Efke vs. Adox Films

[jdaivpmed]

Is there any differance between Efke and Adox films or are they exactly the same, just with differant branding? If they are the same, does anyone know if there's a chart that matches the various products to one another? They each seem to have several subtle variations on the same few emulsions.

Thanks,

John IV

[Toyon]

The 25 speed film seems to be identical under both brands.

[77seriesiii]

If I am not mistaken they are the same. ADOX is rebranded by fotoimpex in Berlin and Efke is the original.

[Arne Croell]

Its not as easy as the previous answers imply. The brand name Adox is owned by Fotoimpex and they use it for a variety of products, including film made by different manufacturers. The Adox CHS 25,50, and 100 are identical to the Efke films. There is another ISO 25 film, the Adox Pan 25, which is not made by Efke, and is most likely the same as the original Rolleipan 25 from Maco, the emulsion made by Filmotec in Wolfen. The Adox CHM films were made by Ilford and are identical to FP4+ and HP5+. The Adox papers also come from different sources. You can find most information on Apug, if you do a search there.

[jdaivpmed]

Oh sure... make things more complicated! Ha

Okay, so here is what I'm thinking, let me know if I'm wrong...

Efke PL 100 M = ?? - I also understand that the 100 ISO is a totally differant animal than the iso 25 and 50 correct?

Efke PL 50 M = Adox 50 Art

Efke PL 25 M = Adox CHS 25 Art

Is that about right?

John IV

[Glenn Thoreson]

It's the same film produced by the same company. Legalities dictate whether it's labeled Efke or Adox and it's quite complicated. The Adox name is very old and due to a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo, law suits and more law suits after WW2, it was not allowed to be used at all for many years. Recently it was allowed to be used again for film imported through Canada. The film imported direct to the U.S. could only be sold under the Efke label. That may have changed again, I don't know. In a nut shell, though, it's just a licensing thing. It's the same no matter what the label. Still a good film, too. :D

EDIT: I am not familiar with their relabeling practices. I guess demand might make it impossible for the old production facilities to keep their name out there. I'm getting further behind on all the changes.

[mcfactor]

Arne Croell is right. Not all the film is Efke. Adox Pan 25 is rebranded Rollei Pan 25 (its the only way to get Rollei Pan 25 in sheets). It is a very different film from Efke 25. The base is clearer and thinner than efke 25. It is my favorite sheet film, the resolution and tones are incredible.

[Tim Povlick]

Adox 25 Pan sounds very interesting. What is a recommended developer?

_ .. --
TiM

[mcfactor]

I use both rodinal 1:100 for 15 mins and Beutler's High Actuance/Fx-1. There is a very distinct look that this film has, a richness and a sense of depth, especially with these high acutance developers that I have not seen elsewhere. I'll try and post a couple of scans tonight. But even on my cheap HP flatbed scanner, you can get an idea of the particular "look" and the resolution.

[Mike1234]

If QC is really that poor then it seems the safest route is to take multiple shots of the same subject with film loaded from different runs.

[Sevo]

It's the same film produced by the same company. Legalities dictate whether it's labeled Efke or Adox and it's quite complicated. The Adox name is very old and due to a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo, law suits and more law suits after WW2, it was not allowed to be used at all for many years.

Not in any WWII context, though - the mess started in the late sixties, when Dupont (who bought Schleussner, the Adox makers, in 62, for their X-ray and process film business) pulled out of photo film production. They eventually sold the production lines, trademarks and patents to Yugoslavia. But when third party distributors expanded into the void and distributed Fotokemika Adox film beyond the Yugoslav borders in the seventies, the Schleussner estate stepped in - their contract with Dupont had stipulated that the name rights would revert if Dupont ceased to exercise them. Legal fights ensued, and at the end, Fotokemika secured the patents, but lost the trademark. Fotokemika, being the state monopolist in Yugoslavia, had little interest in buying the name a second time, even less so from a capitalist that turned nasty on them, so that Adox film, made on Adox machines to Adox patents, became Efke for a couple of decades.

Only some years ago Fotoimpex, a German distributor, purchased both the trademark and distribution rights for Efke film, so that Adox film can finally be labelled Adox again...

Sevo

[Tim Povlick]

I use both rodinal 1:100 for 15 mins and Beutler's High Actuance/Fx-1. There is a very distinct look that this film has, a richness and a sense of depth, especially with these high acutance developers that I have not seen elsewhere. I'll try and post a couple of scans tonight. But even on my cheap HP flatbed scanner, you can get an idea of the particular "look" and the resolution.

I greatly appreciate the tips on the film / developer. I am going to give Rodinal and the Adox 25 pan a try.

Thanks and Regards,

Tim

[Jan Pedersen]

As Tim, i am also looking for a slow film as the Adox Pan 25 to test, i already use the Efke 25 a little and have not seen any quality issues.
I am however curious to know what kind of agitation mcfactor use with the 1:100 Rodinal solution?
Thanks.

[jeroldharter]

This is an interesting thread. It would be helpful to me to see some sort of compendium of the same shot done with different films and printed on the same paper for the currently available films. For example a still life high key/low key flower, or a western landscape with sky, a waterfall, etc. on everything from Efke 25 to TMAX 400. Has anyone done such a thing? In Tim Rudman's toning book he has step wedges in different toners and print examples in different toners. It would be great if someone did something like that with the currently available films. I would pay for that.

[mcfactor]

I have done semi-stand with it for 30mins with 1 turn in the middle and gotten excellent results. However, I am using Jobo tanks and occassionally, I can see a line where the reels touch the film, so i stopped doing it for 4x5. Now I agitate every minute for 10 seconds for about 15 mins.

-Noah

[Jan Pedersen]

Thank you Noah. Will try the 30 minute semi stand, i have a jobo 2830 that should be good for 1 sheet of 8x10 at a time.

[jvuokko]

As an user of Adox/Efke films I would like to add something.

With these films you have to prepare to face the ugly fact, that quality control is far from what you can get with big film manufactors.

Mostly the film sheets are okay, but I prefer always to take backup shot. If it's possible, I use even another film type. But that's not so bad, I got two shots which usually are both good and at same time, I get them on two different materials so I have more options with the choosing tonality that I like.

For example, If I expose some subject on ADOX CHS 100 Art, then I probably would expose it also on ADOX Pan 25, ADOX CHS 25 Art or ADOX CHS 50 Art. Or HP5+ / Neopan Acros 100 if I happens to have some expensive film with me.

Taking a backup shot is always commonly used by LF photographers, so even when I use high priced brand films, I make backup exposure.


As the lack of quality control of Efke (and thus at least Adox CHS -serie films), it seems that there really is no such thing than quality control. I have encountered ir820 film witch has small particles on emulsion. Whole batch number is unusable.
I have encountered a lot of negatives which is not cut very precisely. The size of negative might be too big, so it's sometimes hard to load in to the film back. Or sometimes it's too small giving free movement for the negative.

That's bad, because when negative is not aligment properly, you lost your composition and all work you did with bubble levels to get everything straight and aligment.

Example, this is Adox CHS 100 Art film, it had 2 degree tilt in the film back:
http://jukkavuokko.com/linkatut/lf/this-suxx.jpg

What can I do? I can rotate the picture (rotate the easel on the enlarger) so that picture itself is straight.

The I have to crop, and then I lose a big part of picture. Sometimes really essential objects...
http://jukkavuokko.com/linkatut/lf/this-suxx2.jpg


Then the problems with missplaced code notches or missing notches... But luckily I haven't encountered such batch (yet).


Regardless of all that I wrote, I still like these films. They give really nice tones and when using staining developer, the films stains very strongly. The staining and tanning developer is good choice because it tans. Otherwise it's recommended to use hardener with these old emulsion films.

Also the orthopan nature of CHS 25 Art and CHS 50 Art is nice.


One more thing that I hate with these films is almost total lack of documentation. No technical specifications (other than short text in germany, only partially translated to the english). Where's the good data sheets?
The Efke ir820 film has a good data sheet, but it comes from Maco..

I would also add the lack of customer support. You can find a email address to the fotokemika (the manufactor of efke) and even kind a form which you can use to post something. But you will never get any response.

If I only could get similar films from some better manufactor, I would dump these films and switch to it...

[mcfactor]

I agree with you about Efke, but have you had problems with Adox Pan 25 as well? Their quality control seems much better than Efke's

[jvuokko]

I agree with you about Efke, but have you had problems with Adox Pan 25 as well? Their quality control seems much better than Efke's


With Adox Pan 25 - no problems.

[IanG]

I agree with you about Efke, but have you had problems with Adox Pan 25 as well? Their quality control seems much better than Efke's

As they are the same film quality should be similar.

There was a problem when Agfa ceased production & Ilford went into Administration, Kodak having already pulled out of B&W paper with no notice.

At that point EFKE QC seemed to almost disappear mainly affecting product sold via J&C, but Fotoimpex then imposed a higher level of QC to improve the quality of the EFKE films sold under their Adox brand name.

But it's the same film.

Ian

[mcfactor]

No, as stated earlier, they are not the same film. Adox 25 chs is the same film as Efke 25.

Adox Pan 25, on the other hand, is the same film as Rollei Pan 25, which is made in Germany, not croatia.

[dh003i]

I just called up Freestyle regarding their policy on defective film, and they have a 30-day return policy, so even if the film is used and you find it defective, you can return it.

Freestyle No Risk Guarantee (http://www.freestylephoto.biz/c_norisk.php)

I presume you'd have to pay for shipping back, though. And you'd have to use the film within he first 30 days.

[jvuokko]

With Adox Pan 25 - no problems.


That was said a bit too early :rolleyes:

I found defective Adox Pan 25 package of 4x5 sheets. Each sheet has banding problem, according to Adox it is most likely caused by vibration on the coating phase - so now I have sent box to Adox with my sample negatives and waiting for compensation.

The good news is that the factory where that batch was coated is no longer used by Adox, so problem should not be exist any more.