I've ever used. I have some squirreled away but if Adox CMS II is the same stuff, I'm stocking up.

Thoughts?

 

[Ian Grant]

Fotoimpex in Berlin registered the Adox brand name which had lapsed. Dupont had acquired Dr C. Schleussner Fotowerke GmbH Adox was their brand name for cameras as well as film, paper etc, Dupont closed the company in the early 1970's and EFKE in Croatia bought the machinery and rights to make the emulsions etc.

Fotoimpex began selling Forte films and papers branded as Classic Arts, then added EFKE products as well, initially unbranded, then they registered the defunct Adox brand name and began using it first for EFKE films and paper but also materials made for then by Ilford, Innovision (ex Agfa) and finally their own coating line. They have part of the old Ilford factory in Marly, Switzerland, and an ex-Ilford coating line.

The original UK distributors of Adox cameras and materials - Luminos - moved to the US during the depression of the early 1960s and in latter years distribet Kentmere papers under their Luminos brand name.

Jessops only sold the 35mm and 120 films rebranded.

Ian

 

[thronobulax]

Fotoimpex in Berlin registered the Adox brand name which had lapsed. Dupont had acquired Dr C. Schleussner Fotowerke GmbH Adox was their brand name for cameras as well as film, paper etc, Dupont closed the company in the early 1970's and EFKE in Croatia bought the machinery and rights to make the emulsions etc.

Fotoimpex began selling Forte films and papers branded as Classic Arts, then added EFKE products as well, initially unbranded, then they registered the defunct Adox brand name and began using it first for EFKE films and paper but also materials made for then by Ilford, Innovision (ex Agfa) and finally their own coating line. They have part of the old Ilford factory in Marly, Switzerland, and an ex-Ilford coating line.

The original UK distributors of Adox cameras and materials - Luminos - moved to the US during the depression of the early 1960s and in latter years distribet Kentmere papers under their Luminos brand name.

Jessops only sold the 35mm and 120 films rebranded.

Ian

Fascinating, thanks.

So where in that lineage does the Adox CMS II film appear, do you think? Is it a direct Efke descendent or something else?

 

[Ian Grant]

Adox CHS II is an entirely new emulsion it's not based on the EFKE (or original Adox) films, however it's designed to have similar characteristics. It's a much better film.

Ian

 

[thronobulax]

Adox CHS II is an entirely new emulsion it's not based on the EFKE (or original Adox) films, however it's designed to have similar characteristics. It's a much better film.

Ian

That's good to hear. It's allegedly landing on US shores shortly in 3x2 format so I am anxious to try it. If it is "better" than Efke, I do hope is has the same thick emulsion/high acuity behaviour as the Efke M100PL stuff I have come to love...

 

[Ian Grant]

EFKE and the older Adox films used a very thin emulsion layer compared to all other manufacturers. The only reason they might appear thick was the poor hardening meant their emulsion swelled more when wet.

Ian

 

[thronobulax]

EFKE and the older Adox films used a very thin emulsion layer compared to all other manufacturers. The only reason they might appear thick was the poor hardening meant their emulsion swelled more when wet.

Ian

Do you any insight into why Efke exhibits such high acuity? When I compare it to Tri-X, Agfapan APX 100, Foma 200, FP4, Shanghai GP3 ... the Efke is still the hands down winner in this department. Now, this may be because I am semistand processing these films and the Efke is more compatible with low agitation techniques ...

 

[Ian Grant]

Being a thin emulsion acutance developers have a greater effect, with a thick emulsion the acutance is only surface deep. It's been said that Schleussner's Adox thin emulsions came about due to an error with a batch of emulsion.

I remember reading (1973/4that EFKE Kb14 (the old DIN name for Kb25 -ASA/BS) was capable of the fine grain, sharpness and tonality of a 5x4 125 ASA/BS emulsion. I did some tests and it was close, but then it was also available as Roll and Sheet film. This was a time when the new Topographers particularly in the US were using Tech Pan and micro films but while exceptionally fine-grained they lacked tonality and acutance.

The downside to EFKE films in the 1970's was their almost lack of any hardening, in the end I added Formaldehyde hardener to the developer just before use, but by then I was working as a photo-chemist anyway. EFKE films also need accurate exposure there was no latitude and the box speed was actually their Tungsten speed, the Daylight speed was around a stop faster. That was why Jessops sold the films as 50, 100 & 200, whereas EFKE called them 25, 50, & 100.

On the subject of film speeds when I started film boxes were marked with ASA/BS (US and British) and DIN (German speeds, the modern ISO standard allows testing by ASA & BS standards (no longer exactly the same) or the DIN standard, and is a combination of both like 200/24º (Fomapan 200). And remember, all current B&W films still have a slower Tungsten speed compared to Daylight.

Ian

 

[thronobulax]

Yes, I am well acquainted with the various and sundry ASA debacles over time. I don't recall exactly, but some time in the late 1950s/early 1960s there was change in the film speed measurement standard and film ASA magically doubled even though the films did not change.

Every sensiometric test I have done confirms that the "real" ASAs are more like 1/2 box speed from normal development and agitation. The one exception was Efke which appeared to give me "full box speed". I think it was you or someone else here that pointed out the box speed was Tungsten and Daylight was twice that. So my actual measured speed was 1/2 the claimed Daylight speed, consistent with all other films I've measured.

Anyway, I am anxious to see how Adox CHS II behaves as regard to acuity especially. I just exposed my first sheets of Fomapan 200 and, while they were OK, they didn't knock me over in this regard.

 

[Ian Grant]

The 1962 ASA/BS speed change was a decision to remove a 1 stop factor to prevent under-exposure. This was because light meters had become widespread and cameras were begging to incorporate them.

The half box speed wasn't across the board, Agfa's AP and later APX films were tested by the more practical DIN standard, and Agfa's EI & dev times were spot on for Rodinal. Ilford films a touch below box peed but Kodak half, especially any Tmax film's.

Ian

 

[thronobulax]

The 1962 ASA/BS speed change was a decision to remove a 1 stop factor to prevent under-exposure. This was because light meters had become widespread and cameras were begging to incorporate them.

The half box speed wasn't across the board, Agfa's AP and later APX films were tested by the more practical DIN standard, and Agfa's EI & dev times were spot on for Rodinal. Ilford films a touch below box peed but Kodak half, especially any Tmax film's.

Ian

I've never used Rodinal, but Agfapan APX 100 was my staple for many years. The effective ASA measured as 50 with every single developer I used (HC-110B, D-76, DK-50, PMK Pyro). It showed very slightly better speed in Pyrocat-HD but still not full box speed. It does hit full speed with semistand development but that's a horse with different feathers.

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

 

[David M]

Don’t forget the Hidden Hand of the Marketing Department. It must be very tempting to round up the figures, or, shall we say, be a little bit optimistic. Very few customers will be as picky and inquisitive as our more distinguished members here.
Paradoxically, the Zone System may collude in this. Remember, the System is intended to produce a personal EI for practical use in the field, and not measure an absolute film speed.
As an aside, I’m not quite sure that such a thing exists.

 

[thronobulax]

Don’t forget the Hidden Hand of the Marketing Department. It must be very tempting to round up the figures, or, shall we say, be a little bit optimistic. Very few customers will be as picky and inquisitive as our more distinguished members here.
Paradoxically, the Zone System may collude in this. Remember, the System is intended to produce a personal EI for practical use in the field, and not measure an absolute film speed.
As an aside, I’m not quite sure that such a thing exists.

I think "Personal EI" exists in the sense that it can compensate for a variety of variables, among them the accuracy of thermometers, light meters, and timers, the behaviour of a particular emulsion to a particular developer, local water mineralisation, and so forth. Having done a fair bit of sensiometric testing, for all practical purposes - and assuming reasonably correct meters and such - I've found that 1/2 box ASA and underdeveloping 20% from recommended is a pretty reasonable starting point. After all, personal EI is just a starting point from which one departs for creative and interpretive purposes.

There are, however, two flies in this ointment. First of all - again after extensive testing - mechanical shutters vary considerably in accuracy, the higher speeds being the larger offenders. But even the lower speeds vary well away from nominal and the simple act of changing a lens can cause noticeable variation in exposure. Short of carrying a database of all my test data around, I just make sure
to (gasp) bracket somewhat around the indicated exposure.

Secondly, long subject brightness range environments are troublesome for Zone System. Although one can do N- development, to hold very long SBRs, this work at the expense of mid-tone compression (loss of local contrast) which is usually not desirable. This is what kicked off my 2021 year of study on the use of compensating developers with low agitation. Here you get your cake and can eat it to - holding a long SBR whilst actually expanding mid tone local contrast.

And, yes, no doubt the various marketing flacks and their minions were only too happy to declare that Tri-X had magically gone from ASA 200 to 400 overnight with no change in grain. It's always interesting to see the reaction of new photographers when I suggest the 1/2 box speed/20% under development regimen, when they first get back those negatives. For the first time for most of them, there is actual shadow detail.

 

[David M]

Yes indeed, everything seems to converge on that 50% and 20%. As you point out, shutters are fallible and so is most of the rest of our equipment. So are most of us (present company excepted of course)
Your point about mid-tone contrast is a good one. Not everyone may be so concerned and might be more interested in highlight- or shadow detail - The Society for Recording Miners’ Cats, for instance, or the Arctic Brides Association. I’d expect them to use different EIs.
My own bête noire is the tithing of cumin and parsley over film speed.

For myself, I’m always relieved when I see that the negatives have got anything on them. Not modesty. The last-but-one batch of film came off its spirals and produced some some very white knuckles for a couple of days.

 

[Alan Clark]

Secondly, long subject brightness range environments are troublesome for Zone System. Although one can do N- development, to hold very long SBRs, this work at the expense of mid-tone compression (loss of local contrast) which is usually not desirable. This is what kicked off my 2021 year of study on the use of compensating developers with low agitation. Here you get your cake and can eat it to - holding a long SBR whilst actually expanding mid tone local contrast.

Ansel Adams explained a long time ago how get your cake and eat it, as you put it, without having to resort to semi-stand agitation. Use a compensating developer and give the film reduced development. This keeps highlight density down. But it also lowers midtone print values somewhat. To get them back up to where you want them, give extra exposure when taking the picture. The compensating developer ensures the midtones are not compressed.
As an example, when the sun is shining I rate HP5 at 200, and develop it in ID11 at 1+2 for 14 minutes. This gives me negatives that print on grades 2 to 2.5 with nicely expanded midtones. I did try semi-stand development for a time, but it didn't give me anything that I can't get with the simple procedure described above.

Alan

 

[thronobulax]

Yes indeed, everything seems to converge on that 50% and 20%. As you point out, shutters are fallible and so is most of the rest of our equipment. So are most of us (present company excepted of course)
Your point about mid-tone contrast is a good one. Not everyone may be so concerned and might be more interested in highlight- or shadow detail - The Society for Recording Miners’ Cats, for instance, or the Arctic Brides Association. I’d expect them to use different EIs.
My own bête noire is the tithing of cumin and parsley over film speed.

For myself, I’m always relieved when I see that the negatives have got anything on them. Not modesty. The last-but-one batch of film came off its spirals and produced some some very white knuckles for a couple of days.

Yes, I liken the first look at wet negatives to checking my lottery tickets ...

 

[thronobulax]

Ansel Adams explained a long time ago how get your cake and eat it, as you put it, without having to resort to semi-stand agitation. Use a compensating developer and give the film reduced development. This keeps highlight density down. But it also lowers midtone print values somewhat. To get them back up to where you want them, give extra exposure when taking the picture. The compensating developer ensures the midtones are not compressed.
As an example, when the sun is shining I rate HP5 at 200, and develop it in ID11 at 1+2 for 14 minutes. This gives me negatives that print on grades 2 to 2.5 with nicely expanded midtones. I did try semi-stand development for a time, but it didn't give me anything that I can't get with the simple procedure described above.

Alan

I need to explore this. In theory, more exposure just moves everything up- and to the right on the H/D curve but does not change the slope (gamma) of that curve. And - again in theory - extended low agitation does increase the slope of the curve in the mid-tones. But theory is theory and results are results, so I should probably give this a whirl.

As a reference point, what would you normally rate HP5 and how would you develop it?

Would you be able to share an image processed this way?

 

[Alan Clark]

What I have described is simply what photographers have been doing for many years. It is usually described as over-exposing and under-developing, though of course it isn't.
In flat light I would rate HP5 at its box speed of 400 and develop in ID11 at 1+1 for approx.14 minutes. In sunny conditions I overexpose it by one stop, and develop in ID11 diluted 1+2 for 14 minutes; i.e. more exposure, less development.

Alan

 

[thronobulax]

What I have described is simply what photographers have been doing for many years. It is usually described as over-exposing and under-developing, though of course it isn't.
In flat light I would rate HP5 at its box speed of 400 and develop in ID11 at 1+1 for approx.14 minutes. In sunny conditions I overexpose it by one stop, and develop in ID11 diluted 1+2 for 14 minutes; i.e. more exposure, less development.

Alan

And that is the essence of Zone System N-x development. With high SBRs, rein in the highlights by underdevelopment and increase exposure to compensate for the loss of effective film speed this causes. In your case, you're augmenting this with further developer dilution, but if your agitating regularly, it still is effectively N- development.

I did this for years, and it certainly works, But I didn't like what it did to the midtone local contrast. In my experience, at least, N- has never given be the tonal separation in the midtones that low/extended agitation does. YMMV.

 

[Alan Clark]

And that is the essence of Zone System N-x development. With high SBRs, rein in the highlights by underdevelopment and increase exposure to compensate for the loss of effective film speed this causes. In your case, you're augmenting this with further developer dilution, but if your agitating regularly, it still is effectively N- development.

I did this for years, and it certainly works, But I didn't like what it did to the midtone local contrast. In my experience, at least, N- has never given be the tonal separation in the midtones that low/extended agitation does. YMMV.

If semi- stand development gives you the results that you seek, then of course you should keep doing it. When I tried it, I did it in a direct comparison test with the method I have outlined above. Developer was Pyrocat HD. And I could see no difference in the finished prints. So I no longer do semi-stand. And I no longer use Pyrocat HD because I can't easily get the raw chemicals like I used to be able to do. I don't find this a handicap because other comparison tests showed me that ID11 diluted to 1+2 or 1+3, and Perceptol diluted 1+3 gave results that were every bit as good -almost identical in fact- to Pyrocat HD.

Alan