Niall
I have seen on this board talk about Efke, and ados films as being 'OLD
What's the difference between the old and new film s and their emulsions!!
Niall
MirkoBoeddecker
Niall,
this is a "dangerous" question you posted here :angry:
We have seen many posts on this and people seem to be either on the one or on the other side.
There are some people out in the forums who will tell you that everyone shooting an old style emulsion is a stupid fool because technology advances and all modern films are better than old films like modern cars are better than old cars. I think that many old cars look besser than modern cars and that the same applies to some films (this really isn’t intended to be a scientific statement :) ).
Those people will also tell you that if the resolution @ a contrast of 1:1000 of lines per millimeter is higher it automatically must be a sharper, better and finer grained film.
As we all know the parameter for grain is RMS granularity and not lines per millimeter and sharpness is also a different story.
These people will not listen to this and keep on repeating modern=good; old style=bad and lines per millimeter is the absolute criteria.
So be prepared I am expecting these posts right below this one.....
The difference which no one can deny is that photos taken with an old style emulsion look differently than those taken with a more modern emulsion.
For many people this is already enough. They like the look of an older emulsion and the "natural" grain (as opposed to T or delta grain) and thus prefer these films.
The real difference is probably the question what was on the engineer's mind when he made this film.
As for the old style emulsions like our efke/ADOX films the mixture of the emulsion came from roll and sheetfilm technology. As grain was not an issue on these large format films the top aim of the emulsionist was to make a film with wide exposure latitude, good shadow detail differentiation, excellent grey scales and natural conversion from colours into grey.
Coming from this they also tried to make the films sharper as more people started to use 35mm leica cameras in the 40ies and 50ies.
The most advanced product of this category is the efke/ADOX film first introduced in the early 50ies of the 20th century. It is based on old emulsion technologies incorporating high silver content, coated in only one layer (single layer) and with not a higher speed than 100.
The slow speed films were sold to people looking for fine grain making highly enlarged prints, the "high speed" films like the 100 for sports photography and people shooting moved objects (back then 100 was considered high speed).
The films are very sharp (single layer) and have superb grey tonalities and an excellent expansion and exposure latitude (comparing 25 with 25, 50 with 50 and 100 with 100 etc.- don’t compare 25 with 400 as higher speed films always have a better exposure latitude than slow speed films).
But with 35mm becoming more and more popular film factories had to focus more and more on this clientele. Large format and 120 became a side market and thus all modern films are first of all 35mm films which are also produced on roll and sheetfilm bases.
The main difference is that these films are first of all higher in speed and relatively finer in grain because the small 35mm format needs fine grained material.
All other photographic properties of the films were more or less neglected and "fell" somewhere. Most important was fine grain and more than 100 ASA speed.
In order to achieve this the films were given a second or even third layer (Delta 3200 has even four layers!), pre-exposed capsulated silver grains of different sizes and in the 80ies even tabular crystals (Tmax and Delta) all mixed in hetero dispersed emulsion layers of different types.
And in fact these films are very fine grained and achieve up to EV 1600. The 400 Delta can even be as fine grained as the efke 100.
So if you really need 400 ASA or more and don’t like grain and want to enlarge your prints to over 8x10 " these films might be the perfect choice for you.
Disadvantages on the other side (slightly exaggerated to make clear what the differences are): Pictures are not really sharp because the tabular crystals are placed one on top of the other and blur light from one into the other also the second layer blurs on the coating edge from one to the other layer, shadow detail is hardly existent and the tonality is relatively flat.
So if you are more into tonality and want your images to be sharp and crisp you might want to try one of the old style emulsions and use R09, FX 39 or neofin blue (developers which go for sharpness and in return let the grain "fall" wherever it "falls" thus working totally different than modern fine grain developers and fine grain films).
If you feel the grain is too large go down in speed or go up in film format.
In case you shoot large format the choice is easy. Here are old style emulsions always much better than modern ones.
Something to be considered as well is that old technology material is easier to produce. We can make very small production runs in our partner factory on a profitable basis. High tech films like Delta or Tmax need to be produced in large quantities. So with the b/w market becoming less of a professional and more of an artist market these old style films might be even more "modern" than newer ones because they could be the only ones available in the coming years.
Sort of "Back to the roots" like.
Modern films are also highly stabilized. With such a film you get very repeating results (on the other side you lose space for taking influence by changing the developer or trying alternative processes). The films are hardened and the emulsion sticks very well to the film base. Old emulsion techniques do not allow the film to be hardened as much. Thus you need to be more careful in processing it. But this is not a problem it is just something you need to consider while working in the lab.
Cheers from Berlin,
Mirko
Niall
Thanx for your answer! What does an OLD type film print look like?
And with regards a past thread on the demise of B&W Etc., it is sad to see that ILFORD are selling up in the UK, there's no buyer as yet!
Niall
MirkoBoeddecker
Niall,
you need to see the difference. Obviously the difference is in the negative and not on the print so only parameters that are affected by film behaviour can be seen (e.g. not the tone of the paper etc. sometimes people mix this and think a sepia toned picture must have been taken on an old style film ;-)
Usually what you can see is that the shaddows have rhicher details and the oveall tonal range expands more thus making the images more like the reality. You can see better if surfaces have been wet or dry and all the textures become more alive.
Other hand: if you keep shooting the same film format: more grain.
You need to test this for yourself. As I said before for some people a modern film is the best choice and for others not.
Everyone has to make up his mind and the best way is to simply try a roll and then stick to it or not.
Ilford: They announced yesterday that all b&w products will be stopped.
This does not surprise me as the situation was devastating over the past years.
These huge factories were living on third world export markets of countires which were sofar behind that b&w actually still was a mass market product.
With these countries moving rapidly towards digital the big plants will have to be shut down.
These markets only I expect to be over 20x bigger than the whole worlds artists photographers demand together.
I saw a nice thread on apug.org where people asked agfa to start selling APX sheetfilm again. 100 photographers or so signed it of the total of 2500 APUG members.
Nice try but far away from reality.
Regards,
Mirko
Niall
Hi,
Where did you see the announcement that Ilford were stopping B&W Stuff!
Niall
skahde
Niall,
you really need to see the difference. The proof is in the pudding. To make a valid Vergleich zwischen verschiedenen Filmen you have to expose them for their real speed and develop them to the right contrast. Overdevelopment and underexposure is the easiest way to ruin any film.
As an aside with respect to one film being better than the other there is hardly a film more kontrovers als than Kodaks TMAX 400. Use it outdoors, soup it in a higher concentration of HC110 and you'll hate it too. At least I did. But use it indoors for portraits, developed in XTOL 1+1 or lowly D76 1+1 and you will ask yourself what this talk about plasticy midtones is about. Look here:
http://www.heylloyd.com/photos1/photos1.htm. Or use it with a staining/tanning developer like PMK, Moersch Tanol or Pyrocat-HD and TMY - to my own surprise - shines even under outdoor conditions. Its more a matter of "how" than of "what" which makes me optimistisch that we may still do fine in the not too far future when our choices of materials get more and more limited.
There is one difference, though, between "old" and "new" that hasn't been mentioned yet: spectral sensitivity. The sensitivity of most "old" emulsions ends earlier towards the red end of the spectrum and no kind of filtering will compensate for that. Such films inevitably look different and you may or may not like this kind of difference.
BTW. Mirko: can you name the source for the statement that Ilford has decided to shut down production of B&W products? I have yet to decide what to put on my next order!
best
Stefan
MirkoBoeddecker
Niall, Stefan,
some things are for sure and some aren’t with respect to Ilford.
For sure is:
1) Ilford separated their digital from their analogue business
2) The analogue section went bankrupt on Friday last week.
Not for sure is if the b/w production will really stop.
Even though this was communicated by Ilford employees I think the last decision will be made by the new management and one week is too short to make a definite decision on such an important aspect.
We will see what happens. If they are able to lay off workers under bankruptcy protection without social plans they might be able to continue.
If they have to pay off the workers with social plans that will be it for Ilford.
It is like this in our semi-sozialistischen europäischen Demokratien. In der zeitlichen Anpassung von Unternehmen an neue Marktsituationen ist gesetzlich unmöglich.
A market reduction of 25% per year will force any labour intensive company located in Europe into bankruptcy - even though technically it could survive because it is impossible to reduce costs at the same speed. You have to keep paying excess staff until they retire or you have to pay them 1,5 years of wages to compensate them. Where to take this from if you are already struggling to survive?
No bank will give you a credit for paying off excess staff as it makes no economical sense.
On the day where your debt to your employees and suppliers exceeds your capital you have to declare bankruptcy.
So this is more of a technical thing than really the end.
I suppose Ilford saw this bankruptcy as their last chance.
We wish them all the best. Hopefully some jobs and parts of the factory can survive.
We saw this coming so we have stocked HP5 and FP4 raw material for 35mm and 120 for at least a two years supply.
So in case there will be some months without deliveries we can constantly supply film.
Unfortunately things developed much faster than we thought so it will take us a few weeks as well to have the first ready made films available.
Mirko
Niall
I understand the economics of your argument!
But, what your really saying is they have all but said,they are shutting
down the B&W!
Right! No one actually said it!
Niall
cfb_de
Hi Mirko,
Ilford is "under administration". That's completely different from bankruptcy. It corresponds to German "Verwaltungsvorstand", meaning that a venture capital group tries to get the most out of its investment and has decided about "take it or leave it".
So, I do not see any need for panics. They'll be re-structured, some people get fired, but we will be able to buy Ilford stuff for the next some years. Hopefully.
Otherways: Foma is on market, Agfa will stay on market, Efke (ooh, don't they stop my favourite R50?) will stay on market. Even those Maco or Lucky stuff will be sold tomorrow, too. Nevertheless, I won't buy it.
Do you have any information regarding this so-called deutsche Firma producing this announced Rollei R3? Actually, I have some difficulties in believing Ilford-basierte Emulsionen being produced in Deutschland.
Best regards,
Franz
Gast
Franz,
who said that R3 uses "Ilford-bases" emulsions?
Ferdinand
MirkoBoeddecker
Franz,
it is not quite like this. Technically after the withdrawal of a big investor Ilford is insolvent. This is why they had to go into "administration" (they cannot pay out this months wages anymore). Now if there is no new venture capitalist or investor coming who immediately shoots in money to cover outstanding wages the workes will most likely not appear in the factory on the morning of Sept. 1st. These informations were not delivered to me with the stamp of a notary on but they seem highly trustworthy as they come directly from inside the factory.
We expect at least some interruption in suplly for the coming months and thus we stocked up this raw material.
As far as I am informed the R3 is not based on an ilford emulsion. I believe it is rather derivated from a technical (scientific) film because it is made in such a specialist small factory which is dedicated to these things. But I do not know this for sure. I am just guessing like everyone else.
It is announced as the great innovation of the decade but we all need to see and test it first before we can make any comment.
Mirko
Niall
I think we can expect the worst about Ilford, whic is a pity,
just when I was getting to enjoy developing and printing!
Ferdinand, I think I heard that AGFA are pulling out of B&W altogether!
Fuji are expected to do some restructuring too, so , maybe an announcement from them soon,too!
Niall
Niall
I'm not sure I understand your answer fully,first you say don't panic then you say if ILFORD don't continue then we have a problem!!
Any way, they have made 330 or so redundant out of I think 740
workforce!
Niall
MirkoBoeddecker
Niall,
as I and Franz said before: there is no need to panic and especially no need to stop B/W printing!
WE have to see what happens @ Ilford. I don’t know how many coating lines they have.
If they have a small one and a big one they can get rid of the big one and continue on the small one.
This market will survive yet not as a mass market for which these huge plants were built.
It is not even so much a matter of wages it is more a matter of property value.
Did you read in this one newspaper how big the Ilford factory is?
I forgot but it was HUGE.
Take this times the property value in England and you see why the owners think about shutting it down.
Technically they can survive everywhere but if they only have one large coating alley standing on valuable ground this is what the owners look at.
Flatten it and sell it with profit or keep it and see no revenue for years.
The demand is as it is and cannot be increased anymore ever again.
So it is all a question of adapting to the new environment.
BTW I want to make clear here that our other partners - even though they could theoretically profit by taking some shares of Ilford’s market - not necessarily profit overall and thus I am NOT HAPPY about the situation.
If the biggest buyer for B/W paper base and raw materials disappears this will have a major impact on the availability of raw materials and prices for these.
ILFORD has the world’s best retail channels together with Kodak. There is no way we can put Foma or efke Films in any gas station in the US & England.
Most of this market will simply be lost with not so dedicated spontaneous buyers who at least still got some Ilford film locally being unable to buy it at their local store.
This would have happened slowly over the coming years but a jump is always worse.
So we all hope that Ilford can continue. We need them for the high quality high price segment as a supplier. Without them our turnover will be affected in a negative way.
Mirko
MirkoBoeddecker
Niall,
that’s true. About 350 people.
But I did not say we have a problem if Ilford does not continue. I just said it would be better if they do- but if not we will work things out around this situation.
What I wanted to make clear is that if they do not continue it is worse than if they do but this will not be forcing you to stop using your darkroom or B/W.
Mirko
cfb_de
Mirko,
I do agree with you completely. And, as I said, Ilford will go on. They are "under administration" and will keep on doing their business. No bankruptcy.
Their venture capitalist wanted his return-on-investment and didn't got it. So, he decided to install a business administrator. Same as it works in Germany. The company shrinks down to "dogs" and "cash cows" and will survive. Investments will get depreciated. That's life. Sorry for the employees.
We shall not compare Kodak's strange business plans with Ilford. Kodak does suicide (selling films and closing labs suitable for digital processing the same time), Ilford has to manage business problems.
Kodak plans have been solved here: My photographer in my hometown just bought a Frontier from Fuji. They do 130 films a day. Since they started with that business I use C41 again and get very good prints from there. Even Ilford-XP2 gets printed in real BW by them. (Well, I do it better in my darkroom, but it takes much more time.)
At the moment I do not see any facts for stopping darkroom work. Ilford is alive, Agfa is alive, Foma/Efke will take profit.
(Please keep Efke from stopping my favourite R50! The only thing I buy from them.)
Just my five cents.
Franz
p.s.: @Niall: I got your mails. But I haven't had the time to answer. Will do it in the next days.
MKL
Insolvency - bankruptcy - under administration
These terms should not be mixed up. In case of Ilford the 40 Mio Pounds of debits have no more been secured by the main shareholders. This is why Ilford had to file for insolvency. As a result they have been put under administration of the accountancy firm Grant Thornton. G.T. will try to reorganize Ilford and first split it into two businesses - digital and analog. The analog division has already been reduced to about half their staff, which is one of the corrections in cost structure G.T. is executing in order to make the remaining organization more attractive for potential buyers.
In clear text this means that G.T. is deciding which business will remain active (in this case the digital unit) and which business is facing a possible shut down or sale (in this case analog). The future of the B&W products depends on whether a buyer will be found or not. Ilford took the risk to let it die!
Bankruptcy would mean that there is no chance to keep it running in any circumstances.
We all hope that Ilford will continue it's B&W product line, but it clearly depends on whether a new buyer will be found or not. Even the management of Ilford has no more influence on that except the possibility of offering a management buy-out like it happened with Agfa Imaging.
Michael
