Efke 100 & Rodinal...Problems

[Mark_Se]

I shot some Efke 100 and I developed it in Agfa Rodinal. I have to say that my negatives does not look good. I exposed Efke 100 @ 50 and developed it in Rodinal for 11minutes 1:50. I agitated for the first 60 seconds. Then I agitated 2 times per minute for 10 minutes.
sorry for my bad english...


http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/cw3i-j-jpg-nb.html
http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/cw3i-i-jpg-nb.html

How do you develope Efke 100?

[Jim Noel]

They appear under-exposed. Set up the camera and make exposures of the same subject at EI 50, 25, and 12. This is a quick way to determine your personal speed with this combination.

[Mark_Se]

...i`ll try that. Really strange that fotoimpex (efke) says that you shouldn`t overexpose efke films.

[IanG]

EFKE have always said don't over expose these films and the ISO rating is actually for Artificial light they are faster in Daylight.

A UK company sold these films re-labeled as their house films and they were Jessops 50, 100 & 200. The Jessops 200 being EFKE KB21(DIN name)/KB100 ASA

http://lostlabours.co.uk/Uploads/adox-Efke.jpg

You probably have under exposed but I'd look at the metering & processing as well, I shoot the Adox/EFKE 25 at 50 EI so would be extremely surprised if you needed to down-rate the Adox 100.

Ian

[Mark_Se]

hmm, is it possible that the negs are correct exposed but under deveoped?
(I exposed at asa 50)
http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/cw3i-j-jpg-nb.html
http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/cw3i-i-jpg-nb.html

[Wallace_Billingham]

...i`ll try that. Really strange that fotoimpex (efke) says that you shouldn`t overexpose efke films.

I have always over exposed Efke films and find that it handles over exposure much better than under.

[Mark_Se]

I have always over exposed Efke films and find that it handles over exposure much better than under.

thanks, but i already overexposed for 1 full stop. I`ll try 2 stops....

[W K Longcor]

Looking at the scans, I see some detail in the shadow areas. Therefore, the would NOT be under exposed. They do had a "gray", low contrast look in addition to being thin. That says bad development to me.

[al olson]

I have found that the image on Efke 820 IR film always looks thin, but prints well, unless it is really, really thin.

There is also a residual blue-gray to the base. What do your prints look like?

[J. Patric Dahlen]

The first looks both underexposed and underdeveloped.

The second (indoor) looks underdeveloped.

Measure the light better (a grey card is a good help). Extend the developing time by 30%, with the same dilution, temperature and agitation.

[Flexnib]

I would say that 11 minutes is actually overdeveloped and not under. If Efke at 100 w/rodinal 1:50 is 11 minutes then shot at iso 50 the time should be shortened by 20-30%. Giving times of 8:45 and 7:45

[EdWorkman]

try some outdoor exposures in sun between 10 am and 3 pm and check your EI by the "sunny 16" rule compared to your meter. If you bracket one stop each way from the advertised and don't get printable negs, and assuming fresh enough film, it's developement.

[al olson]

The first looks both underexposed and underdeveloped.

The second (indoor) looks underdeveloped.

Measure the light better (a grey card is a good help). Extend the developing time by 30%, with the same dilution, temperature and agitation.

I think you are speaking to his negative scans. I was making reference to prints.

My experience with Efke is that the negatives always seem to look thin ... and they seem to scan that way as well. However, they usually print photographically with depth and good contrast despite their appearance. Hence I suggest looking at the results of non-digital prints.

I think either print would be fine at a grad 2 1/2. The grayish base is very deceptive.

[J. Patric Dahlen]

I think you are speaking to his negative scans. I was making reference to prints.

My experience with Efke is that the negatives always seem to look thin ... and they seem to scan that way as well. However, they usually print photographically with depth and good contrast despite their appearance. Hence I suggest looking at the results of non-digital prints.

I think either print would be fine at a grad 2 1/2. The grayish base is very deceptive.

A good thing with Efke 100 is that it is very tolerant and handles exposure errors quite well. More so than Agfa APX 100, for example. That makes the negs somewhat difficult to evaluate. But they should print well, as long as there are detail.