Rollei Variochrome film: My test results

[valdas]

Reversal film has much more advantages than the outstanding and unsurpassed quality with projection:
- finer grain than colour negative film (because the bigger silver-halide crystals are removed in the reversal process and the final image is build by the finer / finest crystals)
- higher resolution
- better sharpness
- better versatility:
you can hold the slide just at a lightsource to view it, it can be viewed with a slide-viewer, with a loupe on a light box, it can be projected, you can make direct optical BW prints from it with direct positive paper, you can scan it and make excellent prints from the scan.
With negative film you just have only two options: Scan and print.
- in lots of cases you have lower overall costs, because after development you already have a finished picture; with negative film you always need either an additional scan and / or print. And both are expensive if you want quality.

All is true, however quality scan of slide is not something you can achieve cheaply - dmax of affordable scanners really sucks, contrast management is difficult, not speaking about getting "true colors" in the scan (so it matches what you see in the slide).

 

[miha]

Reversal film has much more advantages than the outstanding and unsurpassed quality with projection:
.....you can make direct optical BW prints from it with direct positive paper,

Can you? Given the high contrast of the two direct positive emulsions presently available, I doubt highly that such pos-pos process delivers anything of pictorial use.

 

[Dante_Stella]

Thanks.
My scanner is broken, and probably not repairable. Therefore no scans.
Honestly, I don't miss it. Slides on the lighttable with my outstanding Schneider loupes and in projection with my excellent Leica und Rollei slide projectors are 100x better than even the best drum scans viewed on a computer monitor. And not only is the quality so much better, it is also much cheaper and much less time consuming compared to scanning.

For anyone to make sense of what you are writing about comparisons to other films, they either need to see an illustration (as in a visual one) or numbers that can be compared, at least generally, to other products. I don't know what "very, very grainy" means or the extent of a "yellowish color cast" because there is no objective basis of comparison or something that would allow me to understand whether these qualities would be acceptable or not on a subjective basis. Even the term "Lomo shooters" (aside from being catty) is devoid of a referent because that brand sells the Sonnar and Russar, neither of which is a bad lens.

D

 

[HHPhoto]

All is true, however quality scan of slide is not something you can achieve cheaply - dmax of affordable scanners really sucks, contrast management is difficult, not speaking about getting "true colors" in the scan (so it matches what you see in the slide).

Well, Dmax of cheap flatbed scanners indeed sucks. But there are new, affordable options from Pacific Image, whose scanners are sold under the brand names Reflecta and PrimeFilm.
The Reflecta RPS 10 M ( Dmax of 4.2 ) and 10T have a Dmax on the level of the latest Nikon Coolscan generation.
Of course that is not the excellent level of real drum scanners, but it is a quite good level sufficient for most applications.

And with reversal film you always have the most easy, convenient and highest quality at lowest, negligible cost options: Loupe with lighttable and projection.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

Can you? Given the high contrast of the two direct positive emulsions presently available, I doubt highly that such pos-pos process delivers anything of pictorial use.

Your comment clearly demonstrates that you have never done it by yourself, that you don't have any experience with it at all.

Yes, you can. I've done it several times.
With these direct positive papers you can tame the contrast with diffuse pre-exposure and classical dodging and burning (of course with reversed effects).
These prints have their own, unique look.
There is nothing comparable.
I like this look very much.

Cheers, Jan

 

[miha]

Your comment clearly demonstrates that you have never done it by yourself, that you don't have any experience with it at all.

Yes, you can. I've done it several times.
With these direct positive papers you can tame the contrast with diffuse pre-exposure and classical dodging and burning (of course with reversed effects).
These prints have their own, unique look.
There is nothing comparable.
I like this look very much.

Cheers, Jan

It's not a comment, merely a question. No I haven't tried enlarging onto a Harman direct positive paper, though I have used it several times in my Linhof 4x5, therefore I do have some experince with the material in question. This is why I doubt highly it can be used for such purpose.

Instead of being such a weisenheimer please share your results - a smartphone shot would suffice. I'm genuinely interested.

Thanks.

 

[mpaniagua]

Your comment clearly demonstrates that you have never done it by yourself, that you don't have any experience with it at all.

Yes, you can. I've done it several times.
With these direct positive papers you can tame the contrast with diffuse pre-exposure and classical dodging and burning (of course with reversed effects).
These prints have their own, unique look.
There is nothing comparable.
I like this look very much.

Cheers, Jan

That's sounds interesting Jan. Any image to share?

Thanks


Marcelo

 

[Stephen G]

I like it for what it is, but it is not film that is going to give you true color, sharpness, high DR, etc..

I joke that it makes every hour into golden hour..


Some examples I shot:


m5_rolleivariochrome_20170730_5
by Steve, on Flickr



rolleivariochrome_20170807
by Steve, on Flickr



rolleivariochrome_20170807_2
by Steve, on Flickr



m5_rolleivariochrome_20170730_22
by Steve, on Flickr

 

[Axel]

I like it for what it is, but it is not film that is going to give you true color, sharpness, high DR, etc....

Yes, nice. Much like something I will use this film for, also.. 🙂

 

[HHPhoto]

That's sounds interesting Jan. Any image to share?

Thanks


Marcelo

Hi Marcelo,

I've used it to make direct prints from portraits I've made on colour and BW reversal film. These prints were presents for the people I have photographed, I gave it to them.
The feedback was very good, they have all been happy to have additional photographs in a very different, unique look.

The "secret" of successful use of the Harman or Imago direct positive paper when making prints from slides is to tame the contrast by
- using diffuse pre-exposure / pre-flashing
- dodging and burning (in most cases you have to use it more often compared to prints on normal BW paper).

Cheers, Jan

 

[FujiLove]

All is true, however quality scan of slide is not something you can achieve cheaply - dmax of affordable scanners really sucks, contrast management is difficult, not speaking about getting "true colors" in the scan (so it matches what you see in the slide).

Ektachrome 100VS scanned with my cheap old Epson V550. I used Epson Scan on 'auto' and just let it do it's thing. No messing trying to balance the colours like I have to with colour negative film, and it looks exactly like the slide held up to daylight.

 

[valdas]

Ektachrome 100VS scanned with my cheap old Epson V550. I used Epson Scan on 'auto' and just let it do it's thing. No messing trying to balance the colours like I have to with colour negative film, and it looks exactly like the slide held up to daylight.

yes, I get very good results from my V700... when it's a good light, accurate exposure. But when you have more contrast or you underexposure somewhat - try then... try get something from those shadows...

 

[Skiff]

Velvia 50 was not reintroduced because Velvia 100 was selling like mad. Bemoaning the discontinuation of Velvia 50 and trashing the Redvia 100 brought back Velvia 50. Your suggestion that buying and pushing Provia 100F will bring back 400X is unfortunately backed by nothing.

I have to completely disagree. Velvia 50 was re-designed and re-introduced because the majority of Velvia users wanted this film. Fuji listened.
Then recently lots of Instax users wanted a BW Instax film. The Fujifilm haters all said that Fuji will never introduce a BW instax film. What happened instead?
Fujifilm introduced a BW instax film. Because a real demand is there.
Recently Fuji reported increasing demand for Single Use cameras in Japan. What happened? Fuji introduced a special edition of these cameras with the design of the first Fuji SUC in 1986.
Photographers wanted a square format instax camera and films. Fuji listened and introduced it.

What tells us all that? If there is an increasing demand Fujifilm is introducing new film products.
So if the demand for Fuji reversal films is increasing again, there is a good chance to see films being re-introduced.

Big companies have to be opportunistic to survive:
If the demand is significantly decreasing (the situation we've had with most film types since 2001) they have to react to keep the lines running for the films with still sufficient demand.
That also means you have to cut films and losses in the fields with too low demand.
And if the demand is increasing again, they will take the chance to benefit from the new demand by more products.

The demand, that are we.
It is in our hands.
And of course all these "Fujinonfilm" campaigns and boycott appeals by short-sighted bloggers like JCH and his fanboys are completely counterproductive and damage one of our best (and in many areas the best) film manufacturer.
That is bad for all of us. Because Fujifilm cannot be replaced in the market. Same is valid for Ilford or Kodak or Impossible or Adox and so on....... We need all of them!

 

[Spanik]

While I agree that we need more than one maker of fipm, I would prefer they made different types of film instead of all making the same ones.

 

[Skiff]

For anyone to make sense of what you are writing about comparisons to other films, they either need to see an illustration (as in a visual one) or numbers that can be compared, at least generally, to other products.

With Provia 100F at ISO 200/24° I've got a resolution of 120 lp/mm with my 50mm standard lens at f4 and f5.6.
With Variochrome I've got only 55 lp/mm.
Provia 100F has a RMS granularity value of 8 (the lower the value, the finer the grain).
Provia 400X has a RMS of 11.
Ektachrome E 200 had RMS 12.
Ektachrome 400X had RMS 19.
And in comparison the Variochrome looks grainier than the Ektachrome 400X (evaluated with a 10x loupe on a light box).

Even the term "Lomo shooters" (aside from being catty) is devoid of a referent because that brand sells the Sonnar and Russar, neither of which is a bad lens.
D

You are doing catty nitpicking.
I used the term 'Lomo' just as a widely used abbreviation of 'Lomography' and the typical Lomography style.
And Variochrome with its special look (which is completely untypical for colour reversal films) fit exactly to this style.
I've already given the link, see my posting above:
https://www.lomography.com/search/photos?query=Variochrome

 

[Skiff]

While I agree that we need more than one maker of fipm, I would prefer they made different types of film instead of all making the same ones.

Tell that especially to Harman / Ilford and the repacking companies like Maco/Rollei:
Kentmere 100 and 400 is in the
- AgfaPhoto APX 100 / 400 New
- Rollei RPX 100 / 400
- CHM 100 / 400
- Oriental 100 / 400
boxes.

Rollei Superpan 200 = Rollei Retro 400S = Rollei Infrared. The original film behind all this is Agfa Aviphot Pan 200.
JCH Street Pan is just old stock Agfa Aviphot Pan 400 / ASP 400s.
Rollei Retro 80S and Rollei RPX 25 are also the same film: Agfa Aviphot Pan 80.
Freestyle Arista edu is Foma. Lomography is currently mainly repackaging Kodak and Foma films.
Rollei CR 200 was the same as Rollei Crossbid = Lomography XPro 200 = Wittner Chrome 200 = Agfa Avichrome 200 (orginal film).
And Variochrome is also just a repacked, old film. Leftover stock
And so on.......

I prefer to support with my hard-earned money real production of highest quality, current and unique films. Like e.g. Provia 100F and Velvia 50 / 100.

 

[brbo]

And I prefer variety. Cause, really, that's the point in shooting film (exclusively!) for me.

If there was Velvia 50, Astia 100 and Provia 400X I'd probably shoot 90% slide film. But since there is no 400X I don't spend 12-15EUR per roll on Fuji films, but spend 20 EUR for 30m of Vision3 5219 and a few EUR per roll of Precisa CT 100.

Am I contributing to Fuji slide film demise? Quite possibly. But, since they won't listen, the little me can't help it...

 

[miha]

Tell that especially to Harman / Ilford and the repacking companies like Maco/Rollei:
Kentmere 100 and 400 is in the
- AgfaPhoto APX 100 / 400 New
- Rollei RPX 100 / 400
- CHM 100 / 400
- Oriental 100 / 400
boxes.

Rollei Superpan 200 = Rollei Retro 400S = Rollei Infrared. The original film behind all this is Agfa Aviphot Pan 200.
JCH Street Pan is just old stock Agfa Aviphot Pan 400 / ASP 400s.
Rollei Retro 80S and Rollei RPX 25 are also the same film: Agfa Aviphot Pan 80.
Freestyle Arista edu is Foma. Lomography is currently mainly repackaging Kodak and Foma films.
Rollei CR 200 was the same as Rollei Crossbid = Lomography XPro 200 = Wittner Chrome 200 = Agfa Avichrome 200 (orginal film).
And Variochrome is also just a repacked, old film. Leftover stock
And so on.......

I prefer to support with my hard-earned money real production of highest quality, current and unique films. Like e.g. Provia 100F and Velvia 50 / 100.

The more the merrier. The above mentioned HARMAN produced films pose not treat to Ilford labeled films. Different merchant use different channels of distribution, thus I can obtain HARMAN made AgfaPhoto APX film locally as Lupus is distributing it trough a well known drugstore whereas Kentmere films are not available locally. I see this as a win-win situation.

p.s. Interesting to learn that 80s and RPX25 are one and the same film.

 

[Spanik]

Tell that especially to Harman / Ilford and the repacking companies like Maco/Rollei:
.......
I prefer to support with my hard-earned money real production of highest quality, current and unique films. Like e.g. Provia 100F and Velvia 50 / 100.

I do agree. But what is really hurting is that even new or remade old film is not bringing anything new to the table. While film like Bergger is new, it is just another b&w 100/400. The Ferrania P30 might be an 80 iso but how different is that from an 100 iso, and again another b&w.

The Ferrania promised slides will again be a 100 iso one, just like what Kodak will re-introduce. So we will end up with 4 iso 100 slide films (and one 50). Why not a 200 or a 400? It isn't that lightmeters aren't capable of anything else.

 

[brbo]

Why? the experts here will tell you that there is absolutely no demand for non-100iso slide film 😉

Truth is, Ferrania never said 100 will definitely be the only slide film they want to (re)introduce:

------------------------
Will you make other film speeds? C-41? Black and white? Large format? Infrared? 127 126, 220, etc.?

The answer to all of these questions is - maybe.

If we can successfully complete this Kickstarter, we will have all of the puzzle pieces that, together, add up to enormous potential to make just about any type of photographic or cinema film type ever made (with some limits, of course).

The key word there is "potential". There are still many many things to do to say for sure.
------------------------

The opening of this thread is a perfect example of what would happen if the first film from Ferrania was an ISO 800/3200 film with... o, gosh, do I even dare to say that... (lots of) grain.