Rollei CN200 Pro

If you have more pics, I'd love to see them. I've been wanting to try this film for some time. I'll definitely order some with my next order from Freestyle. Nice photos.
Also, how do you scan it? As a slide and then simply invert it?
 
My first Digibase 200 is in development.
Reports are mixed (at best) for this film, Roger Hicks has a review online, many threads available.
I'm trying to achieve a nostalgic look; for general use the film seems to be far too grainy.
 
I would say it is the least grainy film I have ever used, with the exception of Velvia 50. Also, despite being a "slide film", it is C41 process, but with no orange mask, so scanning is a breeze. However, ath, it is not particularly nostalgic looking (at least not in my opinion).
 
Very interesting film a
Nd cute GF as well. How is the exposure latitude and price? Also Does this come in 120? I think for 35mm I would just stick with digital considering these look to me like digital. It may be a nice option for 120 though at those times when great precision is desired. Thanks for the post.
 
Thank you Nils. I see your results and your point. Is it one of those 120 films that feels like the roll is spring loaded to uncoil? I'm very careful and so far have had no leaks over the years shooting 120. Sometimes I worry that I will with some films.
 
Here's the review from Roger Hicks: http://shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/film_darkroom_gear/0307rollei/
Back then the films name was scanfilm 400, Maco renamed it later.
The datasheet states the grain as RMS 7 which is really big for a negative film (don't confuse with slide film RMS values); for comparison the Superia 400 has RMS 4.
I got some film for free and decided to give it a go (together with Kodak and Fuji).
 
Last edited:
Regardless, my experience has yet to substantiate these claims. I have only shot a couple rolls, so maybe I have just gotten lucky, but it appears to be a sharp and relati sly fine grained film. Then again, I like grainy film, so to each his own.
 
Any grain I'm seeing looks typical of a scanned negative but better. The first in particular looks very clear anc digi-esk. I do see a blue line on the first image from top to bottom intersecting her left eye. What do you suppose caused that?
 
Hmm. No idea. I shot it with my EOS 3 so I doubt it's a light leak or anything like that, but I don't know. A problem scanning maybe.
 
Here is a photo that I think speaks to what ath is talking about:

Peace on Pier 29 by N.Chase, on Flickr

Due to my lens' low contrast, and perhaps some underexposure, there is quite a bit of grain to be seen. Also, as mentioned above, the first few frames were unusable due to their being streaked with blue.
 
Just ordered some 20x in 35mm (well the 35 was the CR version)and 20x in 120 due to a decent price at Maco along with some Kodak ektar and portra. I had a couple rolls some years back, but cant scan them at the moment, looks pretty ok to me.
 
NaChase said:
Hmm. No idea. I shot it with my EOS 3 so I doubt it's a light leak or anything like that, but I don't know. A problem scanning maybe.
Click to expand...

This film is famed for light leaks when loading and there does not need to be a problem with the camera.
 
Oh boy, I wish I'd seen this thread before shooting some of this… :D

My first three frames were absolutely ruined (maybe the third is salvageable, the first two definitely not) and, curiously, it came back from the lab with an orange cast to the base! Does anyone know whether this is due to a (I guess recent) change in the production for the CN variant or just a processing problem?


(Long time lurker - first time poster, please be gentle.. :D)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom