My experience with Rollei Retro 400S

[Peter_Jones]

Looking around the wonderful world of internet forums, blogs etc., it seems some people have had negative (pardon the pun) or mixed results from Rollei Retro 400S. Grain, red dyed base, speed issues (some say it's really 200 ASA) among the complaints.

I thought I'd have a go with it and try it for myself. This is not a scientific test - just my first experience with this film.

I used a couple of rolls of 120 in 2 different cameras. Shot both on an overcast day. Rated both at E.I. 400, developed both in RO9 (basically Rodinal) 1+25 for 11 mins @ 20C . I did not pre-soak. Constant agitation first 30 secs with the twiddle-stick, then 4x inversions per min.

Loading onto a Paterson-type spiral was easy and stress-free (no stoppages or kinks) and the film seems thinner than Ilford or Fuji for instance. The developer, when poured out, was the colour of red wine (I'm assuming this was the anti-halation layer) The negs seem to be of normal density, moderate contrast. There is no apparent curling, so I should be able to avoid Newton's rings. I don't know how this film has ended up with mixed reviews, but I'll certainly be buying it again.

I will see how well they scan later and post some results.

 

[larmarv916]

I have had good results with Rollei retro films. All though I try to develop them in a little cooler temps and it seems to give better grain. 68 F is really been better with mild agitation.

 

[dave lackey]

Looking around the wonderful world of internet forums, blogs etc., it seems some people have had negative (pardon the pun) or mixed results from Rollei Retro 400S. Grain, red dyed base, speed issues (some say it's really 200 ASA) among the complaints.

I thought I'd have a go with it and try it for myself. This is not a scientific test - just my first experience with this film.

I used a couple of rolls of 120 in 2 different cameras. Shot both on an overcast day. Rated both at E.I. 400, developed both in RO9 (basically Rodinal) 1+25 for 11 mins @ 20C . I did not pre-soak. Constant agitation first 30 secs with the twiddle-stick, then 4x inversions per min.

Loading onto a Paterson-type spiral was easy and stress-free (no stoppages or kinks) and the film seems thinner than Ilford or Fuji for instance. The developer, when poured out, was the colour of red wine (I'm assuming this was the anti-halation layer) The negs seem to be of normal density, moderate contrast. There is no apparent curling, so I should be able to avoid Newton's rings. I don't know how this film has ended up with mixed reviews, but I'll certainly be buying it again.

I will see how well they scan later and post some results.

Peter, I can't wait to see the results. Now that I am home again, I plan to use the Ciroflex a lot and having had good results with Rollei Retro 80s in 35mm it would be interesting to try out the Rollei Retro 400s.🙂

 

[robert blu]

Peter, I can't wait to see the results. Now that I am home again, I plan to use the Ciroflex a lot and having had good results with Rollei Retro 80s in 35mm it would be interesting to try out the Rollei Retro 400s.🙂

You really want me to take out my father's Rolleiflex and play a new game...
robert

 

[dave lackey]

You really want me to take out my father's Rolleiflex and play a new game...
robert

Absolutely!!!🙂

 

[Fotohuis]

Rollei Retro 400S is Agfa Gevaert Aviphot 200. The simmilar emulsion is sold under Superpan 200 and Universal 200. iso 200 film aviation type film: Sharp, less grain (especially the Retro 80S, iso 50 BTW) but a bit contrastly.
So the best result you will get with a semi-compensating, not too contrastly type developer.
R09/Rodinal 1+25 is then not too good. 1+100 should be OK.

I had good results with D74 1+15 or 1+20, but an E.I. 200 for N=0.

 

[Peter_Jones]

Here are a few from the Kiev 60 (all I think Zeiss Sonnar 180/2.8)

I didn't find it particularly easy to scan compared to Acros, for instance. I'll post some from the Rolleiflex when I regain some patience with the scanner 🙄

 

[Fotohuis]

Acros 100 is clear Tri-acetate. Rollei (S) series (Synthetic) is clear Polyester which curls more.

 

[Peter_Jones]

Acros 100 is clear Tri-acetate. Rollei (S) series (Synthetic) is clear Polyester which curls more.

Curiously I found the opposite in my experience - Acros always (for me) curls along its length, making handling/scanning fun.

The Retro 400S I have used has stayed flat while drying, and is easier to put in the scanner film holder. It seems more pliable than other films I have used.

Just dried off a 35mm roll, which behaves similarly to the 120 - nice and flat.

Much is made of the clear polyester base of the "Rollei" films, but the base of Acros is certainly just as clear, when all the pink has been washed out.

My scanner (Canon 8400F) doesn't seem to like it though, it struggles with some B&W films - I might try Vuescan and multiple scans and see how that copes.

 

[Peter_Jones]

Tried Vuescan, need to get used to it though.

Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar - Rollei Retro 400S in Rodinal

 

[Alpsman]

Like the RR400S too. Exposing it at 200 & agitate only two times instead of 4-times in Promicrol. Then I'll have more shadowdetails & negs are not so contrasty. Dryes totally flat. Use it especially for people &/or portrait as also for architecture.
Exposed at 400 it looses to much detail in the shadows (for me).

 

[Fotohuis]

How curly a Polyester film is, is depending on:
How effective the N.C. layer is.
How fast the film is drying (humidity).
The kind of wetting agent you're using.

When coming from Fotokemika / Efke (very curly, bad N.C. layer) to Fomapan (Blue) Polyster layer to the pretty good Agfa Gevaert Clear Polyester layer.

The good news is that except Rollei, also Foma is switching over to this Clear Polyester material from Agfa Gevaert.

Comparing this material with the Fuji Acros the Tri-Acetate of Acros is feeling thin and soft.
Because I am printing via an enlarger even the Efke films are staying flat between the Glass / A.N. Glass in the negative carrier.

The last RR400S in Rodinal looks good but in Rodinal I found that the speed loss is even big, E.I. 160. But the sharpness of the negatives is very high which you can see in your example too with that Planar F/3,5 lens.

 

[Peter_Jones]

Thanks for the comments - I will try the next roll at EI200 , to try to lower contrast a bit, and play it from there.

The red sensitivity interests me, tried some RR400S in 35mm with a red filter, but the grain 😱 ! I was probably a bit too generous with the exposure as the negs are rather dense, and almost impossible to scan.

Need summer to hurry up and get some decent light 😎

 

[Michael Markey]

Hi Peter.

I`ve used a lot of APX 400S ....don`t know if its the same film ...very unforgiving .

 

[Fotohuis]

The red sensitivity interests me, tried some RR400S in 35mm with a red filter

You have to correct with this Superpanchromatic film much less then with a regular Panchromatic film.

You can even use RR400s/SP200/Universal200 for infra red pictures. This is working with a #88A 715nm-720nm Black IR filter. Expose on E.I. 3-6.

Aviphot 200 is sensitized till 740nm.
The Aviphot 400, which is used for the Rollei IR-400(s) is going straight to 750nm and then slowly going down till 820nm. Same filter setting and E.I. 6-12.

You can also use the RR80s for this but then your E.I. is around 1.

Best regards,

Robert

 

[Alpsman]

You can also use the RR400s & the RR80s as infraredfilm, of course you have to use a infrared filter. With a 720nm filter, or Hoya R72, ya have to overexpose about 3 to 4 steps & develope as usual (Didn't try by myself, found info in a forum).
Rollei Infrared 400s is the same as RR400s is the same as Superpan 200, as I was told by my dealer.

 

[Fotohuis]

Told too many, tried yourself to less. Trying both films under the same circumstances shows there is some difference.

 

[Peter_Jones]

Got a couple of rolls Rollei IR400s but going to use that closer to summer when we have foliage.

Got some 80s to try too.

With the red filter, I was dropping 3 stops (factor 8) but the filter states factor 5 🙄 hence dense negs.

There seems to be consensus that these films work better at half box-speed ?

 

[HHPhoto]

Rollei Infrared 400s is the same as RR400s is the same as Superpan 200, as I was told by my dealer.

That is correct. I guess your dealer is fotofachversand.at, Günter Hochstöger / Peter Sonnleitner?

Agfa-Gevaert Aviphot Pan 200 = Rollei Superpan 200 = Retro 400S = Rollei Infrared 400S.
That is official information given by Maco - Rollei-Film.
I've also compared these films and they are identical film wise.
But Infrared 400S rollfilm has a much better converting (looks identical to Ilford converting) compared to SP200 and 400S rollfilm (their much lower quality converting looks identical to Foma).

Aviphot Pan 200 and 80 (Retro 80S) are both excellent IR films used with a real IR filter, which blocks the visible light under 715 nm wavelength.
The 200 version if you want grain, and the 80 version if you don't want visible grain and higher resolving power.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

There seems to be consensus that these films work better at half box-speed ?

Yes, in most cases.
1. Forget the number "400" in the Retro 400S and Infrared 400S name.
As aid above, all of these films are indeed Agfa-Gevaert Aviphot Pan 200.

2. And even this film is not a real ISO 200/24° film. You can get 160 in Moersch Finol, but in most other developers you are in the ISO 50/18° to ISO 125/22° range with this film, depending on the developer.

This film has a pronounced S-shape characteristic curve. To get a more linear characteristic curve with sufficient shadow detail you have to lower the speed and shorten the development time.

Cheers, Jan