Rollei 400S and Rodinal

[Calzone]

Bill,

One of my ventures is exploring 70mm film via a Linhof CINE back that I will use on two Baby-Linhof's: a Tech IV and a Tech V. I was fortunate to find a rare 645 version that allows over 120 645 exposures on 15 feet of film; and know I also have a 6x7 CINE insert for over 60 exposures of 6x7.

I was fortunate to mine out three 15 foot stainless steel reels, and I think I can cut down an early version JOBO Expert tank to create a custom daylight tank for the three 15 foot reels.

I am very interested in using Rollie 400S film because it is available as fresh film and its cost is less than a dollar a foot. In fact 70mm in bulk is cheaper than rolls of 120 here in the U.S. and I figure my cost of 120 equiv is about $2.50 a roll.

I found one reviewer who likes 400S in Rodinal. He mentions that the grain is remarkably small for a fast film, but he also mentions that the film is high contrast. He suggests 1:25 10 1/2 minutes for 400 ISO, but for a compensating effect he uses the same time (10 1/2 minutes and 1:25) for 200 ISO, but he cuts aggitation to every three minutes to get the under development required.

This reviewer does not like the long 22 minute time for 1:50, but normally this is what I would do to soften contrast, raise the mids, and get a compensating effect.

I'm a pretty big user of Diafine, so I use the compensating effect to my advantage. I love Rodinal at 1:50 for slow speed films where grain is not amplified. I wonder if 1:50 is the way to go?

I bought a 5 pack of Rollie 400S in 120 to do my testing. Any advice, help or wisdom would be greatly appreciated. I want to make this work because it is an opportunity to have firepower, shoot mucho film, and moderate costs buy keeping the film price low.

Also Rodinal is both convenient, inexpensive, and gives nice results. I want most of all to exploit it as a compensating developer for long tonal range.

Thanks in advance.

Cal

 

[brbo]

If Rollei 400S is the same as Rollei Retro 400S I don't think you will get ISO 400 out of it. And with Rodinal you have even less chance of that. I only did 35mm in Rodinal and the grain was harsh and tonal range wasn't anywhere near the films like TMax 400.

I must say that I don't shoot much BW, I just take the first time for film/developer combination I can find (Martin Zimelka if I remember correctly in this case) and can't be bothered to dial in the processing for a particular film, so my observation is pretty much useless... 😉

 

[Calzone]

If Rollei 400S is the same as Rollei Retro 400S I don't think you will get ISO 400 out of it. And with Rodinal you have even less chance of that. I only did 35mm in Rodinal and the grain was harsh and tonal range wasn't anywhere near the films like TMax 400.

I must say that I don't shoot much BW, I just take the first time for film/developer combination I can find (Martin Zimelka if I remember correctly in this case) and can't be bothered to dial in the processing for a particular film, so my observation is pretty much useless... 😉

B,

Thanks for the response. Martin Zimelka was my reference.

You are the second person who said the film speed is too aggressive and too highly rated.

I am motivated by costs to try and get this to work, and also to learn. For me Rodinal for slow speed films and high dilutions for a compensating effect is wonderful, but at 400 ISO???

I'm prepared to do the testing. I think this weekend I will try and do what Martin suggests and go from there.

For me 160-200 ISO would be ideal. I'm not looking for a high speed film.

Cal

 

[HHPhoto]

You are the second person who said the film speed is too aggressive and too highly rated.

And I am the third person 🙂 .
And I will explain you why:

1. Rollei Retro 400S = Rollei Superpan 200 = Rollei Infrared = Agfa Aviphot Pan 200.
It is all the same film!
Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 is the original.
The Rollei "versions" are just different labels and wrappings!
Maco / Rollei-Film is very well known for their often misleading marketing and product statements.

2. Even the Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 is not a real ISO 200/24° film. Because these aerial films are measured at Zone III for speed, not at Zone I as standard photo films!
Therefore their real effective speed is lower. You get about ISO 80/20° to 100/21° with most developers with Aviphot Pan 200.

The highest speed I've got so far with this film was ISO 160/23° with Moersch Finol developer.

Cheers, Jan

 

[Calzone]

And I am the third person 🙂 .
And I will explain you why:

1. Rollei Retro 400S = Rollei Superpan 200 = Rollei Infrared = Agfa Aviphot Pan 200.
It is all the same film!
Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 is the original.
The Rollei "versions" are just different labels and wrappings!
Maco / Rollei-Film is very well known for their often misleading marketing and product statements.

2. Even the Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 is not a real ISO 200/24° film. Because these aerial films are measured at Zone III for speed, not at Zone I as standard photo films!
Therefore their real effective speed is lower. You get about ISO 80/20° to 100/21° with most developers with Aviphot Pan 200.

The highest speed I've got so far with this film was ISO 160/23° with Moersch Finol developer.

Cheers, Jan

Jan,

Thank you so much. This is very-very useful. This is why Marten reported fine grain. This Rollie 400S is in reality a slow speed film.

If I get 160 ISO I will be mucho happy. I'm shooting leaf shutters and want to avoid over stopping down to prevent diffraction.

I'll be looking into a local developer that is similar to Moersch Finol.

Anyways this is like doing forensics... LOL.

Thanks again.

Cal

 

[Bill Pierce]

Bill,

One of my ventures is exploring 70mm film via a Linhof CINE back that I will use on two Baby-Linhof's: a Tech IV and a Tech V. I was fortunate to find a rare 645 version that allows over 120 645 exposures on 15 feet of film; and know I also have a 6x7 CINE insert for over 60 exposures of 6x7.

I was fortunate to mine out three 15 foot stainless steel reels, and I think I can cut down an early version JOBO Expert tank to create a custom daylight tank for the three 15 foot reels.

I am very interested in using Rollie 400S film because it is available as fresh film and its cost is less than a dollar a foot. In fact 70mm in bulk is cheaper than rolls of 120 here in the U.S. and I figure my cost of 120 equiv is about $2.50 a roll.

I found one reviewer who likes 400S in Rodinal. He mentions that the grain is remarkably small for a fast film, but he also mentions that the film is high contrast. He suggests 1:25 10 1/2 minutes for 400 ISO, but for a compensating effect he uses the same time (10 1/2 minutes and 1:25) for 200 ISO, but he cuts aggitation to every three minutes to get the under development required.

This reviewer does not like the long 22 minute time for 1:50, but normally this is what I would do to soften contrast, raise the mids, and get a compensating effect.

I'm a pretty big user of Diafine, so I use the compensating effect to my advantage. I love Rodinal at 1:50 for slow speed films where grain is not amplified. I wonder if 1:50 is the way to go?

I bought a 5 pack of Rollie 400S in 120 to do my testing. Any advice, help or wisdom would be greatly appreciated. I want to make this work because it is an opportunity to have firepower, shoot mucho film, and moderate costs buy keeping the film price low.

Also Rodinal is both convenient, inexpensive, and gives nice results. I want most of all to exploit it as a compensating developer for long tonal range.

Thanks in advance.

Cal

Cal -

My tendency would be to figure out times for the 1:50 dilution with the film shot at a lower film speed. All to be worked out, and you will probably end up with a developing time that is long enough that you will want to take a good book into the darkroom. Medium format (70mm is my favorite roll film because of film flatness issues that can occur with paper backed rolls) should hold up with a variety of developers should you want to experiment with others or just pick a soup that gives you a shorter, more convenient developing time or softer grain pattern.

Bill

 

[Calzone]

Cal -

My tendency would be to figure out times for the 1:50 dilution with the film shot at a lower film speed. All to be worked out, and you will probably end up with a developing time that is long enough that you will want to take a good book into the darkroom. Medium format (70mm is my favorite roll film because of film flatness issues that can occur with paper backed rolls) should hold up with a variety of developers should you want to experiment with others or just pick a soup that gives you a shorter, more convenient developing time or softer grain pattern.

Bill

Bill thanks for the response. I do think I likely might start with Rodinal 1:50 and try for 80 ISO. If anything be on the conservative side on film speed. Jan's information gives me a start.

I already have some Ilford Microphen mixed so I would be happy if I can get 160 via a push.

The film flatness is a great asset, but for me being able to shoot a lot and having low film costs like the good old days is most important to me.

Since I have those huge 15 foot reels I won't mind long development times. If I can shoot one film at two speeds with two different developers I will be happy.

Cal

 

[Bill Pierce]

Bill thanks for the response. I do think I likely might start with Rodinal 1:50 and try for 80 ISO. If anything be on the conservative side on film speed. Jan's information gives me a start.

I already have some Ilford Microphen mixed so I would be happy if I can get 160 via a push.

The film flatness is a great asset, but for me being able to shoot a lot and having low film costs like the good old days is most important to me.

Since I have those huge 15 foot reels I won't mind long development times. If I can shoot one film at two speeds with two different developers I will be happy.

Cal

I would be interesting to see what happens in Diafine.

 

[Calzone]

I would be interesting to see what happens in Diafine.

Bill,

I threw away the instructions with Diafine and came up with my own way to use it. First off the ISO's I found to be too aggressive. Next I found that by minimizing aggitation to only two gentle inversions per minute I got finer grain where Tri-X and Acros were comparable, and I needed a 4x loupe on a light table to A-B negatives to actually see that the grain on Tri-X was slightly bigger. With out the A-B test and the loupe you would say the grain was the same.

So here is how I use Diafine for Tri-X and FP4: 4+4 and only two slow inversions per minute. I figure that since I cut back on aggitation I'm accually underdeveloping. For Tri-X I use 640-800 ISO (640 under diffused lighting) and FP4 at 160 ISO. Basically 2/3rd stop push.

I have a gallon kit already mixed that I have been using, so with Rollie at perhaps 80-100 ISO like Jan suggests then maybe I can get a possible 160 ISO with Diafine. Boy would this be good for me. A 2/3rd a stop push is all I need and I can do mucho shooting with big firepower.

With Diafine I only rate Acros at 100 ISO and do the standard 5+5, but with my minimized aggitation of only two gentle slow inversions per minute.

My thinking and logic with Diafine is to exploit the compensating effect to my advantage. The highlights kinda get a stand like development, with Diafine you get enhanced shadow detail over any solvent developer, it is a strong developer so the times are short and the grain small, and pretty much I use ISO to set my midrange.

My negatives kinda look like HDR film or a larger format in tonality and detail. Know that I'm making negatives for wet printing and not scanning so they are denser.

On the MDC they say 4+4 and 640-800 ISO for Diafine. Nutz... I'll try for 160 ISO at my 4+4 (meaning only two slow gentle inversions per minute).

Cal

 

[Nokton48]

Hello Again Cal, and Hello Bill!

This is indeed timely info for me. I am presently powering through a 70mm roll of Agfa Aviphot 200 in my Hasselblads. I'm about a third of the way through the roll. I've been bracketing at EI 50, EI 100, and EI 200. Maybe I should forget 200 (that's not going to happen).

Developers I have read good things about are : Pyro PMK, Willi Beutler (Leica) Developer, Rodinal, and A49. My favorite soup is straight Legacy Mic-X replenished and I might try that. Twenty three minutes according to Digital Truth!

Time will tell -Dan

 

[Calzone]

Hello Again Cal, and Bill!

This is indeed timely info for me. I am presently powering through a 70mm roll of Agfa Aviphot 200 in my Hasselblads. I'm about a third of the way through the roll. I've been bracketing at EI 50, EI 100, and EI 200. Maybe I should forget 200 (that's not going to happen).

Developers I have read good things about are : Pyro PMK, Willi Beutler (Leica) Developer, Rodinal, and A49. My favorite soup is straight Legacy Mic-X replenished and I might try that. Twenty three minutes according to Digital Truth!

Time will tell -Dan

Dan,

Good luck.

Perhaps go intermediate and start shooting my magic number 160 ISO.

I figure I don't want to run out of shutter speed and I have to deal with the slow top speed of a leaf shutter on my Linhof's. I also don't want to go much past F11 unless I have to. 160 ISO is good for me.

Oh what fun. Just like the old days in the 70's in art school.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

Bill,

I shot a roll of 400S from my rooftop under a cloudless bright sky yesterday morning. I developed the roll in Diafine. It seemed my 4+4 will likely be better as 3+3, and my limited two inversions instead of the recommended three resulted in traces of Bromide Drag in a 500ml stainless steel daylight tank that lacked any "piston" factor when doing gentle inversions.

Effectively I exacerbated the situation by using a 220 Hewes reel. Understand the tighter spiral more closely resembles the winding of my 15 foot 70mm reels.

So the good is fine grain and full tonality around 50 ISO. Perhaps an honest 80 ISO doing 3+3. Really nice detail.

So somehow I used Diafine to unwind the natural "S" curve inherent in 400S to get nice full tonal range, and somehow I used Diafine to pull instead of push. The bad is the loss of film speed.

The ugly is the Bromide Drag on some negative in the sky. Most pronounced on wet negatives, only a trace, but I know they are there. I know going forward that I need a little "piston" action with inversion to avoid the Bromide Drag. Next time I'll use a one liter tank and load two reels. I'm not far from where I want to be.

I also would like to try Microphen to get 160 ISO. I figure instead of using 8 minutes and 4 inversions per minute, I will do two inversions and increase the time to 11 minutes to get a compensating effect.

Would be great to have one film and two film speeds by just using different developers.

Thanks.

Cal

 

[Moto-Uno]

3+3 , 4+4 , 5+5 , ? Help me here before I make some bad assumptions , thanks , Peter

 

[Calzone]

3+3 , 4+4 , 5+5 , ? Help me here before I make some bad assumptions , thanks , Peter

Peter,

Diafine is a two part compensating developer that is designed to moderate contrast. Works great on some films, but is awful on others. For me works well on Tri-X, Acros and FP4.

One of the main reasons I use Diafine is that the developer gets reused and does not need replenishment. Another reason is that it is "Panthermic" meaning temperture is not a factor as long as it is above 68 degrees F. Diafine also has a long shelf life.

In the past I used mucho D76 and ID-11 as one shots, but this became costly when I was shooting 100+ rolls of film a month. I kinda had to figure out how to make Diafine work for me. I basically threw away the instructions and figured out how to make it work for me as my main all around developer. While I use and take advantage of the compensating effect, I wanted the mid range of a normal developer.

Understand that Part "A" is recommended to soak for "3" minutes and the aggitation recommended is three inversions per minute. During this Part "A" soak no real development takes place and more or less you are just wetting the emulsion. After the initial three minutes this Part "A" is emptied and saved to be reused.

The next step is the three minute soak of Part "B" which activates the Part "A" soaked into the emulsion. The recommended agitation is again three inversions per minute. Part "B" after three minutes is emptied and saved to be reused.

Water rinse as a stop bath and then fix. The above 3+3 is what is recommended for Tri-X and FP4, but for Acros it is 5+5.

What is helpful to understand is that the highlights with Diafine kinda get a stand like development. Basically the developer (Part "A") in the highlights gets exhausted.

Know that Diafine is a very strong developer so the shadow detail is innately enhanced.

The tricky part is getting the right mix of midrange because the highlights and shadows with Diafine development is kinda fixed, and the way I control that is by exposure. For Acros 100 ISO (box speed); for Tri-X 800 ISO; and for FP4 160 ISO. With Tri-X and FP4 you get a push in film speed. Know that although I am pushing the film with FP4 and Tri-X that the contrast is moderate and my midrange is mucho broad.

I kinda learned that if I minimized agitation I got signifigantly smaller grain. With Acros there is almost no grain, and with only two inversions per minute Tri-X has a grain size almost as small as Acros. But since I'm minimizing agitation realize I'm also underdeveloping. Keep this in mind for later...

The effect with Diafine that I get is kinda like HDR film. The highlights are almost impossible to blow due to the stand like development, I get mucho big midrange like a larger format, and I get a shadow detail like a bigger negative. One of my friends looked at some of my 6x9 negatives and said, "With negatives like these you don't need a 4x5."

With Rollie 400S it seems like I am able to unwind an innate built in "S" curve by "pulling" down the film speed to around 50 ISO, but the 4+4 I came up with is what I tend to use on Tri-X and FP4. Know that since I'm cutting back on agitation to enhance the compensating effect (more like a stand development), I increased the recommended time from 3+3 to 4+4 to get a full development.

With the Rollie 400S (really a 80-100 ISO film as suggested by Jan in this thread) 4+4 is a bit of overdevelopment, so I think 3+3 will give me a slightly denser negative.

Know that I'm making negatives for wet printing that would be denser than negatives for optimized for scanning.

Sorry for all the complexity and confusion.

Cal

 

[Timmyjoe]

Cal,

May I ask, where are you buying the Rollie 400 70mm bulk film? I'd be interested in running some thru my Rollei and my Medalist.

Thanks,
-Tim

 

[Calzone]

Cal,

May I ask, where are you buying the Rollie 400 70mm bulk film? I'd be interested in running some thru my Rollei and my Medalist.

Thanks,
-Tim

Tim,

MACO has it for about $98.00 for 100 feet. This is fresh film. This price includes VAT. Not sure how to unwind the VAT since I'm in the U.S.

I have not ordered 70mm yet, and at this point I'm just testing 400S in 120 to see what I can and cannot do. All I have done is shoot and develop one roll, but I can already see wonderful results.

I might load up the truck as they say when I do order. I figure about $2.50 a 120 equiv, even if I write off the VAT. At this point shooting 120 suddenly can become cheaper than shooting 135 on a per roll basis. I still have some Arista Premium and some Arista Legacy Pro (rebranded Acros) when 135 cost no money.

More info on Dan's 70mm thread and a link.

Mucho cheap film that looks great is for me. I still have 4 more rolls out of the 120 five pack.

If Microphen gets me 160 ISO I'm in big time. That will be my next test as well as two rolls of 400S in a one liter tank Diafine 3+3. Looks like HDR but film. Mucho detail, and big time tonal range and shadow detail.

Cal

 

[Nokton48]

Cal,

Looking on Digital Truth this film works with a lot of developers. Microphen is OK, but expensive to me, cause it can't be replenished.

I'm thinking about ACUFINE and ACUFINE Replenisher due to the film volume. I already have a gallon kit of Diafine, a gallon of Acufine, and Acufine Replenisher from B&H. That should be enough to fill my Kindermann. This is a lot of square inches of stock and I think replenisher is the only way to go.

As far as I know Acufine is the only developer I have ever used that has honestly boosted shadow detail. It really does raise film speed. Seems like a good match to Rollei 400S.

So maybe you could use Diafine and Replenished Acufine ??


"Not sure how to unwind the VAT since I'm in the U.S". You insist that they deduct the VAT (about 18%) because you are NOT in the European Union.
We pay personal Income Tax, not VAT. Actually their website should make the deduction for foreign purchases, but it's not that sophisticated. SO Rollei 400S is about $80 per roll plus USA shipping

I figured it's really around 100 ISO give or take. I've read that Diafine Part A dosen't easily absorb into the emulsion of 400S, so it is good news it is working for you

 

[Pherdinand]

...
With the Rollie 400S (really a 80-100 ISO film as suggested by Jan in this thread) 4+4 is a bit of overdevelopment, so I think 3+3 will give me a slightly denser negative.
...

Cal

Dude
You"kinda" mucho confused yourself with the long story🙂)
Overdeveloping gives you a denser neg. if you reduce time to 3 min, you'll get thinner stuff.

:bang:

 

[Daryl J.]

Has anyone experience with Rodinal 1:100 and stand/semi stand development for an hour?

I have some 35mm 400s I want to process at home.

Thanks.

 

[Doug]

Worth mentioning that agitation in Diafine part B should be gentle, as too much action washes the Part A out of the emulsion and results in thinner negs. I think of that agitation as simply a way to float exhausted developer byproducts away from the film surface...