Rollei RPX 25 - is rebranded something?

[harpofreely]

I've seen various contentions that Rollei's RPX 100 and 400 are rebranded Kentmere. I like the look of the RPX 25 but don't want to pay a Rollei markup if I don't have too - is there any consensus on this film being cheaper under another brand, or is it really a unique emulsion?

 

[Agiknee]

Rollei used to be produced by MACO. While it has similarities to kentmere, I believe that it’s a new formula that was produced by Maco. Years back I tried to look into it but rollei never released the data sheet. Let me do some google digging and see what I find.

 

[css9450]

It sure seems like a Harmon/Ilford product to me. This is in 120 format... The spool, the foil package, the gummed label, the paper backing. All identical to standard Ilford products. But they might just be the supplier with someone elsewhere in the EU making the film.

 

[HHPhoto]

Rollei used to be produced by MACO. While it has similarities to kentmere, I believe that it’s a new formula that was produced by Maco. Years back I tried to look into it but rollei never released the data sheet. Let me do some google digging and see what I find.

Maco does not produce anything by themselves. They are just the license holder of the brand name "Rollei-Film".
All of their products are produced by other companies.

As to RPX 25:
Yes, it is just repackaged film. It is Agfa Aviphot Pan 80, so the same film as Rollei Retro 80S. Just at a much, much higher price!

Some time ago two independent German developer manufacturers, Wehner and Spur, tested RPX 25 and Retro 80S side by side. Including tests of the characteristic curve with a densitometer. Result: Only some minor batch-to-batch variance but indeed the same film type!
After I've read that I did my own direct comparison test and got the same result.
The RPX 25 data sheet is a fairy tale to cheat the customers.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

It sure seems like a Harmon/Ilford product to me. This is in 120 format... The spool, the foil package, the gummed label, the paper backing. All identical to standard Ilford products.

That is because RPX 25 = Agfa Aviphot Pan 80 is converted (cut, spooled and packaged) by Harman technology / Ilford Photo.
But the film itself is just Agfa Aviphot Pan 80.

Cheers, Jan

 

[css9450]

Just at a much, much higher price!

Just what I didn't need to hear.... I just re-stocked!

Oh, well, I like what I've shot with RPX 25 so I won't complain. 🙂

 

[harpofreely]

Just what I didn't need to hear.... I just re-stocked!

Oh, well, I like what I've shot with RPX 25 so I won't complain. 🙂

I my neck of the woods, at least, RPX 25 isn't much more expensive than the 80s, and the original Aviphot appears unavailable. But the price difference for the 100 & 400, vs Kentmere, is kinda crazy.

 

[harpofreely]

...
As to RPX 25:
Yes, it is just repackaged film. It is Agfa Aviphot Pan 80, so the same film as Rollei Retro 80S. Just at a much, much higher price!
...

This is pretty much what I came to find out. How does it work out, with rating the same film at two different ISOs? Is it really around 64 or so, and the lest is trusting to latitude?

I still kinda want to try it, but it's annoying to think of supporting this kind of nonsense.

 

[miha]

Maco does not produce anything by themselves.
All of their products are produced by other companies.
Yes, it is just repackaged film.

Nothing wrong with being a contract manufacturer or a value-added reseller, is it?

 

[mpaniagua]

Nothing wrong with being a contract manufacturer or a value-added reseller, is it?

Agree. As long as product is of suitable quality and competitive price I will buy.

Regards

Marcelo

 

[harpofreely]

Nothing wrong with being a contract manufacturer or a value-added reseller, is it?

Nothing wrong, if value is actually added. But if Rollei is selling the same film as a ISO 80 and as a slightly more expensive ISO 25, hard to see the value in at least one mis-representation of the product.

 

[Steve M.]

Reminds me when I was turning wrenches at a dealership that sold Rolls Royce cars down in New Orleans. The water pumps had GM clearly stamped on them and they sold for $35 at a Chevy dealer. At our place they sold for $230. Saw the same thing at a Porsche dealership when a common 1157 taillight bulb sold for nearly $5, or you could walk down the street to the independent auto parts store and buy it for about 80 cents. Caveat emptor.

 

[miha]

Nothing wrong, if value is actually added. But if Rollei is selling the same film as a ISO 80 and as a slightly more expensive ISO 25, hard to see the value in at least one mis-representation of the product.

Well, you decide on the value 😉
If Jan is correct on the origin of the film (Agfa Belgium) and the pancakes are being converted by two different contractors (Harman vs Foma Bohemia) some price difference is to be expected. Just speculating...

:angel:

edit: post corrected, sorry Jan for calling you Henning.

 

[HHPhoto]

I my neck of the woods, at least, RPX 25 isn't much more expensive than the 80s, and the original Aviphot appears unavailable. But the price difference for the 100 & 400, vs Kentmere, is kinda crazy.

At the macodirect shop 35mm Retro 80S is 4,95€, and RPX 25 is 5,75€.
A price difference of 80 Cents.
In 35mm both films are converted by Harman (easy to see in comparison to Foma). Therefore no quality difference.

In 120 format: 5,35€ for Retro 80S.
And 6,15€ for RPX 25.
A price difference of 80 Cents.
Retro 80S is converted by Foma, and RPX 25 is converted by Harman (easy to see in direct comparison, no secrets here).

And I agree with you: The price difference of RPX 100 and 400 to the original Kentmere 100 to 400 (= to the same film stock) is really quite huge. Using the original Kentmeres is the much better deal.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

This is pretty much what I came to find out. How does it work out, with rating the same film at two different ISOs? Is it really around 64 or so, and the lest is trusting to latitude?

All Agfa Aviphot Pan films have a lower real ISO sensivity! The reason for that:
The sensivity for aerial films is measured differently! Aerial films are measured at Zone III with logD 0.1, not at Zone I as regular films we normally use.
And they have a very strong S-shaped characteristic curve with a "hanging toe" and significantly less shadow detail.

Therefore in normal photography on the ground the real sensivity / speed of these aerial films is significantly lower.
Aviphot Pan 80 ist not at all a real ISO 80/20° speed film. I've got sensivities in the ISO range of 20/14° to 40/17°, depending on the developer.
ISO 80/20° is a strong push with this film.

I still kinda want to try it, but it's annoying to think of supporting this kind of nonsense.

Understandable.
Adox is soon introducing a new film in this speed range of ISO 25/15° to 50/18°. First experienced photographers are already testing it. I am very curious concerning the results.
As soon as the film is officially out (it is said to be at Photokina in September) I will try it, too

Cheers, Jan

 

[Roger Hicks]

You can use any developer you like to establish ISO speeds, provided you say what it is. It might be interesting to see what developers Maco use for 25 and 80.

Cheers,

R.

 

[css9450]

ISO 80/20° is a strong push with this film.

That was my thought also. More than a stop...

I was pleased that I am not over-exposing this film, but seeing that I am using a 60-year-old meterless camera, I could've just as easily erred in the other direction too. So, so far so good! I like RPX 25.

 

[bluesun267]

For Rodinal 1:50, The Massive Dev chart lists:

RPX 25= 11 min
Retro 80s=14 min

My own use of both films shows somewhat lower contrast on the film exposed at 25 and developed for 11 min, which would make sense

 

[Huss]

Reminds me when I was turning wrenches at a dealership that sold Rolls Royce cars down in New Orleans. The water pumps had GM clearly stamped on them and they sold for $35 at a Chevy dealer. At our place they sold for $230. Saw the same thing at a Porsche dealership when a common 1157 taillight bulb sold for nearly $5, or you could walk down the street to the independent auto parts store and buy it for about 80 cents. Caveat emptor.

Which is why I bought the Olympus EVf-2 for my Leica M240, instead of the double the price Leica one. Where the only difference is the badge.

$550 vs $200.

 

[HHPhoto]

You can use any developer you like to establish ISO speeds, provided you say what it is. It might be interesting to see what developers Maco use for 25 and 80.

Cheers,

R.

Dear Roger,

in general yes.
But that is not the problem here with this particular film!
Agfa Aviphot Pan 80 is a real "Diva", a completely different film to any other normal BW films we know and use!
This film always has a very strong S-shape characteristic curve. Even in developers which normaly produce an excellent linear characteristic curve.

Aerial films have to be different:
If you photograph from high altitudes to the ground you have a flat light: Almost no shadows and no highlights. Therefore you need a film with very good separated midtones, and higher contrast in the midtones.
Therefore aerial films are designed to have a strong S-shape characterictic curve.
And Aviphot Pan 80 has an even much stronger S-shape curve than Aviphot Pan 200.

Just evaluate this film, make a Zone row and measure it with a densitometer. And use different developers.
Then you will immediately see!
Developer manufactuerer Moersch has given up on this film because it was impossible for him to get a more linear characteristic curve with his developers. for this reason you won't find this film in his datasheets.

Cheers, Jan