Asking for help: Rollei RPX 400 + Spur RPX-D developer, extremely grainy?

[bobby_novatron]

Hello all, I was wondering if anyone would be able to help with this issue.

Yesterday I developed a test roll of RPX 400. I had used it previously but wasn't 100% satisfied with the high level of grain that it showed.

I purchased a small 250mL bottle of RPX-D developer (a little pricey, I might add!) thinking that I could get the best results from the film. After all, they were supposed to be optimized for each other, right?

I followed the instructions on the bottle for ISO 400, and was very careful with agitation -- again, I followed the directions exactly.

This was the result:

This was taken with a Bessa R3A and Leica Summarit-M 35mm F2.5, Nikon 9000ED scan -- so it wasn't the equipment. I wasn't aiming for a "Lomo" effect but that's exactly what I got.

Can anyone tell me what is going on here? Is RPX naturally that grainy? If so, I can't see what the point would be in using it, unless a person is aiming for a coarse artistic effect.

Not only is it extremely grainy for 400 ISO, the rendering is 'soft' and the tonality is pretty blah.

I actually had much better success using RPX 400 in Caffenol C-L, but I thought the Rollei developer would be a better match!!!

I am very frustrated by this. If anyone has any input I'd be happy to listen. Thanks!

 

[haempe]

There's a little debate whether RPX400 = Kentmere 400 is, but in any case there is an affinity between the two.
I've used a lot of Kentmere400, so maybe my observations help.
I've never tried the RPX-D, but K400 is grainy in the most developers.
The best result in terms of grain I got was in D-76 derivates (in my case Adox MQ Borax).
Your motive is a challenge for a 400 ISO film.
But you're clearly right, it looks wrong...
Results like yours I got with overexposed negatives.
Coarse grain in the light areas and flat contrast.
The film is a diva, it seems to me there is a very tight latitude where the film delivers acceptable results.
But there are also some pros. The film pushes very well up to 3 stops without much increase of the grain.
I ended shooting the K400 at EI 800/1600 (developing in TMaxDev 1+4) and using something different for EI 400 (mainly Orwo N74+; also not fine-grained, but good-natured in terms of contrast).

K400@1600 in TMax1+4; 11min; 24°C

K400@400 in AdoxMQBorax; 12min; 20°C

 

[clayne]

This was taken with a Bessa R3A and Leica Summarit-M 35mm F2.5, Nikon 9000ED scan -- so it wasn't the equipment. I wasn't aiming for a "Lomo" effect but that's exactly what I got.

What's the negative look like? I bet it looks bullet-proof.

Grain can be affected by over-exposure. Also, read up on the solvent effect of sulfite in developer. If you have a low-sulfite developer, you're going to get different results than something like D-76. I don't have much experience with RPX-D developer. You *should* however validate standard results with D-76 1+1 before writing off any film.

Can anyone tell me what is going on here? Is RPX naturally that grainy? If so, I can't see what the point would be in using it, unless a person is aiming for a coarse artistic effect.

Not only is it extremely grainy for 400 ISO, the rendering is 'soft' and the tonality is pretty blah.

Consider the scene, as well - and like I said, I bet those negatives are bullet-proof. They look like they were hit hot with light and quite reactive to any kind of developer.

 

[bobby_novatron]

Thank you for the responses, I appreciate the input.

clayne -- you're right it was a very bright scene, almost pure white across the frame ... I also thought there might be an over-exposure problem.

haempe -- thank you for your examples regarding the Kentmere 400, it at least gives me hope that this film is still enjoyable to use.

I used some RPX 400 last year and had a lot of success with Caffenol C-L, the negatives had really nice tones and only moderate grain.

I still have that bottle of RPX-D developer. Maybe I'll try pushing some RPX 400 and see how that goes. Maco / Rollei seem to hint that RPX 400 has a hidden "talent" in that regard.

 

[Mablo]

We have a lot of snowy landscapes where I come from (sometimes I feel like we don't have anything else...) and I've used to snap photos of them. In my view Bobby's image looks underexposed by at least one stop. I'm not familiar with RPX-D developer but RPX400 and Kentmere 400 are both my everyday films. Both are really good films but they need a lot of light to really excel. In normal lighting conditions I expose both films at EI200 and for snowy landscapes I usually add one stop more light (EI 100). I've learned to use D-76 or Xtol undiluted or 1+1 with both films for the best results and avoid developers like Rodinal or HC-110.

Here is a shot I took with RPX400@200 using D-76 1+1. I should have given one more stop of light to really get white snow and open up shadows a bit more.

 

[haempe]

...
Both are really good films but they need a lot of light to really excel. In normal lighting conditions I expose both films at EI200 and for snowy landscapes I usually add one stop more light (EI 100). I've learned to use D-76 or Xtol undiluted or 1+1 with both films for the best results and avoid developers like Rodinal or HC-110.

Here is a shot I took with RPX400@200 using D-76 1+1. I should have given one more stop of light to really get white snow and open up shadows a bit more.
...

Mablo, is the complete contrary to my experience with this film... 😱

 

[kossi008]

Kentmere 400 / RPX 400 is a great film and not overly grainy (I'd say between Tri-X and HP5); I have tried Xtol, Spur SD2525, and Emofin so far ...
... and - yes - also RPX-D, because I was lured in by the marketing hype.

However, after seeing the horrible results at EI 400, which looked much like the original poster's, I did not even want to go into push-processing, and I gave my bottle of RPX-D away.

I am, however, still shooting Kentmere 400 as my standard fast film, if that tells you anything.

 

[valdas]

I develop RPX 400 in xtol (stock or 1+1) and I am happy about the level of grain, very acceptable, surely no more than HP5. I would say in your situation might be an exposure error (scenes with snow is always a difficult subject).

 

[bobby_novatron]

I feel like I'm very confused with this film ... before I give up I think I'll try another roll at different ISO ratings.

I actually like Mablo's results -- he's in Finland and shooting in similar conditions to me here in Canada ... I'm trying to get some shadow detail to differentiate the subject matter from the intense light reflected from the snow.

At least that's what I have to deal with right now. In 2 months I'll be dealing with green grass and blue skies, I hope!

 

[kossi008]

Just stay away from the RPX-D and you'll be fine. 😀

 

[ath]

This was taken with a Bessa R3A and Leica Summarit-M 35mm F2.5, Nikon 9000ED scan -- so it wasn't the equipment.

I'm not sure. My experience with my Nikon Coolscan V is that some b/w films show much more grain than others although printed optically there is not much difference. Some films are better suited for scanning than others and the Nikon scanners show it.

 

[haempe]

Ok, found one example for comparison:

This was around 3 stops overexposed. Similar flat contrast and coarse grain in the light areas.

 

[bobby_novatron]

haempe -- thank you for taking the time to post that picture for comparison.

I think it is just the nature of this film, it seems to have pronounced grain. In some situations this "feature" might be desirable, and ultimately it is dependent on personal taste, isn't it?

Personally I like the finer grain of 100 ISO films. But I am still going to try pushing the RPX 400 and use the Maco developer to see what happens.

Results will be coming soon!

 

[oscar.carlsson]

We have a lot of snowy landscapes where I come from (sometimes I feel like we don't have anything else...) and I've used to snap photos of them. In my view Bobby's image looks underexposed by at least one stop. I'm not familiar with RPX-D developer but RPX400 and Kentmere 400 are both my everyday films. Both are really good films but they need a lot of light to really excel. In normal lighting conditions I expose both films at EI200 and for snowy landscapes I usually add one stop more light (EI 100). I've learned to use D-76 or Xtol undiluted or 1+1 with both films for the best results and avoid developers like Rodinal or HC-110.

Here is a shot I took with RPX400@200 using D-76 1+1. I should have given one more stop of light to really get white snow and open up shadows a bit more.

Just out of curiosity, have you tried printing negatives exposed in such a way, on a normal grade or similar? At first I thought it was stupid to overexpose to such a degree but then realized that it's probably very wise (bringing the snow into workable values...).

My last personal EI-test with RPX400 and RPX-D (film souped as ISO800, I have another roll souped as ISO400) the film seemed to be around ISO250. Earlier tests with the same film but using HC-110 resulted in ISO200 but very flat and boring negatives, nearly unprintable in some cases. I'm thinking of throwing the RPX-D and go back to R09 as my standard, but it's hard to decide...