Graflex.org

[mfrissen]

Does anyone have any experiences with the gigabitfilm (http://www.gigabitfilm.de)
It's on the market for a while, but I've never seen any good samples showing of the presumably high resolution of this film.

Is it worth for 4x5 anyway?

[Nick]

I haven't but I seriously doubt it's worth it for 4x5. At normal 4x5 F/stops you can't get the high resolution claimed by them. You'll be hard pressed at smaller F/stops to even get close to what normal film provides. IIRC it's supposed to be an Agfa copy film? Something like that. It might be worth the effort for smaller then 35mm but I'm not even sure it makes sense for 35mm. Unless you're taking pictures of test targets resolution is pretty low on the list of issues for me.

You might want to look at the lens tests here:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

No matter what the film claims you won't get more then the lens can provide.

[t.r.sanford]

Does the stuff come in 4x5? The website is unhelpful, but suggests that the comparisons show that this film can produce images on 35mm. film equal in sharpness to those routinely produced on 4x5.

I remember that claim being made in the photo magazines four and a half decades ago, for thin-emulsion materials like Adox "KB-14" and Perutz "Pergrano-14" processed in developers like FR "X-22" (or Agfa "Rodinal," by the stout-hearted) to produce images possessing what the boffins called "high acutance."

As a teenager, I had as much fun as a very limited budget allowed in experimenting with all this. The results were very good -- but not anything like the quality of a well-made 4x5 negative. Sharpness is one thing; tonal scale is another.

At the time, the argument was valid: developers that would minimize grain in large-format negatives (like the old Kodak "Microdol") were suboptimal for miniature films because of their effect on the boundaries between densities. What this meant was that 35mm. film needed to be developed differently from 4x5 film -- not that doing so would produce equal results!

A while back, you could get a special developer for Kodak's "Technical Pan" that yielded continuous-tone negatives of extremely fine grain. This may still be available. If it is, it probably would produce results as good as the German material, and would be easier to come by (and probably cheaper), if one wished to horse around with grainless images.

[Nick]

I think it's available in 4x5. They've changed the website. All I can find is some german language stuff. I can't read german so it's a bit of an educated guess but "Gigabitfilm Planfilm 4 x 5 inch ISO 25" hopefully means 4x5 sheet film.

I think the film is supposed to come with it's own developer. I can't remember who if anybody was selling the stuff in North America.

[Dan Fromm]

[mfrissen]

thanks for the replies, I guess for 4x5 it is not really worth the effort/money then.

[R_J]

Here is an excerpt from their instructions for Gigabit film under "Psychological Risks".
(It does not seem that much care was taken in the translation from the original German):

<
The fad for sharpness (over and above tonal range) is one which I wonder if Gigabit marketed, more for 35mm film users, keen to milk the maximum resolution from their images. This particular film and some of its German counterparts, seem heavily marketed in Europe with more traditional photographic publications.

This is a film with distinction: it is the only one I am aware, which details a psychological risk with use. Although it is possible to attain some of the claims with Gigabit film, I suspect most users of this film would find the psychological risks hazardous.

The long-standing alternative, Kodak Tech Pan (also a 'finicky' film - 'pernickety' for those in the South) with double dilution Technidol and/or Maco Docufine LC (continuous tone) fine grained developers is a much easier to use than Gigabit, although there is still an experience curve required.

The thin negatives resulting from Gigabit also express more base fog which makes it even harder to attain detailed shadow tones, and I'd concur with TR in thinking that the line-copying accuracy of a film is less meaningful as a photographic tool, than the expression of a fuller tonal range.

For information only (and not necessarily a recommendation), there is a UK supplier for anyone interested in importing this film or other German films:

www[dot]retrophotographic[dot]com


Regards,

R_J

[R_J]

Apologies - the excerpt didn't display due to my use of speech marks. Here it is:

[Marketing studies had shown that testers with many practical experiences found their life's work totally worthless since they first tried Gigabit film with much enthusiasm, just because of the high quality. In all these cases unusual psychological reactions, from active amnesia to severe headaches, were recognized. This indication may serve tas an advise to all future Gigabit film users to approach trying the Gigabitfilm with all due care, and not to rush things, yet proceed with determination.]

From the Gigabit ISO 40/17 instruction leaftlet.

[t.r.sanford]

Very interesting; I wonder whether they've been sued for pain and suffering?

How about Efke "25"? Sounds like a real continuous-tone film, perhaps more or less along the lines of the lamented "Panatomic X."

[R_J]

TR -

I do like the old-fashioned Efke 25. It is one of the more underrated European films, and has a distinctive look based on its single layer emulsion and is a real continuous panorthochromatic film too. It's a very enjoyable film to experiment with, unlike some of its other European film relatives, which suffer from quality control issues of every description: shorter film leaders leading to less than 12 (6x6) exposures on a 120 roll film; missing chunks; cracks and floating emulsion on the film acetate and a loss of the anti-curl layer even with short development times.

[t.r.sanford]

Someone could do a real service for photographers in North America (and, I dare say, many other parts of the world) by explaining exactly how the old constellation of European sensitized-materials manufacturers -- Adox, Perutz, Gevaert, perhaps others -- evolved into the new constellation: Efke (sometimes Adox?), Orwo, Bergger, and so forth. We know about Agfa (which acquired Gevaert almost half a century ago, if I recall aright) and Ilford and Ferrania. But there is a lot of speculation, guesswork and contradictory opinion floating around with regard to the others.

I intuit that Efke "25" is something like the old Adox "R-14," a thin-emulsion fine-grain material. I used the 35mm. variant, "KB-14," in the late '50s, and I liked it very much for miniature camera work. I'm not sure that its virtues would be as apparent in 4x5 format, though I imagine with the right subject, careful exposure, and development in "Rodinal," you could get negatives capable of producing really striking prints.

In any event, it sounds a lot more promising than tweaking microfilm in an attempt to get printable middle tones and shadow detail.

Does anyone have a sense for which Efke or Bergger emulsion most closely resembles the old Kodak "Super XX" or Ansco "Versapan"?

[Nick]

IIRC

EFKE bought from Dupont the equipment and maybe the formulas for Adox.

Forte is an old Kodak plant that was nationalized after WWII and then I guess went private after the fall of communism.

Bergger doesn't make it's own film anymore. It's made by Forte. The question is the film labelled Bergger any different then the common Forte film? Some claim no some claim yes. Some claim any difference you see are sample variations from different batches.

No idea how Foma came about.

Svema is a Russian company.

You'd have to figure the various eastern block companies all had full access to any info from the old Kodak plant. OTOH that would have been 60 years ago.

[R_J]

Nick - this will please you: my last order for a batch of 5 boxes of Efke 5"x4" were all labelled ADOX

[glennfromwy]

J and C was carrying that Gigabit film. They have quit carrying it and the remainder is on closeout, for those interested. A quote from them: "we will stock Agfa Copex and Spur developer. It's the same thing". I may not have the words exactly correct but you can see the thread at APUG.

_________________
Glenn

"Wyoming - Where everybody is somebody else's weirdo"

[primus96]

I used to use a developer called Acutec, made by paterson. It gave good continuous tone negatives from EFKE KB14 (25) when rated at 50 ASA in daylight. This was at the expense of increased grain.
I rate the EFKE at 25 ASA and develope very carefully indeed. The PL25 is wonderful andI used my experience with this when developing the 35mm version. The secret being very little agitation, 1 gentle inversion of the tank per min.
Kodak Tech pan is a different kettle of fish. You have to make the developer yourself.
Look up "POTA". The developer is basically 5g Phenidone and 50g Anhydrous Sodium Sulphite dissolved in 800ml water. Shake untill powders dissolved and make up to 1L.
You can rate Tech Pan 35mm at up to 100ASA in daylight, which says something about how soft the developer is. I managed to get a contrasty, but usable image off Kodalith in this brew.
Dont know about 120 roll TP, never tried it. Why bother when EFKE R25 is available?