Developing Rollei RPX

Lauffray

Lauffray

Invisible Cities
Local time
7:26 AM
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
1,449
I got a few rolls of this film to try out (400ISO in 135) but a colleague warned me that it's a little finicky to develop and that people have a hard time getting consistent results with it. Oh and that it was very grainy. I'm wondering if there's any truth to this reputation ?

I usually shoot HP5+@800 and develop in Microphen and I've gotten beautiful results with that. Has anyone tried the Microphen+RPX combo ?


Anyway, I'd like to hear about any experience you have with it
 
RPX400 at 400 ,Microphen 1+1, 11min. at 20C.
Not very grainy.
A better developer is Adox A49. I can push the film at 1600 ISO.
Yours ,
Corneliu
 

Attachments

  • RPX+-Microphen.jpg
    RPX+-Microphen.jpg
    29.4 KB · Views: 0
tarasi said:
RPX400 at 400 ,Microphen 1+1, 11min. at 20C.
Not very grainy.
A better developer is Adox A49. I can push the film at 1600 ISO.
Yours ,
Corneliu
Click to expand...

Awesome ! So in your experience RPX has given consistent results over time ?
 
The best push results you will get with the RPX-D developer which is especially made for this film by SPUR. E.I.800 or E.I.1600 is going very well. RPX-100/400 films are made by Ilford.
 
I've been developing RPX400 in Tmax 1+4 and despite this being my very first, clumsy experience with development the results have been both usable and consistent.
 
Nobody knows for sure, but yes it's made by harman, and i don't think Rollei are making any emulsions if i'm right. I have used some of it, but in 6 x 6 , so i can't comment on grain. Developed in Kodak Hc-110 with times on the pack. Came out fine. It has more contrast than Hp5 and Tri-x, at least comparing to negs made with the other two. But if you expose it right, has really rich blacks.

P.S don't listen other people observations about any film, let alone RPX and so on. Everyone has different techniques, cameras, developers, scanning, printing whatever method. Try it and will see for you :)
 
The Rollei FILM brand is owned by Maco photo products in Hamburg-Stapelfeld.
So RPX is first class film. Their Retro(S) series S stands for Synthetic is coming from Agfa Gevaert in Belgium but these are aviation type emulsions with extended RED (in fact IR) sensitivity. Pretty contrastly films but extremely sharp! Rollei Retro 80(S) and Retro 400(S), resp. iso 50-80 and iso 160-200 in real sensitivity. Also first class emulsion but you have to use a semi-compensating or lower contrast film developer for it.

Nothing new about putting an emulsion in a known brand: The new Agfa Photo APX-100/400 (NEW) is owned by LUPUS and inside the cassette: Kentmere 100/400 from Harman/Ilford.

The Adox brand, now owned by Fotoimpex, they do all the same. In the past their Adox CHS 25-50-100, 100% Efke/Fotokemika compatible.
 
yes,it gave me consistent results with Microphen(Iso 400 and 800),Atomal A49 (400,800 and 1600) and Ilford LC29(400 and 800).
It is a low contrast film.
The push results with RPX-D developer were grainy and flat.

yours,
Corneliu
 
The push results with RPX-D developer were grainy and flat.
Click to expand...

Something must went wrong then.

RPX-400 in a general semi-compensating developer like Supergrain (Rollei) is already giving full iso 400. Supergrain is in fact an Amaloco AM74 developer copy. Rollei-Maco had this developer under OEM for over 25 years till the Dutch Amaloco company closed in 2008 in the Netherlands their factory.

RPX-D is especially made for this film to reach without to many problems iso 1600 but you have to notice the higher temperature, necessary for this high speed development.

Comparing RPX-400 with HP5+ gives more contrast for the RPX film. However a lot of parameters are involved and for an independent measuring result you will need a densitometer to compare them.
 
Wow thanks for all the detailed info !

Some more contrast and grain doesn't bother me, I'm looking for nice detail across the tonal range (especially highlights) and results that are repeatable with the same development formula
 
I've only tried the 4x5 so I can't comment on the grain, but I think they come out a bit thin on the recommended times for XTOL 1+1.
 
RPX400 sheet film vs. roll film / 35mm

RPX400 sheet film vs. roll film / 35mm

Is anyone familiar with the differences between the sheet film and 135/120 variant of the film? I have used it with success in 35mm and bought a pack of sheet film (4x5), but found to my surprise that the development times quoted on the box are quite long, 18 minutes for Xtol 1+1, as compared to only 12 minutes for 135/120. I am wondering if the sheet film is indeed the same emulsion as the smaller formats or a different product just branded the same?
 
I tried some roll of RPX 400 (135) under different lighting condition in D76 (specs from that massive dev chart site), normal and pushed in 800, 1600. Dint like it at all, far too much grain for me.

At the end I stock up RPX 100 and push if I need the speed, much less grain for my taste. again, I only have D76 and personally not too much into taste for grain that RPX400 + D76 produce.

In term of consistency like you ask, it seems to be very consistent after all, at lease I did not see any random swing in those rolls I have been developed.
 
I find it curious to read statements that RPX 400 should be particularly grainy. While I haven't tried it in D76, in Xtol it is rather less grainy than HP 5 in my experience. Xtol is the only developer where I can directly compare the two films.

I did get nice results from RPX 400 in Xtol, Emofin, and Spur SD 2525 and Acurol-N (rate at 200 for the last two); I absolutely hated RPX-D: sharp, but way too grainy.

The perceived inconsistency might come from the fact that Rollei swapped emulsions at some point, but now they seem to have switched back to the original RPX 400 emulsion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom