JeffGreene
(@)^(@)
Has anyone used this film. My experience has been mostly Tri-X, HP5, Neopan and the Arista II. What's your experience been with this Rollei? I've been using Diafine and have some concerns with the "retro" adjective since Diafine does have a tendency to promote contrast at the expense of deep shadow. This is particularly true with Neopan, which I don't use with Diafine. Is the Rollei real contrasty. What's your experience been with this film, if any, and what developers have you found work best with it? Thanks in advance.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Good thread question ... I'm considering buying some 100ft rolls from Freestyle. I want to do some period looking classic motorcycle studies and was thinking of the 100 ISO if anyone has experience with this speed too?
bmattock
Veteran
My first question would be - what film is it really? Rollei does not manufacture any photographic film. So if I knew who made it, then I might be able to find out how to treat it.
EDIT: Never mind, I found it. It is apparently old left-over Agfa APX 400 cut from frozen master rolls. Treat it like Agfa APX 400.
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006z7Z
http://www.digitaltruth.com/chart/search_text.php?Film=APX 400
EDIT: Never mind, I found it. It is apparently old left-over Agfa APX 400 cut from frozen master rolls. Treat it like Agfa APX 400.
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006z7Z
http://www.digitaltruth.com/chart/search_text.php?Film=APX 400
Last edited:
JeffGreene
(@)^(@)
Thanks a lot, Bill!
Keith, the price for the retro400 is definitely appealing. I'm a bit reluctant to stop using Tri-X, but I think I'll give it a shot.
kully
Happy Snapper
I didn't like APX400 when I first started using it. But it was down to developer, in D-76 it's got a grittier (grainier) and higher-contrast than HP5+. If this Rollei film is the same as APX400 then Freestyle's Arista II (which is APX400) works out even cheaper ($27.99/100ft vs. $37.99/100ft).
Jeff, APX400 has more grain than Tri-X and it doesn't push as well. However, at 400 the grain is not 'ugly' if that makes sense to anyone but me. Also when you pull the first rolls out you'll notice what looked to me like fogging but printing them seemed fine. And finally, APX400 seems to fare better in an enlarger than a scanner (for grain), there is always a difference but the difference between scans/prints is markedly more than between HP5+.
Jeff, APX400 has more grain than Tri-X and it doesn't push as well. However, at 400 the grain is not 'ugly' if that makes sense to anyone but me. Also when you pull the first rolls out you'll notice what looked to me like fogging but printing them seemed fine. And finally, APX400 seems to fare better in an enlarger than a scanner (for grain), there is always a difference but the difference between scans/prints is markedly more than between HP5+.
Last edited: