Efke 400 Update
August 5th, 2007
Hexar RF, XM Biogon 35, Efke 400 @ 250, Tmax Dev
Efke 400 Pulled to 250
In my continuing investigations of Efke 400, I shot a couple of rolls at 250 and developed them in Tmax Developer diluted 1+5 at 70 degrees for 5 minutes with 10 seconds agitation every minute. This seems about right for the film speed, but I was kind of surprised to see very little difference in either grain or tonality from shooting at the box speed. There’s nothing wrong with Efke 400 rated at 250, but at least in Tmax Developer, there doesn’t seem to be anything gained from the loss of speed.
Hexar RF, ZM Biogon 35, Efke 400 @ 250, Tmax Dev
Ekfe 400 Grain Pecularities
One of the things I’ve noticed about Efke 400 is the interesting grain structure. It isn’t that Efke 400 is particularly grainy, but the structure of the grain is kind of unique. Notice in both of the posted pictures that the evident grain isn’t limited to little white speckly bits. There’s some black in there too. HP5, which has a similar amount of grain, shows its grain mostly as little white bits. I’m not sure what that means, but after only a few rolls, I feel like I can already distinguish an Efke shot from something shot on another film quite easily, something which isn’t entirely possible with other 400 speed films. This would seem to make Efke a good choice for someone wanting a unique look.
Unrelated Optical Note
I didn’t expect the shot of the spiderweb to amount to much, but the Biogon’s excellent flare control allowed it to capture a really difficult subject. I’m always impressed by this lens.
August 5th, 2007
Hi Matt, I’m glad your chair phase is over for now :-).
About your last shots: I’m a bit disappointed to see a less than superb tonality from these (developed and spotted with self sacrifice) negs.
In particular, the portrait makes me note an ugly looking shadow area in the interior part of the hat. The tonality sort of “falls apart there” instead of giving a pleasant gradual dark tone.
This is something I got used to seeing in my XP2 shots, and I kind of have accepted it as a price to pay for the C41 convenience, but I think it shouldn’t happen with “real” film.
Overall, both shots look a little too light to me, what do you think ?
August 5th, 2007
I don’t know that they are too light, but I agree that the tonality is not entirely what I would like. Falling apart is a good way to put it, as it does seem to fall apart in the shadows, while the midtones look kind of muddy. Unless somebody with more experience with Efke can show me the error of my ways, I’m inclined to think that this is what Efke looks like, at least when developed in Tmax. Perhaps another developer would work better, but no amount of photoshop work seems to improve it.
I’ve got two more rolls of Efke waiting for the soup, but after that, I doubt that I will order more. It is an interesting look, but I don’t think it’s what I’m after.
September 15th, 2007
Matt,
Efke 400 is nothing more than re-labeled Ilford HP5+. Tmax developer has mever been a particularly good developer with traditional ISO400 emulsions like Tri-X or HP5+.
By reputation at least, Kodak HC-110 and its Ilford analog, along with Ilford DD-X are considered the best-suited developers for this film.
September 16th, 2007
Al,
I’ve heard the same thing, and I’d buy it if I hadn’t souped so much HP5 in Tmax, which is bit grainier than I’d like, but has much better shadow detail than Efke exposed and souped the same way. The two look similar, but not identical.
I’ve not found anything wrong with Tmax developer, but I tend to use it hot (75 degrees) and at a dilution of 1+5. It’s a very active developer, though, so you have to keep your eye on the clock.
I’m saving my last two rolls of Efke for the next time I mix up a batch of xtol. I’ll be curious to see if there’s any improvement there.