Rollei 400S and Rodinal

[Calzone]

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:

P,

Thanks for the clarity.

A lot of obsessive thinking going on here. LOL.

My thinking was that I'm pulling the film: overexposing and underdevelopment. Somehow in all this I got lucky with finding the tonality I want.

Pretty good for one test roll of a new film.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

So maybe you could use Diafine and Replenished Acufine ??

Dan,

One of the best things about Diafine is that it gets reused and does not require replenishment. I mix a gallon kit to fill a 2 liter tank, and when I run the stock down to two liters from one gallon due to spillage, wetting the film, and pouring off the sediment that accumulates over time, I generally replace that one gallon kit with a fresh batch.

I mix one gallon and tend to use the same batch for 6-9 months before I replace it. One thing to know is that it takes about 25-30 rolls of film before Diafine gets "seasoned." It seems the Part "B" chemistry evolves with the minute amounts of Part "A" over time, and after seasoning/breaking in the contrast softens and the mid-range gets more pronounced. Perhaps I develop about a thousand rolls with a gallon kit of Diafine before I replace it.

Another thing that is great about Diafine is that it is "panthermic" meaning that development is not temperature dependent. As long as solutions are over 68 degrees F you are good. This makes things easy when dealing with big volumes and big tanks.

I also agree with Doug: gentle agitation is best.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

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:

P,

Thanks again for correcting me.

On my second roll I will play with increasing development to increase density.

A while back Amy (DRabbit) used 7+4 to get 1000-1250 ISO out of Tri-X instead of the usual 3+3.

Dan reported that there was mention that the Part "A" is not readily absorbed, and I wonder if 5+4 would give me the expected boost in film speed. The ugly will likely be more grain.

With Tri-X the grain became rather huge with 7+4.

Cal

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

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

Thanks, Cal for your input here and also in the 70mm thread. Getting a 70mm back for my Hassy was the idea that immediately came to mind. But of course I picked up a Linhof myself last year, and they were, indeed, very big on both 220 and 70mm. Mine is a 4 x 5" Super Technika, and I'm not sure all the same back options necessarily existed for the 2 x 3" and the LF Technikas (they have different backs and magazines, though I seem to recall there might have been certain converters from Linhof enabling one to be used on the other, possibly). I had a quick look last night, and they made 6 x 7 Cine Rollex 4 x 5" backs, for starters, and recent eBay sales suggest they don't cost very much either. It's certainly food for thought. I'll have to peruse my copy of Linhof Practice to see what other Cine Rollex magazines were available. The 645 type for the 2 x 3" is news to me, I wasn't previously aware of that one, so I think that's a pretty good score you've made there.

I'm often happy shooting Delta 100, Acros, FP4 Plus, Tmax 100 (when I can get it) and even Pan F Plus sometimes, so the true speed of the Rollei wouldn't faze me at all if the grain is fine, as it would seem to be for a "400" speed.
Cheers,
Brett

 

[Calzone]

Thanks, Cal for your input here and also in the 70mm thread. Getting a 70mm back for my Hassy was the idea that immediately came to mind. But of course I picked up a Linhof myself last year, and they were, indeed, very big on both 220 and 70mm. Mine is a 4 x 5" Super Technika, and I'm not sure all the same back options necessarily existed for the 2 x 3" and the LF Technikas (they have different backs and magazines, though I seem to recall there might have been certain converters from Linhof enabling one to be used on the other, possibly). I had a quick look last night, and they made 6 x 7 Cine Rollex 4 x 5" backs, for starters, and recent eBay sales suggest they don't cost very much either. It's certainly food for thought. I'll have to peruse my copy of Linhof Practice to see what other Cine Rollex magazines were available. The 645 type for the 2 x 3" is news to me, I wasn't previously aware of that one, so I think that's a pretty good score you've made there.

I'm often happy shooting Delta 100, Acros, FP4 Plus, Tmax 100 (when I can get it) and even Pan F Plus sometimes, so the true speed of the Rollei wouldn't faze me at all if the grain is fine, as it would seem to be for a "400" speed.
Cheers,
Brett

Brett,

Part of my "Linhof Disease" is an early 50's 4x5 Tech IV.

The Linhof CINE's for 4x5 are abundant and only around $100.00. I bought a black (later version) 4x5 CINE from B&H for $99.99. The back (shell) for the 4x5 will not fit a 2x3 Linhof, and the way to distinguish the two backs is that the 2x3 version uses a circular Graflok back.

This said understand that the "insert" that is the film transport will fit and work on either "shell" and in this way they are modular. Also know that the back plates are modular and can be interchanged.

I presently have a 6x7 insert and a 645 insert, as well as a 4x5 shell and a 2x3 shell, so if I wanted to do something strange I could do 645 on a 4x5 by mixing and matching modular parts.

It seems the 120 6x7 Super Rolliex's are costly, and they too are modular like the CINE's.

On top of that I have 2x3 Grafmatics and 2.5x3.5 double-sided Linhof holders for cut films.

Was lucky to find a Nikor cut sheet reel and tank for $100.00. Interestingly this one tank is easy to load and can do 2x3, 2.5x3.5, and 4x5.

Crazy stuff.

Cal

 

[Nokton48]

I picked up a 4x5" Tan Cine Rollex that needed the covering glued down, for $30.

 

[Calzone]

I picked up a 4x5" Tan Cine Rollex that needed the covering glued down, for $30.

Dan,

Nice score.

Did it come with 70mm cassettes? If it did you basically stole it.

Cal

 

[Nokton48]

Dan,

Nice score.

Did it come with 70mm cassettes? If it did you basically stole it.

Cal

Nope it didn't. But I was not unhappy with that deal. I scored a lot of 70mm cartridges years ago. They were GIVEN to me by a local photo dealer who knew I was interested in 70mm. A color lab in Florida received a lot of 70mm Vericolor III to process, and the customer did not ask for the cartridges back. They accumulated about fifty of them, and GAVE them to the dealer. Later he gifted them to me. I still have about roughly half of them.

 

[Calzone]

Nope it didn't. But I was not unhappy with that deal. I scored a lot of 70mm cartridges years ago. They were GIVEN to me by a local photo dealer who knew I was interested in 70mm. A color lab in Florida received a lot of 70mm Vericolor III to process, and the customer did not ask for the cartridges back. They accumulated about fifty of them, and GAVE them to the dealer. Later he gifted them to me. I still have about roughly half of them.

Dan,

I somehow accumulated 7 cassettes, but two are missing the spindles. I likely have enough to get me by with five cassettes.

70mm requires being dog-headed and stubborn.

Cal

 

[airfrogusmc]

I preferred Rodinal at 1:50. Never tried it with the film you mentioned. I did have some problems with uneven development with thick emulsion based films like TMax. I found with TMax films I need to agitate 2 inversions every 30 seconds to get even dev in areas like skies. This was with 120 films.

 

[Calzone]

I preferred Rodinal at 1:50. Never tried it with the film you mentioned. I did have some problems with uneven development with thick emulsion based films like TMax. I found with TMax films I need to agitate 2 inversions every 30 seconds to get even dev in areas like skies. This was with 120 films.

Allen,

I ended up giving up on Rollie 400S in Diafine. I tried it on a 120 reel and had some piston action to increase the agitation. The clear blue skies still had some Bromide Drag displayed as an artifact.

I tried Rodinal and got great results 1:50 11 minutes, but the best negatives were at 50 ISO. Jan's and others saying that this is really a 80-100 ISO film rings true. The grain is fine, the tonality is great, and it has that Rodinal acutance and sharpness.

Since this film is AKA Agfa Aviphot 200 it seems it like Rodinal another Agfa product. Seems like a magic combination for IQ, but it is a slow speed film with Rodinal.

I'm going to try Microphen in lew of Jan's German push developer. If I coud get 160 ISO or even 125 ISO it would be a real asset to me. This Rollie 400S in 70mm is just so cheap. About $98.00 including the VAT. If I can get the VAT removed even cheaper.

What film speed did you get with your testing. I got 50 ISO under cloudy conditions, and perhaps on a sunny day I would bump the ISO to 80.

Cal