Strange vertical stripes in adox pan 25 sheetfilms

[jvuokko]

Hi,
I opened quite recently a new box of Adox Pan 25 4x5 sheetfilm.
To my big disappointent, I have lost all photos I have taken with this film.
There were some good photographs too, but nothing cannot do for them.

The reason: If negative is viewed on landscape orientation, then it will have a lot of vertical stripes.

When I found first two pictures damaged like that, I instantly blamed my Paterson Orbital developing tank - as I have scratched the bottom of the developing tank to keeping films from stickking.

But when none other films didn't show any marks like that, my suspections went more on the camera side. Found nothing...

Then at the end, I did a well documented empirical test. Exposed sheets of film using enlarger as light source (no camera errors, flare, whatsoever).

Then I developed the negatives using different manners. One went thru my standard developing, Paterson orbital tank with motorized agitation. Another went with orbital tanki, but manual racking style agitation, one went thru roll film tank which I was rolling on the table emulating rotary developer, ....

The result? Every single negative shows these stripes clearly!
When I scan the negatives and use levels to get more contrast then stripes come really strongs (as will uneveness of the development also do - embrassing :o )

Any ideas for cause? Before this test I was quite sure that I will do somethign wrong.. But now it's confirmed with different developings, without camera, seen on bare eye, then confirmed with scanner...

So what this leaves? Some kind of weird error during manufacturing phase of the film?

[pablo batt]

i would say its bad film

ive tried a few adox products and have had problems with almost all of them except one box of paper , of which i used tonight

i would not personally use adox again for a while and now i prefer foma products for consistency

[vinny]

I've seen this pattern on some 400 asa classic pan film, bummer.

[Rick Olson]

Hello Jukka,

Had the same problem a while back with some Efke 100 and 50 sheet films. It's now the reason I happily enjoy paying about twice as much for Ilford and Kodak films, confident that if there is a problem with the image, it's most likely my fault. It's just not worth the risk when I am hundreds of miles from home shooting that once in a lifetime image.

Rick

[jvuokko]

Hello Rick,

It seems that I have to take same route. I really like some of the "low fidelity" films. Like Adox CHS 100 Art and Adox CHS 25 Art. They have nice tonality.

But the quality issues is just too much for me. Thankfully I have used Acros 100 and Hp5+ always, so I have a good film also. Perhaps Panf+ sheet film would be also nice to try.


ps. I haven't (yet) noticed any single defective negative, if there's something, it's always in whole batch. So I'm gonna check all boxes I have still whether they seems to be ok or not.

[Rick Olson]

Jukka,

Agreed ... using 'Lo-Fi" films can be fun. I still have some Efke 50 and 25 ULF films, but I "waste" a sheet of each type per box and place them on a light table to see if I can recognize any emulsion banding. The Efke 25 that I have is clear, but the Efke 50 that I have has some slight banding (referred to coating chatter by the experts here). It affects the entire box. I use this film for subjects lacking even density such as great expanses of sky, and for subjects that can be shot again. I use the Kodak and Ilford film for the important subjects that might be difficult to repeat.

Fuji Acros is terrific, as is HP-5.

Have fun!

Rick




Hello Rick,

It seems that I have to take same route. I really like some of the "low fidelity" films. Like Adox CHS 100 Art and Adox CHS 25 Art. They have nice tonality.

But the quality issues is just too much for me. Thankfully I have used Acros 100 and Hp5+ always, so I have a good film also. Perhaps Panf+ sheet film would be also nice to try.


ps. I haven't (yet) noticed any single defective negative, if there's something, it's always in whole batch. So I'm gonna check all boxes I have still whether they seems to be ok or not.

[timB]

Curious, has anyone contacted the manufacturer and ask if they will warrant defective film. If enough ppl return bad samples maybe the problem will be fixed. Then we will continue to have more choices :-)

[jvuokko]

I have contacted (info@adox.de), but haven't yet got any response.

[duff photographer]

I have contacted (info@adox.de), but haven't yet got any response.


Did you ever get that response?

[jvuokko]

Yes, I got response. I was requested to sent sample films to Adox so that they can check what's wrong.

The explanation was that the manufactor they used for coating process of the film has poorly maintained machines:


"This batch of film was coated in a factory which does not longer exist.
New product will be coated in a more modern factory. I am afraid that the old factory neglected maintenance and thus vibrations on the coating head occured. This causes banding. Unfortunately only on a few meters and then it disapperas again making it almost impossible to catch this in QC."


I got some compensation which is good, but ofcourse I am bit sad for about two good ruined shots. Others ruined negatives weren't that important ones.


This whole thing has made me very cautious. I still use ADOX films because I like the tonality of CHS 100 Art and CHS 50 Art, but when takin a picture from which I expect a lot, I use well known film brands or at least I take one backup shot to top quality film.


Now I am in a slow process trying to found some slow or midspeed film that has similar tonality like CHS 100 and CHS 50 (the CHS 50 can be tought because of it's almost orthopan appear).

[D. Bryant]

Yes, I got response. I was requested to sent sample films to Adox so that they can check what's wrong.

The explanation was that the manufactor they used for coating process of the film has poorly maintained machines:


"This batch of film was coated in a factory which does not longer exist.
New product will be coated in a more modern factory. I am afraid that the old factory neglected maintenance and thus vibrations on the coating head occured. This causes banding. Unfortunately only on a few meters and then it disapperas again making it almost impossible to catch this in QC."


I got some compensation which is good, but ofcourse I am bit sad for about two good ruined shots. Others ruined negatives weren't that important ones.


This whole thing has made me very cautious. I still use ADOX films because I like the tonality of CHS 100 Art and CHS 50 Art, but when takin a picture from which I expect a lot, I use well known film brands or at least I take one backup shot to top quality film.


Now I am in a slow process trying to found some slow or midspeed film that has similar tonality like CHS 100 and CHS 50 (the CHS 50 can be tought because of it's almost orthopan appear).

This kind of defect would never occur with a Kodak manufactured film since they inspect every square mm for defects. Something to think about.

Don Bryant

[mikebarger]

I chuckled at the title of the thread...After reading many threads, and having the problem myself, I don't think it is "strange" that this film has banding issues. :)


Mike

[pergorm]

Hello everybody!

I have used ADOX CHS 25, 50 and 100 for about a year now, and i have never experienced any of the troubles you guys are reporting here!. It is true that the emulsion is very easy schratched when wet, but apart from that, i like the films very much, and at half the price of Illford or Kodak...
Maybe i just never noticed this.... I may have to inspect some old negatives one day;)


This kind of defect would never occur with a Kodak manufactured film since they inspect every square mm for defects. Something to think about.

How do they do that???. Do they turn on the light and make visual inspections??:)
Or maybe they make a test-development of every sheet. That can explain why one of my friends got a double exposure on one of his sheets of 4x5 TMAX100.:D

Just kidding - of course there is a reason why Kodak and Ilford are priced so much higher than ADOX. QC may be one of them....

Regards
Per

[Andrew O'Neill]

I imagine that they would inspect the film with infra-red goggles in an infra-red lit room. Some people develop by inspection this way.

[jvuokko]

At leas ADOX labelled films has better QC than original Efke's. I don't know what factory was used for Adox Pan 25, but old and poorly maintained machines brings instantly Efke/Fotokemika to my mind. I only know that 135 (and perhaps 120) formats are (was?) made by Filmotec. But a sheet film, I don't know.

I have had a lot of problems with Efke's IR820 film, but luckily none with Adox CHS Art series, which are just relabelled Efke PL25, PL50 and PL100 films.

By the way, Efke/Fotokemika doesn't react for any problem reports and queries. The one reason for buying Adox labelled film instead.

[mikebarger]

I don't know... for me either a film company has or doesn't have QA issues.
I don't want to take chances on "maybe" this batch is OK, I can make enough mistakes on my own, I'll stick with Kodak 120mm and Ilford 4x5.

Mike

[Robert Hughes]

...a film company has or doesn't have QA issues...
Nonsense. All film companies, as all other manufacturers, have QA issues. Kodak doesn't put that defective replacement notice on every box of film for fun, you know ("This film will be replaced if defective in manufacture, labeling, or packaging...").

What matters is how they control those issues. Can they catch a problem before it gets to the field? If not, what remedies are available to them to help out an affected customer?

[mikebarger]

Well Robert I know that, QA for a customer is only important one one level. Foma/Efke could throw away 90% of their product at the factory and as long as none of it reaches the shelf a lot of people would use it.

They may only have a problem with 30% of their product, but if all of it reaches the shelf it's a big problem.

We are consumers here so QA at the shelf is what most of us are worried/concerned about.

Sorry you didn't get that.

Mike

[IanG]

Some things not quite right here because on one hand there's Adox/EFKE CHS 25, 50 & 100 and then this other film coated at a plant that no longer exists.

The EFKE plant is still making & coating films which have never been sold as Adox Pan, so this one was from another manufacturer.

Now Foma had two coating plants, the former Foton plant in Poland as well as their main Czech factory, or it may have been from a decommissions Agfa facility - which is more likely.

EFKE is not Adox, athough their films are sold under that brand name by Fotoimpex, but so are films from a few other manufacturers.

Ian

[mcfactor]

Isnt Adox Pan 25 just rebranded Rollei Pan 25? From the film I have used, they have exactly the same characteristics.

[IanG]

Isnt Adox Pan 25 just rebranded Rollei Pan 25? From the film I have used, they have exactly the same characteristics.

Both are re-branded films, but Fotoimpex buy from the same original source, and in this case it isn't EFKE. Mirko has posted on APUG where the Adox films come from.

Ian

[jvuokko]

Adox Pan 25 and Rollei Pan 25 are same film (at least used to be). Film was made by filmotec.
Don't know which one is rebranded and which one is more original.
I guess that both are more or less rebranded from some other film - perhaps aerial photography film, like all slow speed films that Rollei introduces are.