Color correction for Rollei Digibase CR200?

[spatz]

Nzoomed - I am actually really looking forward to shooting some of the film once i get it. Your results look very promising. There is a distant echo of a kodachrome-like colour palette. I also think making a Flickr group for this film is a great idea!

It would interesting to compare the 200D against provia in terms of grain and film speed. What stops me from using provia more is the cyan cast that occurs in the shadows in daylight. I prefer to shoot without compensating filters.

 

[Nzoomed]

CT Precisa was rebranded Elitechrome 100 until Kodak stopped production. I've used quite a few of them.

Yes quite possible, i do remember reading about this, sorry i was confused with the last post, i thought it was suggesting that Elitechrome was rebranded AGFA film!

Nzoomed - I am actually really looking forward to shooting some of the film once i get it. Your results look very promising. There is a distant echo of a kodachrome-like colour palette. I also think making a Flickr group for this film is a great idea!

It would interesting to compare the 200D against provia in terms of grain and film speed. What stops me from using provia more is the cyan cast that occurs in the shadows in daylight. I prefer to shoot without compensating filters.

I do miss my kodak quite alot, mainly with the grain more than anything, personally i dont see any real difference between Ektachrome and this AGFA stock, other than the grain, i want to test it on some reds etc and see how it really does compare to Kodachrome.

 

[spatz]

I have just noticed they posted some sample images on their news page (a few of which have been posted on this thread).

http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/neu/news2013.php#20130729-1

I suggest google translating the text as they make some interesting comments.

 

[AgX]

Using a bulk loader means basically to be alert of possible light piping affecting the last frames too.

(Bulk loading can be be done without a loader.)

 

[Nzoomed]

I have just noticed they posted some sample images on their news page (a few of which have been posted on this thread).

http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/neu/news2013.php#20130729-1

I suggest google translating the text as they make some interesting comments.

Those top 4 Sample Photos on the left are the ones i took on their first rolls they produced!
They must have thought they were up to a high standard when they asked me for permission!

 

[AgX]

Maco stated to have cool storage for their films.
Agfa however even did deep-freeze in the past (in the times of their re-transferal of colour-emulsion making
to their Mortsel plant).

 

[Henning Serger]

Did the film just sit far too long on distributer's shelves?

This film is very old, both the Wittner and the Rollei films.
Because:
AviPhot Chrome 200 was coated at the former Agfa plant in Leverkusen / Germany, in 2005. All material now sold is at least 8 years old.
It has never been produced at the still running Agfa film factory in Mortsel / Belgium.
At the time when it was clear that the plant in Leverkusen will stop production, Mortsel ordered huge amounts of this film to be able to supply their aerial film customers for many years to come.
The film delivered by Agfa today is cool stored stock from their warehouse. There is no production of this film anymore. If the stock is depleted,well then....that's it. History.

To keep colour reversal film alive means buying Fuji (and AgfaPhoto CT Precisa) and, if this film really hit the market, the new Ferrania chrome film.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[AgX]

This film is very old, both the Wittner and the Rollei films.
Because:
AviPhot Chrome 200 was coated at the former Agfa plant in Leverkusen / Germany, in 2005. All material now sold is at least 8 years old.

Agfa tell a different story.

And Aviphot films were never coated in Leverkusen.

 

[Henning Serger]

Agfa tell a different story.

And Aviphot films were never coated in Leverkusen.

No, sorry, I have to disagree.
The information I've posted above is directly from Agfa in Mortsel, from the responsible management.
Aviphot Chrome 200 has been coated in Leverkusen.
The Material now sold is cold stored stock. When this stock is depleted, the film is history.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[AgX]

Then the same department is telling two opposing stories. And on this I have several Agfa sources.

That a manufacture of that very film would not be resumed is a different issue.

 

[brianmquinn]

Then the same department is telling two opposing stories.

This would not be the first time that has happened. We see it all the time with lots of companies and even governments.

 

[wblynch]

...The film lots found to be "yellow" should be published...

It is. They call it Crossbird

 

[AgX]

Increases in sales of this film could encourage Agfa to produce more

It will take a lot of 135's to show effect on Agfa's inventory. But of course you are right. Sales are what count.

 

[wlodekmj]

Report on 4 batches, with batch numbers

I am thinking Agfa would want to do the production of the Aviphot Chrome 200 all in the same location seeing that all that highly specialized film production equipment and staff were already set up in Leverkusen to produce the RSXII 200 Dia film. ...

The film lots found to be "yellow" should be published so that those folks who possess the offending lot numbers can exchange the film for properly performing film, I would bet that would really boost confidence in this film. ...

If it helps, here are some batch numbers and what I found with them.

67821601, sold as Rollei Digibase 200. I have tried 4 rolls. 3 were very strongly yellow at the beginning of the roll, tapering off to still markedly yellow on the last frames. 1 roll was markedly yellow on the first frames, slightly yellow on the last frames.

67821601, sold as Rollei Digibase 200. I have tried 4 rolls. One was like the least bad of batch 601 above, markedly yellow at the beginning, slightly yellow at the end. 3 were noticeably yellow at the beginning, very mildly yellow at all at the end.

67821606, sold as Lomography XPro 200. I have tried only one roll, markedly yellow at the beginning, slightly yellow at the end. (I tried a roll of Lomography XPro 100 at the same time, it seemed to be Lomo-labelled Kodak Elitechrome 100; no wonder Lomo no longer sell it. The colors were all as one expects from Elitechrome 100, no sign of yellowing.)

67821607, sold as Rollei Crossbird. I have tried only one roll, markedly yellow at the beginning, very mildly yellow at the end.

In each case, I bought several rolls, and am now left with film I am not sure what to do with. The last few frames on rolls from batches 602, 606 and 607 look almost as good as the sample photographs shown from film sold by Wittner, and I have ordered some from Wittner and plan to shoot a roll of each of the above in parallel with a roll from Wittner.

A few more comments:
The film is definitely not planned to be yellow to correct for the blue tint possibly produced in aerial photography from 5 thousand or 10 thousand metres. Firstly, the yellow cast varies from start to end of the film. Secondly, I shot photographs on a commercial flight over Greenland, at about 10 thousand metres, on a roll of batch 601 and a roll of Ektachrome 100G at the same time. The snow on E100G was white, the snow on Digibase 200 was strongly yellow.
The yellow is nothing to do with poor processing - I have got the same results whether the film was home processed or commercially processed.
The yellow cast is not due to bad storage of master rolls, as it varies from strong at the beginning of 35mm rolls, to less at the end of rolls. It could to be due to:
Bad practice in spooling individual rolls of 35mm film, leading to some, or a lot, of light piping down the roll.
Poor quality light trapping felt on the 35 mm film canisters.
Storage in very bad conditions, leading to the film on the outside of the film canister getting a strong yellow fog, the film near the center of the canister being less affected.

I was very disappointed in the results, except a few of the last frames on some rolls, especially after reading excellent reviews from several years ago. I do look forward to trying the film packaged by Wittner, and shall not buy any more of the film labelled Rollei and spooled by Maco, until either Maco admit what happened, or we get reports of uniformly good film coming from Maco again.

Many thanks for all the reports posted in this thread.

 

[Nzoomed]

This is a very interesting read, and is a surprise to me if this stock is indeed 8 years old and no longer made, but i guess that could explain why some people report yellowing?

Im going to ask Wittner-Cinetec about this, but i expect they have already read these posts.

As far as light piping goes, this film is very bad for light piping, and Wittner-Cinetec acknowledge this, my film displayed signs of this, however, it never affected my images, or made them yellow, just a little bit of orange around the sprocket holes.
I loaded my next cartridge in the dark, so will see if this helps, the only other thing that may be a factor is if the cartridges are not sealing the light out the best.

 

[wblynch]

How about developing it as a negative in C-41? Any reports on the "cross-process" front?

 

[Simonh82]

I've followed this thread for a long time and used the film a handful if times. I'm convinces, reading individual reports and taking this thread as a whole that the issue is to do with light piping and not bad film.

Everyone is aware of the issue but not recognising that it may be the only cause of the problem. If the problem is worse near the leader and gets better throughout the film this sounds like classic light piping.

I don't think this film can be handled like normal film. I think you need to treat it like HEI and load I'm complete darkness. I also think it should be stored in black canisters, which my film came in but I'd sounds like others haven't.

A real test would be to look at results from 120 film where the backing paper should stop the light piping. Has anyone experienced this problem with 120 film?

 

[AgX]

wlodekmj,

Many thanks for that comprehensive report. I never heard about that gradual yellowing before.
You also gave good thought on the cause.

However...., why are there no reports on that unmasked C-41 film also offered by Maco? That would show respective gradual colour change (otherwise veiled by the mask) in case of that light piping theory being valid.
The quality of the light-trapping velvet can be considered to be of minor effect only.


Anyway, as hinted at by me with other problems, it is the industry, in this case Maco, to find out.
So far I did not read a single word by them on that issue.

 

[railwayman3]

The gradual yellowing does sound like light-piping. If it's bad storage, it must have been really bad and totally careless.

(FWIW, I recently finished off the film in a Kodak disposable camera which had been forgotten in the back of a car for at least a couple of years. Expiry date was 2005, shots taken way back were poor, but the current shots were fine. So it seemed latent images suffered but the unexposed film was not noticeably affected).

 

[wlodekmj]

Makes me wonder if the film in 35mm was poorly handled by those cutting and packing the film.

Yes, it is possible that for some months the Aviphot was being put into 35mm cassettes and then packed into the plastic cans under ordinary light, or even under strong light. Maybe someone forgot that this film must be protected from light piping. Or maybe the person/people who knew it went away for holiday, or for another reason. I put one roll into a 35mm camera in a film changing bag, so it was not exposed to light at all, and after the film was finished, I wound it right back into the film cassette. But when it was developed, the film leader was exposed, so clearly the loaded 35mm cassettes were not packed into their plastic cans in the dark.

The 120 film may have not been cut and packed at the same location as the 35mm, Is the 120 film showing "Yellow"?

Nobody has reported yellow 120 film, but that would not suffer from light piping, because there is no leader or trailer that is exposed to light when the spools are being packed. There are no reports of fogged polyester-based negative film either, possibly because only the Aviphot was packaged under the wrong conditions.

Perhaps the 35mm cartridges had residual volatile organic compounds inside in the paint that affected the film.

That is another interesting suggestion! Perhaps someone from Maco will tell us at some time.

 

[wblynch]

Why do they mess around with the polyester base at all?

Traditional base has always worked great and should be easily available world wide.

 

[AgX]

Polyester base has only advantages to my mind.
For the purpose that film in question was originally designed for definitely.

Pure Polyester has a lower optical density than Triacetate. And for the intended use it's well fit. Making a special Polyester base more fit for type 135 and coating a batch onto it means additional costs.

Only Adox so far spent money on a alternative solution (with their current project).

 

[Nzoomed]

I've followed this thread for a long time and used the film a handful if times. I'm convinces, reading individual reports and taking this thread as a whole that the issue is to do with light piping and not bad film.

Everyone is aware of the issue but not recognising that it may be the only cause of the problem. If the problem is worse near the leader and gets better throughout the film this sounds like classic light piping.

I don't think this film can be handled like normal film. I think you need to treat it like HEI and load I'm complete darkness. I also think it should be stored in black canisters, which my film came in but I'd sounds like others haven't.

A real test would be to look at results from 120 film where the backing paper should stop the light piping. Has anyone experienced this problem with 120 film?

I dont think its an issue to do with light piping at all, i shot my first roll after loading it in a room full of artificial light from fluorescent lamps.
I did suffer light piping, but only made the edges of the sprocket holes an orange like colour.
The images itself were perfect and my sample shots i posted here display that.
Ive loaded my second roll in the dark as a precaution, but dont feel its 100% necessary.

All Fuji Films are made with a polyester base as far as im aware, and it doesnt seem people are reporting this yellowing issue with their films.
Unless this polyester base in the AGFA stock is ultra clear and allowing more light through?

Why do they mess around with the polyester base at all?

Traditional base has always worked great and should be easily available world wide.

True, but i thought pretty much all films today had switched over to polyester, mainly because of its long term stability, it does not degrade or break down, well at least not for hundreds of years

The old acetate films were often subject to vinegar syndrome.

 

[richyd]

I've only used this in 120. The first roll I tried about 2 years ago came out well, nicely balanced colours and white whites. There may be some examples I posted near the beginning of this thread I think or another one. On one frame, in the middle, there was some yellow banding which I thought may be from the pocessing. I have experienced light piping with polyester films but this showed more as a light leak from the edges to the centre, so is not even across a frame.

I tried another roll a few months later to test a newly purchased old folder camera which happened to have light leaks, but the film came out fine in terms of colour balance.

I recently tried the film again with another roll of the same batch, now stored for over year showed some yellowing, the processor commented that it just looked warm. And indeed, after scanning, some correction brought the balance back. What I liked was that in a deep shadow area where a Fuji film would have had a blue/purple cast, this film maintained the shadow balance.

The next film I sent to another processor to see if the processing made a difference but they developed as a B&W film!

Last month I got a new lot of 5, no batch number, just labelled RDC2001.These films were marked as a Lomography type on the end of roll sticker. All the frames on this show a yellow cast, more than just a warm colour temperature. I would say that some frames where the exposure may have been a bit over were a bit clearer (I forgot my light meter and had to guess).

It seems that the yellowing may be due to degradation in storage. The Aviphot 200 pdf file you can find and mentioned above makes note of storage conditions and prompt processing after exposure. I don't know how different that is from any other film.

I'm really disappointed because with the demise of other emulsions this looked promising. The first roll I tried had nice neutral balance, clean colours, good sharpness and I liked how it dealt with underexposed shadow areas. I thought the film is a bit grainy compared to present 100 ASA film but in medium format is not really noticeable. I wouldn't use it in 135. It's a shame because when you look at the technology that went into making the film, built in UV filter for instance, and the results I got with the first roll, it all looked good.

Speaking of which I did try, 2 years ago, a roll of the CN200, C41 version in 135 and 120. Both came out with pleasing colour tones, I really liked it as a negative film but usually shoot transparency. The 135 was just too grainy for me but I liked the 120.

So I also bought a 5 roll lot of the CN200 in 120 size and tried a roll last month. Interestingly and unfortunately this film also shows the same yellow cast as the slide film pehaps to an even more pronouced affect, and the solid blue sky areas came out patchy and uneven, you wouldn't think it was the same film I tried 2 years previously. I don't want to use this one again.

It is interesting that these films are now marked as Lomography as I guess the the colour shifts that now appear to affect these films would be the sort of effect those users are after. For me it just means I have wasted around 35 Euro on sub standard film.

 

[AgX]

Agfa themselves even do not hint at lightpiping at all. Not for their 70mm films, nor for their very own type 135 conversion.