Jaans
Well-known
I recently used Rollei retro 400s and Rollei Ortho 25. I develped the retro in rodinal 1:50 as per Rollei times (I had a feeling they looked too long on the datasheet) and the negs were way too overdeveloped. I then cut back by 5 minutes and the times then were also too long. I wonder if they did adequate testing with Rodinal for this film? The initial 19 minutes seems awfully long. For a scene with a large disparity in zones, then be prepared for cooked skies.
I then souped one roll of Ortho 25 in Rodinal 1:50 for 6 minutes and they looked okay - however the highlights burnt out very quickly again. I then changed the dilution down to 1:100 and developed it for 17 minutes then 16 minutes (I cut this film in half). The latter one came out nicely.
So, forgetting their contentious marketing tactics for one second, I think a very important consideration that needs to be taken into account is how the film handles. I found both films very flimsy in loading onto my Jobo reels. Sometimes when I am processing a batch I cannot get my reels 100% dry before I load then next ones (I know I wouldn't have this problem with stainless steel reels - but I am comfortable with Jobo for 10 odd years). This Rollei film received a few pinch/buckle marks as it wouldn't load easily.
The only other film that I tend to have the same problem in this regard is Neopan 400 - it seems to have less density or is less robust than TRI-X or especially HP5. I NEVER have this problem with either of these two films, even with a little dampness they will load.
Another problem is that they curl up significantly, even when I had weights hanging off them to stretch them up. TRI-X, HP5 and Neopan never do this. It is really no contest in this regard.
So, I won't use the Rollei 400 films again for these three above reasons. If it handled well, was more robust and had more conclusive data surrounding it then I would consider using it again. However, the questionable sales tactics don't concern me - hey its a jungle out there in the competitive market environment. But usability does affect my next sales choice.
Having said that, I would be tempted to use the slower 25 Ortho film if I needed a slow ortho film.
I then souped one roll of Ortho 25 in Rodinal 1:50 for 6 minutes and they looked okay - however the highlights burnt out very quickly again. I then changed the dilution down to 1:100 and developed it for 17 minutes then 16 minutes (I cut this film in half). The latter one came out nicely.
So, forgetting their contentious marketing tactics for one second, I think a very important consideration that needs to be taken into account is how the film handles. I found both films very flimsy in loading onto my Jobo reels. Sometimes when I am processing a batch I cannot get my reels 100% dry before I load then next ones (I know I wouldn't have this problem with stainless steel reels - but I am comfortable with Jobo for 10 odd years). This Rollei film received a few pinch/buckle marks as it wouldn't load easily.
The only other film that I tend to have the same problem in this regard is Neopan 400 - it seems to have less density or is less robust than TRI-X or especially HP5. I NEVER have this problem with either of these two films, even with a little dampness they will load.
Another problem is that they curl up significantly, even when I had weights hanging off them to stretch them up. TRI-X, HP5 and Neopan never do this. It is really no contest in this regard.
So, I won't use the Rollei 400 films again for these three above reasons. If it handled well, was more robust and had more conclusive data surrounding it then I would consider using it again. However, the questionable sales tactics don't concern me - hey its a jungle out there in the competitive market environment. But usability does affect my next sales choice.
Having said that, I would be tempted to use the slower 25 Ortho film if I needed a slow ortho film.
