Rollei R3 - New exiting bw film

[ruben]

What does matter to me is this - if Rollei Pan 25 is actually Efke 25, why would someone want to pay the higher prices Rollei charges just to have it say "Rollei" on the box?
Bill Mattocks

I think I disagree in principle at least.
The issue is whether Rollei R3 is a relatively new and unique formula film pointing to a step forward in film, or not. And if it is still in production, justifying anyone's hard efforts to find his/her best processing and paying its higher price.

Best,
Ruben

 

[schaubild]

Je bronche avec mon troisieme... 🙂

 

[bmattock]

I think I disagree in principle at least.
The issue is whether Rollei R3 is a new formula film pointing to a step forward in film, or not. And if it is still in production, justifying anyone's hard efforts to find his/her best processing and paying its higher price.

Best,
Ruben

Ruben, I think we actually agree. Yes, if Rollei R3 is a new emulsion - regardless of who makes it - then it is to be applauded for the attempt. Even if it is not a new emulsion, but it is being used in a new way, with expertise from Rollei, I have no problem with that.

In my world, we call that a 'value add' proposition. If someone takes something commonplace, and adds value to it, then it is worth more and justifies a higher retail price.

Just putting Efke 25 into a Rollei Pan 25 box is not worth more money - but R3 may well be a different situation.

In any case, if people want to buy Rollei-branded film, by all means do so!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[ruben]

Je bronche avec mon troisieme... 🙂

Min lutfak, btihki bilanglise (Arabic)

Anglit bebakashah (Hebrew)

Por favor, digalo en Ingles (Spannish)

Merde...

English please !

 

[ruben]

Merde: English translation for anyone who doesn't know: "digital imaging rules"

😉

Mercy please

 

[ruben]

Ruben, I think we actually agree. Yes, if Rollei R3 is a new emulsion - regardless of who makes it - then it is to be applauded for the attempt. ....
....Just putting Efke 25 into a Rollei Pan 25 box is not worth more money - but R3 may well be a different situation.

Bill Mattocks

Hi Bill,
Since you seem very acknowledgeable of films in general, why don't you follow this link http://www.mahn.net/Frameset.htm

arrive at "Technical Application R3 PDF"

and give some opinion ?

Regards,
Ruben

 

[raid]

Silly comments make this useful thread silly. It is as simple as that.

 

[bmattock]

Hi Bill,
Since you seem very acknowledgeable of films in general, why don't you follow this link http://www.mahn.net/Frameset.htm

arrive at "Technical Application R3 PDF"

and give some opinion ?

Regards,
Ruben

I have read the document several times in the last few years. I am still unable to form a conclusion, since several areas seem to be intentionally misleading.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[muihlinn]

So go ahead and pay higher prices for 'Rollei' brand Efke film. It's ok with me, honest.
I just thought a little honesty would be welcomed. I don't want to ruin anyone's fantasy.

As i've said before, according my testing isn't efke, or at least isn't the same formulation than efke sells as 25. It behaves differntly. Information won't hurt nobody, but it should be information that you can test for yourself.

The money matter or if efke is good enough to do not think in any other emulsion is absolutelly another question.

 

[muihlinn]

The curves for the spectral sensitivities for APX100 & Rollei retro 100 are virtually identical: the differentiating factor is the patented Rollei branded developer, used to achieve a particular film look.

I honestly don't think so, and I was inclined to think that looking the agfa pdfs and the retro specs when they came out, but that film didn't developed as apx made in HC-110. Evolved apx? maybe.

BTW: for my taste it looks better in HC110 than in RHS (400)

 

[titrisol]

Agreed, could you post a small "snipet" of sky fom any of your pictures (not resized) to see grainniness?

Almost every B&W, non XPan image is taken on Rollei R3. Except 3 with Ort25 and one Delta.

But: it's kind of useless to compare images that are 800 pixels wide for film quality issues. Only real life prints can show clear differences and characteristics, on screen you look at the result of the workflow through scanner and Photoshop and massive content reduction (down from 13000x8800, what might that do to the grain?), not to be speaking about different screen calibrations...

 

[bmattock]

For what it may be worth:

http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=27207&highlight=rollei+agfa

From our stock again - now - available:
AGFA APX 100 + AGFA APX 400

now under the new name
ROLLEI RETRO 100 + ROLLEI RETRO 400

From the latest fresh production from firm AGFA, "master rolls" of 2,000 Sqm each per roll, are made available. These master rolls have been cut and packed meanwhile, as
35mm 135-36, and rollfilms 120.

These manufactured films will be offered to our customers now under the name
ROLLEI RETRO.

This opened now the possibility, to obtain the reliable AGFA quality,
for a long time to go.

The person who posted this said it came in an email from Hans O. Mahn (MACO). This seems to state quite clearly that Rollei Retro 100 and 400 are in fact Agfa APX 100 and APX 400. Unless the person who posted this is simply lying, I do not see how much more clear this can be.

What is still unknown is who made R3 for Rollei and if it is in fact a 'new' emulsion or an existing emulsion that has simply been repackaged. Rollei insists that R3 is unique - but they (and Maco) used to insist that they 'made' their own film. They seem to have given up on that fiction.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[schaubild]

Image taken on April 30th.
R3, ISO 100, LowSpeed developer (CubeXS), no tripod
Original resolution 13000x8800, crop 600x400 from original scan.

Happy now?

P.S. Whatever you do with this sample, please be aware of the fact that a real comparison with other films is only possible when these are scanned with the same scanner, software and settings (Nikon 9000, Silverfast Ai). Otherwise you'll only compare the scanners abilities.

 

[ruben]

DEAR COMRADE SCHAUBILD,

Sorry for having had not a smooth start with this thread, but perhaps we can fix things and some of us learn about Rollei R3.

Since you have been using this film, and you have very very beautiful images too at your Gallery, why don't you write for us a kind of resume about it, as brief or long as you wish or can, telling the story of YOUR experience with it.

Among other things you could tell us since when have you been using it, what did you use before it, what the diffences you experience are, what ISOs this film is usable and at what ISO you find the best of it, chemicals, etc. Have you been using it both at medium format and 35mm ? How this film will respond at ISO 1600? ETC.

And I am sure you have more to tell.

I repeat, as you have been actually using it, your opinion will be quite authoritative on this new subject.

As for myself, my best opportunity to try it is to order it from NYC B&H, and for that I will have to order at least some 10 units for the transaction being practical, and by now B&H is out of stock.

I thank you in advance,
Ruben

 

[fgianni]

Happy now?.

Ok I declare myself officially impressed!

 

[fgianni]

BTW Shaubild you have no right whatsoever to tease us so cruelly with your avatar :bang:

 

[schaubild]

I got my first samples when the film was introduced, which means fall 04, almost completely switched when the film became generally available, in February 05. My experiences I already mentioned, mainly positive. You have to be very careful when handling the film, it's clear base works like a glass fibre so better change film indoor or in the shade. Otherwise you'll see much more sidelight than with 'conventional' films.
With Low Speed developer the negs look kind of weak but they scan or enlarge very well, the same phenomenon can be seen with the Gigabitfilm.
Thanks to the layerstructure the R3 dries out completely flat, a big difference to all other PE based products I know and very convenient if you prefer glassless holders in the enlarger.

Before I used the Ilford range a lot (conventional and Deltas, Microphen and Perceptol developers). Obviously compared to these the R3 looks different but I can't decide if objectively better or not. I prefer the R3 grain to that of the Deltas.

I mainly use the film on ISO100 and 400, seldom on 50 (no big difference to 100, the Ort25 is a better step in that direction) or up to 3200 (where it works fine but becomes quite grainy, when the circumstances require such filmspeed I prefer Canon digital), my practical upper limit is 1600. So far I only use rollfilm and 8x10 (because of convenience, identical developers and reciprocity behaviour), I had two 35mm films for testing in the beginning but really didn't care much about quality as with the XPan for B&W Gigabitfilm is the main choice today for my purposes.
The recommended High and Low Speed developers work fine, so there is not much sense for me in starting time consuming experiments.

As alredy mentioned, all my direct contacts with Maco have been easy and my local supplier luckily stocks most of the Maco/Rollei products. One of the advantages of living compareably close to the manufacturer (different country but identical language). 🙂




(what's wrong with the avatar? boys with toys... 🙂

 

[fgianni]

(what's wrong with the avatar? boys with toys... 🙂

Your avatar is hard core XXX camera porn!
(It is all envy since I can't afford an ALPA myself)

 

[titrisol]

Vielen Dank Schaubild!
As I said I tested the CUBE and ssumed this was a glorified version of it but seems like it is something different.

I'll have to give it a shot as soon as I get settled

 

[schaubild]

I wouldn't call it glorified but slightly improved might be the correct term.