When Maco (Germany), Agfa-Gevaert (Belgium), Foma (Czech Republic) and Harman (England) gets around

[Fortepun]

Let's take a look at the Rollei films, from a point of their infrared ranges. It's easy to say that most of the Rollei films are Aviphot Pan 80 or 200, or Kentmere 100 and 400 (RPX). However, there's a lot more going on, and it's pretty interesting, at least for me.

RPX 25: Aviphot Pan 80 / on Polyester / panchromatic / finished by Harman / NOT for the infrared range
Retro 80: Aviphot Pan 80 / on transparent Polyester (great for slides) / super-panchromatic / finished by Foma / for infrared (up to 750nm)
Superpan 200: Aviphot Pan 200 / clear Triacetate (great for slides) / panchromatic / finished by Foma / for infrared (up to 750nm)
Retro 400S: Aviphot Pan 200 / transparent Polyester (great for slides) / panchromatic / finished by Foma / NOT for infrared (limited to 730nm)
Infrared IR400: Aviphot Pan 400S 200 / transparent Polyester (great for slides) / panchromatic with extended IR sensitivity / finished by Agfa-Geaert) Harman / for infrared (up to 750nm)

Basically: if you are using Retro 80 or Superpan 200, they are going be contrasty at box speeds, but give them more light and yellow/orange/red filters, and they will get closer to normal, all while ready for infrared as well (with an R72 filter).
Retro 400S isn't as good as Superpan 200. And it's possibly not up to 750nm to make sure you are buying the Infrared 400 instead, which is a more versatile film all around, even under its infrared range.

Cool, Belgium, and thank you, Agfa-Gevaert!

 

[polaromar]

Rollei IR is Aviphot 200 unless you're talking about the old Rollei IR, from many years ago. Aviphot 400 hasn't been produced in over a decade and the last respools were sold ~2018-2019, when JCH Streetpan quietly switched to Aviphot 200.

All panchro aerial film benefits from ~1-2 stops of overexposure due to the difference in contrast between aerial and ground photography. Adox's value add for HR-50 vs regular Aviphot 80 is the preflashing that they do, that controls the contrast enough for it to be reasonably shot at EI 50, rather than ~EI 25-30.

 

[Fortepun]

Rollei IR is Aviphot 200 unless you're talking about the old Rollei IR, from many years ago. Aviphot 400 hasn't been produced in over a decade and the last respools were sold ~2018-2019, when JCH Streetpan quietly switched to Aviphot 200.

All panchro aerial film benefits from ~1-2 stops of overexposure due to the difference in contrast between aerial and ground photography. Adox's value add for HR-50 vs regular Aviphot 80 is the preflashing that they do, that controls the contrast enough for it to be reasonably shot at EI 50, rather than ~EI 25-30.

Thank you!

 

[revdoc]

I hope most people know by now that the Rollei data sheets are of little relevance.

I buy RPX25 or Retro 80s, whichever is cheaper. I usually rate it at 25, which is a realistic speed for Aviphot 80 in non-aerial use. I find the recommended development times are also excessive, so adjust those as well. It's a good slow film when used this way.

 

[albireo]

It's a pity that the angle on the Rollei Retro products is always infrared photography. There's much more to some of these product than doing infrared photography. Some of these are fantastic films for general purpose photography, but the tech sheet from Maco is completely useless.

I have personal experience on Rollei Retro 80S and Rollei Retro 400S. For those of us interested in general purpose photography, these are, respectively, an exceptional 50 EI and an exceptional 125EI black and white film.

Crucially, their spectral sensitivity extends into the red - they are already red sensitive so they won't need any yellow/orange/red filter! Let me repeat that: these have, essentially an 'orange filter already built in'. Adding an additional yellow/red/filter would skew their spectral response even more, giving that tacky quasi-infrared look. It would also make you lose 1,2,3 stops of sensitivity (depending on that yellow/orange/red filter factor) without much gain at all.

Try Rollei Retro 400S at 125EI in 120 on a sunny day. Cut dev times 40% to 50% wrt Maco leaflet. D76 1:1. An extraordinarily sharp film, way sharper than FP4+ and you'll get those darker skies you'd get from FP4+ with an orange filter on.

 

[Fortepun]

It's a pity that the angle on the Rollei Retro products is always infrared photography. There's much more to some of these product than doing infrared photography. Some of these are fantastic films for general purpose photography, but the tech sheet from Maco is completely useless.

I have personal experience on Rollei Retro 80S and Rollei Retro 400S. For those of us interested in general purpose photography, these are, respectively, an exceptional 50 EI and an exceptional 125EI black and white film.

Crucially, their spectral sensitivity extends into the red - they are already red sensitive so they won't need any yellow/orange/red filter! Let me repeat that: these have, essentially an 'orange filter already built in'. Adding an additional yellow/red/filter would skew their spectral response even more, giving that tacky quasi-infrared look. It would also make you lose 1,2,3 stops of sensitivity (depending on that yellow/orange/red filter factor) without much gain at all.

Try Rollei Retro 400S at 125EI in 120 on a sunny day. Cut dev times 40% to 50% wrt Maco leaflet. D76 1:1. An extraordinarily sharp film, way sharper than FP4+ and you'll get those darker skies you'd get from FP4+ with an orange filter on.

The films are panchromatic and super-panchromatic, but that's still not 'an orange filter already built in'. It only means that they are very sensitive to red light, more so than some standard panchromatic films. ISO 50 and 125 indeed sounds perfect for 80 and 400S.

 

[albireo]

The films are panchromatic and super-panchromatic, but that's still not 'an orange filter already built in'.

The impact on real photography is very similar to an orange filter in most situations though, I doubt anyone would be able to prove the difference in a controlled test.

I have shot hundreds of rolls of Retro 400S without any filters and at 125-160 and this holds

1. portraits of Caucasians: pale lips, pale skin (red subcutaneous capillary textures gets brightened)
2. reds, in direct full sun light conditions, render like a 65-80% gray
3. skies darkened, more than a Y2 Hoya and less than a Hoya R1

For landscape photography, a filter is not needed with these two films and for handheld photography it will possibly introduce more issues (risk of low shutter speeds, motion blur etc) than benefits IME. This film needs light for non aerial photography.

 

[MCB18]

I have not personally shot any Rollei films (aside from 2 rolls of the quite notoriously bad Rollei 80S from a few years ago) but, I can quite confidently say that no, none of these films are on CTA, all are PET. It has been pretty conclusively determined that all three high speed Rollei films (200/400/IR) are Aviphot 200, and that stock is not offered on CTA.

As someone pointed out, the Rollei data sheets are not exactly accurate. From my understanding, it’s not malicious, it’s more just that they don’t care to update them. They used to all be different films, however, Rollei has quietly switched over to mostly Kentmere and Aviphot 80/200 as those other films were discontinued and just not updated the data sheets.

Also, their infrared sensitivity is all relatively the same at 750nm. It’s not like the infrared sensitivity on the same film is going to change that drastically. Yes, there are going to be slight variations between batches, but it’s not going to be a 20-50 nm difference in sensitivity.

 

[mshchem]

Sounds like something to avoid.

 

[Ardpatrick]

The impact on real photography is very similar to an orange filter in most situations though, I doubt anyone would be able to prove the difference in a controlled test.

I have shot hundreds of rolls of Retro 400S without any filters and at 125-160 and this holds

1. portraits of Caucasians: pale lips, pale skin (red subcutaneous capillary textures gets brightened)
2. reds, in direct full sun light conditions, render like a 65-80% gray
3. skies darkened, more than a Y2 Hoya and less than a Hoya R1

For landscape photography, a filter is not needed with these two films and for handheld photography it will possibly introduce more issues (risk of low shutter speeds, motion blur etc) than benefits IME. This film needs light for non aerial

Interesting. I’ll try some following your advice.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The impact on real photography is very similar to an orange filter in most situations though, I doubt anyone would be able to prove the difference in a controlled test.

I have shot hundreds of rolls of Retro 400S without any filters and at 125-160 and this holds

1. portraits of Caucasians: pale lips, pale skin (red subcutaneous capillary textures gets brightened)
2. reds, in direct full sun light conditions, render like a 65-80% gray
3. skies darkened, more than a Y2 Hoya and less than a Hoya R1

For landscape photography, a filter is not needed with these two films and for handheld photography it will possibly introduce more issues (risk of low shutter speeds, motion blur etc) than benefits IME. This film needs light for non aerial photography.

The spectral sensitisation is likely quite tightly linked to the usage cases.
This may have included in-air separations (B,G,IR filtered, then printed through RGB filters) with reasonably equal exposures.
There are also good reasons for more suppressed blue and/ or a green gap, not least as it radically reduces the amount of filtration required (e.g. a 550nm Orange) to cut off anything not outside of the IR spectrum rather than something that is much denser.