film categories: which are "retro" and which are not?

[Pixophrenic]

I am so grateful to you guys. This forum is worth a thousand expensive books. Most importantly, it is contemporary. It has been quite informative to peruse some of the past threads, especially the very long one about somewhat futile attempts to produce "liquid Xtol" (98430-improved-version-ds-10-ryuji-suzuki.html). Armed with a pocket scale, however, one is able to make up many excellent one-shot formulas in about 15 minutes. Crawley's FX-55 is one such developer: stripped of unnecessary components, it makes for a usable compensating developer, which at 1X works for about a weekend and not a lot of chemicals are dumped into the sink. I'd say standard Caffenol, which uses about 50 g/l soda ash, is more pollution than that. Lately, vising one of Toronto shops, carrying an extensive palette of chemicals from Kodak and Ilford, I scratched my head for some time over a huge double package of Xtol ( now labeled "for industrial use") and finally decided to hold off. It was a good decision, as after I searched forums for the first film I was going to develop in it, Rollei Retro 80S, I found that Xtol is not the one for it. Another disaster was prevented. It is also my impression that during the 1990s and the next decade a lot of research went into producing liquid concentrates that would eventually replace the venerable D-76/ID-11. It is something of a paradox that today it is impossible to ship some liquid chemicals cross border (except for special arrangements). So retro-style developers containing catechol and/or pyrogallol are largely confined to the countries within which they are produced, and most or all "modern" developers are mimics of Microphen, except they are liquid concentrates. Correct me, if I am wrong. So here comes the question. When a new developer is introduced, it is assumed that it will work with all films. However, from a simple encounter with Rollei Retro 80S, one can conclude that there are classes of films that may develop similarly only within a class. So, which current films are "retro" and which are not?

 

[Petraio Prime]

Nah, pretty much any continuous-tone developer will work with any continuous-tone film. The exceptions would be obsolete formulas such as Kodak DK20, which contained a small amount of fixer (sodium thiosulphate). It causes dichroic fog with modern films.

http://www.digitaltruth.com/data/formula.php?FormulaID=136

 

[MattKing]

+1
And X-Tol will work really well.
"Retro" is a marketing term. No less, and no more.
There are differences between films and between developers, but the differences in results will be more subtle than significant.

 

[dmr]

"Retro" is a marketing term.

A Pentax Spotmatic and a Canon GIII are "Vintage"; a new off-the-shelf Lomo is "Retro"!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

None are retro. If "retro" is in the name it is marketing for hipsters who goes on and on about film grain and what else hipsters are getting on film scans. If you want retro look print it on old FB paper. Pan F+, HP5+ and FH4+ will do for negatives. Fifty years old paper (FB) is still printable and possible to find. I'm getting "retro" comments all the time.

 

[pentaxuser]

Pixophrenic, perhaps you can tell us the sources of info that led you to conclude that Xtol and Rollei are a disastrous combination?

pentaxuser

 

[Europan]

Retro is a humbug. I only accept retrofocus with lens designs.
Retard is mostly appropriate. Nostalgic would fit, not retro.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Retro is a packaging term not related to the real world.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It was a good decision, as after I searched forums for the first film I was going to develop in it, Rollei Retro 80S, I found that Xtol is not the one for it. Another disaster was prevented.

Just not true. I have developed Rollei Retro in XTOL. Something posted on the internet does not, in itself, indicate that it is true nor doe it imply that there is any basis for it.

 

[Pixophrenic]

Pixophrenic, perhaps you can tell us the sources of info that led you to conclude that Xtol and Rollei are a disastrous combination?

pentaxuser

I try to use Rollei Retro 80s solely on cloudy days. I have used it in situations with that have a lot of contrast and for those I have gotten good results with stand developing using Rodinal 1:100 for 45 minutes with some agitation after about 22 minutes.

The previous message in this thread says that Xtol did not work with this film (high contrast). It could of course be that the person telling this did something wrong, but this makes sense to me. Maco lists quite a few suitable developers for their film called "Retro 80S" (Aviphot) in the datasheet for this film, you can see that D-76 conditions listed result in >1 stop loss of speed. If I were to shoot it at box speed and send to one of these labs where they use D-76, it would be ruined. However, when I asked Maco directly, I got only one answer "Rollei Supergrain". This would cost me $40 with shipping, as it is only available in another province. I imagine there are other films like that.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

If one believes that everything on the net is true then I have some prime real estate in south Florida. Contact me during the dry season.

 

[Pixophrenic]

I am not sure I quite understand the sarcasm, but citing Barry Thornton: "I experimented with various combinations of these three chemicals, and also tried all the proprietary high definition developers. Success…and then they change the films! Just when I had the optimum balance, they changed the films! Old faithful Ilford FP3 became FP4..." Maybe I have not made myself clear. There is talk about "thin emulsions" and "think emulsions". Obviously, high speed films are generally thicker than lower speed of the same manufacturer. But Delta 100 versus FP4 I am not sure which one is thicker. It is not about two-bath developers, it is that films changed over time, and now we have "old" and "new" alongside.

 

[Ian Grant]

+1
And X-Tol will work really well.
"Retro" is a marketing term. No less, and no more.
There are differences between films and between developers, but the differences in results will be more subtle than significant.

I think another point that's important is not just the choice of film and developer but more importantly how you use them.

If we look at how films were used prior to WWII (which is obviously before the early 1960s change in films speeds) negatives were over exposed by today's standards and also processed to higher density (and contrast) but the papers of the era matched those negatives, With the advent of 35mm and particularly the Leica things had to change to get better quality from the miniature format.

It was the Germans who changed the approach, people like Windisch, Beutler etc, who's developers were surface working with the then quite thick film emulsions. early Leica books are a good source for spotting the shifts and the more precise exposures.

Hans Windisch's book

Die Neu Foto Schule, 1938, is advocating modern processing techniques, the first T coated Zeiss lenses were available that year (not mentioned in the book), but more importantly accurate light meters are advertised and Gossen offered a few different models,

So when you look at pre WWII work by say Kertesz it has an old fashioned look, his post WWII work looks modern. I've seen a lot of Kertesz work a show of his early work at the Barbican in London was amazing, shot with 9x12 (cm) cameras, or perhaps smaller, the images were contemporary (so made around the time shot) superb all smaller than 10x8 but jewel like and exquisite. Now these were superb, a couple of years later I saw another Kertesz exhibition, I think in Paris, this included newer B&W images shot after WWII in New York and some Polaroids. The prints made from pre WWII negatives were modern and soul-less they'd lost the magic, modern papers don't match old negatives well.

Now a few on APUG commented similarly about an Ansel Adams touring exhibition here in the UK maybe 8 or 9 years ago (prints from his daughters collection). In this case it was different her contemporary prints were mediocre, the reality was Ansel Adams made most of his famous images before coming up with the Zone System with Minor White, and raelly only became a master printer quite late in his life. Plus he might not have given his daughter his best prints

A lot is down to the talents of the printer, I'd say the early Ansel Adams prints had a retro look but his modern printing techniques were vastly superior. In the case of the Kertesz work the papers really needed just weren't available to modern printers, and who ever printed from his negatives had no clue how to emulate them. The difference is AA only used Bromide papers while Kertesz's early prints were on long gone Warm tome papers and look stark and unnatural on Bromide (if you've seen earlier versions)

The retro look is how you work, perhaps choice of uncoated lenses, it's also due to the need for tolerance/latitude before meters were common and exposures precise.

Ian

.

 

[pentaxuser]

Pixophrenic, I'd say that your evidence for Xtol and Rollei being a recipe for disaster is, as you admit, limited and may well be wrong. I think those whose replies may seem acerbic may be replying that way because they are questioning whether you are looking for APUG's collective knowledge with an open enough mind.

Try postponing any decisions on films and developers until you have got a large range of information. Can I suggest you try a search for Rollei and Xtol and secondly it may be more useful for you to start a thread specifically asking for knowledge and experiences from those who have used Rollei and Xtol.

Open questions usually produce answers which are most useful. Again ask for information and explanations covering "trad" cubic grain and T-grain films, neither of which is retro. I am unsure that retro is a helpful word in getting the answers you need.

pentaxuser

 

[Dali]

I am not sure I quite understand the sarcasm, but citing Barry Thornton: "I experimented with various combinations of these three chemicals, and also tried all the proprietary high definition developers. Success…and then they change the films! Just when I had the optimum balance, they changed the films! Old faithful Ilford FP3 became FP4..." Maybe I have not made myself clear. There is talk about "thin emulsions" and "think emulsions". Obviously, high speed films are generally thicker than lower speed of the same manufacturer. But Delta 100 versus FP4 I am not sure which one is thicker. It is not about two-bath developers, it is that films changed over time, and now we have "old" and "new" alongside.

It is not because the name changed that the film changed. It is not because the film changed that the name changed... On top of that, advice in the internet are not always reliable nor replicable, so I would suggest you run your own tests and decide by yourself if results you get are acceptable or not from your own criteria (speed, contrast, grain, you name it). Reading tons of so-call technical literature won't make you a better photographer, only practice can.

 

[trendland]

None are retro. If "retro" is in the name it is marketing for hipsters who goes on and on about film grain and what else hipsters are getting on film scans. If you want retro look print it on old FB paper. Pan F+, HP5+ and FH4+ will do for negatives. Fifty years old paper (FB) is still printable and possible to find. I'm getting "retro" comments all the time.

........first we should answer the question what is a hipster.
Perhaps we can find secondly an answer
on : WHAT is RETRO ?
I will have a definition : A hipster is a person who live in the capital of a Country.
When he is traveling around between his
appartement and his club he has a camera (or two cameras ) from the desribtion dmr made (vintage).
But without film because he will never
use the camera.
Mostly he will even not use digital equipment.
Because the camera (a proper Nikon F2
can do the job also - but it's weight?)

..........IS ONLY HIS NEW ACCESSOIRE !

Therefore we should say :
1) Retro Films are without profit to hipster.

whith regards

 

[Pixophrenic]

Pixophrenic, I'd say that your evidence for Xtol and Rollei being a recipe for disaster is, as you admit, limited and may well be wrong. I think those whose replies may seem acerbic may be replying that way because they are questioning whether you are looking for APUG's collective knowledge with an open enough mind.

Try postponing any decisions on films and developers until you have got a large range of information. Can I suggest you try a search for Rollei and Xtol and secondly it may be more useful for you to start a thread specifically asking for knowledge and experiences from those who have used Rollei and Xtol.

Open questions usually produce answers which are most useful. Again ask for information and explanations covering "trad" cubic grain and T-grain films, neither of which is retro. I am unsure that retro is a helpful word in getting the answers you need.

pentaxuser

I am indeed looking for collective knowledge, but obviously "retro" triggered wrong associations, and it's not my fault. I am also not specifically focused on bashing Xtol, just searched this forum for "retro 80S" and found very little, but among those one negative experience. Rollei Retro 80S is just a film name and it is not a "lomographic" film, quite the contrary, it is very sharp and was repurposed from aerial surveillance. It has many qualities that I like. I expected somebody would explain why it is called "classic" and which films, in comparison, are considered most "contemporary". I am going to stay with this film, and eventually find out the developer that preferably can be made at home from common components (though not Caffenol) and gives strong enough compensating effect. I promise to come back with my positive experiences about this film that are worth sharing.

 

[trendland]

I am so grateful to you guys. This forum is worth a thousand expensive books. Most importantly, it is contemporary. It has been quite informative to peruse some of the past threads, especially the very long one about somewhat futile attempts to produce "liquid Xtol" (98430-improved-version-ds-10-ryuji-suzuki.html). Armed with a pocket scale, however, one is able to make up many excellent one-shot formulas in about 15 minutes. Crawley's FX-55 is one such developer: stripped of unnecessary components, it makes for a usable compensating developer, which at 1X works for about a weekend and not a lot of chemicals are dumped into the sink. I'd say standard Caffenol, which uses about 50 g/l soda ash, is more pollution than that. Lately, vising one of Toronto shops, carrying an extensive palette of chemicals from Kodak and Ilford, I scratched my head for some time over a huge double package of Xtol ( now labeled "for industrial use") and finally decided to hold off. It was a good decision, as after I searched forums for the first film I was going to develop in it, Rollei Retro 80S, I found that Xtol is not the one for it. Another disaster was prevented. It is also my impression that during the 1990s and the next decade a lot of research went into producing liquid concentrates that would eventually replace the venerable D-76/ID-11. It is something of a paradox that today it is impossible to ship some liquid chemicals cross border (except for special arrangements). So retro-style developers containing catechol and/or pyrogallol are largely confined to the countries within which they are produced, and most or all "modern" developers are mimics of Microphen, except they are liquid concentrates. Correct me, if I am wrong. So here comes the question. When a new developer is introduced, it is assumed that it will work with all films. However, from a simple encounter with Rollei Retro 80S, one can conclude that there are classes of films that may develop similarly only within a class. So, which current films are "retro" and which are not?

Next coming to you Pixophrenic !

Your thoughts are absolutely OK !
It it is correct in your mind is out of relevance.
WHAT Do you need ?
If have a recomandstion to Retro Films and Developer.

1) Ilford PanF with Ilford Perceptol
(both are long enought sold to be Retro)
2) Ilford Hp5 with Rodinal developer.
The Developer is very old - in combination with Hp5 you can get The oposite from PanF (very grainy ).
Rollei Retropan 200 is in the middle perhaps D-76 is a fine developer combination..

The use of PE papers in isn't
very usefull to Retro Look in darkroom.
Better use AGFA Brovia Paper (ebay).

And you should avoid Multicontrast Papers too of cause.

I mentioned Nikon F2 - this is indeed a
good camera for you with many possible
lenses.
At least : No Autofocus. I personaly don't
use it.
Autofocus is The total oposite of Retro.

Bon Chance

 

[trendland]

Sorry forget your Rollei Retro 80S.
It is a "hart" Film for experts.
They use this film in concert to high resolution and extrem fine grain with
special developers.
Have a look here on Apug to Retro80S.

with regards

 

[removed account4]

good work avoiding extol
i can't stand that stuff
weak flat uncontrasty developer
no matter how i used it
( used it for years trying to get it to work _
to quote someone famous >> lame * YMMV of course

no not every liquid dev mimics microfin
sprint developer was developed in the 70s ( pardon the pun )
and is an ID11 / d76 direct replacement ! it can be used with
every film made .. and if you go to the sprint website
you can see devlopment instructions for
aged film, plastic lens, and a zillion other things ...

the thread you referenced was not a waste or a wash
ryjui is brilliant, as is ( was / RIP ) patrick gainer
if you want to learn something, read their threads !

 

[MattKing]

I am indeed looking for collective knowledge, but obviously "retro" triggered wrong associations, and it's not my fault. I am also not specifically focused on bashing Xtol, just searched this forum for "retro 80S" and found very little, but among those one negative experience. Rollei Retro 80S is just a film name and it is not a "lomographic" film, quite the contrary, it is very sharp and was repurposed from aerial surveillance. It has many qualities that I like. I expected somebody would explain why it is called "classic" and which films, in comparison, are considered most "contemporary". I am going to stay with this film, and eventually find out the developer that preferably can be made at home from common components (though not Caffenol) and gives strong enough compensating effect. I promise to come back with my positive experiences about this film that are worth sharing.

A much better name for it would then be "Rollei Repurposed 80S".
An aerial surveillance film isn't classic or contemporary, it is just special purpose.
You may very well be able to make use of it for purposes other than it was originally intended for, but that may involve resorting to either specialized techniques, or special purpose developers, or both.
That will frequently lead to greater cost, greater inconvenience, or poorer results.
FWIW, the following thread includes an example from someone who had a good result with X-TOl with at least one of the flavours of the film: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Down Under]

To keep all this nice and simple, why don't we all agree that "retro" (most definitely an acceptable term, look it up in a dictionary!) is any film no longer being manufactured?

Okay, sure, to satisfy (are they ever?) the purists and the rice grain counters, let's include the "lesser" (sarcasm alert here) Eastern European emulsions still being made, most being remanufactured emulsions from formulas dating to the 1950s or even 1940s. My current faves are the Rollei films, which suit my style of shooting, even if many won't use them. I loathe the Fomas, which are adored by many. An odd lot of little duckies, we are, flapping around in the big pond, quacking our little heads off. Rollei is great/awful, Foma is awful/great, ad nauseum. I'm most definitely one of this flock, my name is Donald!

I shot Panatomic-X and Plus-X until Kodak discontinued them. I'm now out the latter, and I sort of miss it, but these days friends who are opting out of analog are giving me their old films, and I find I have 60 rolls of Panatomic along with assorted odd lots of other vintage films in the freezer. Nobody has any Plus-X left, tho. Is there a message here? If so, it's they used up all the Plus-X, and hoarded the Panatomic-X. Is there a message there? Never mind, just keep giving me the Panatomic!

This September we will be in North America for three months, for what will likely be my last visit to my various home towns in the USA and Canada. I'll take a Nikkormat or a Contax G1 and shoot all my Panatomic on deserts in New Mexico, fishing villages in New Brunswick (Canada, not New Jersey), and the various family homes and other scenes I recorded on film in the 1960s. I'll do it all on Kodak B&W film, with maybe a few rolls of my precious stocks of old Ektachrome. Very much a deja vu expedition, shot in analog splendor. WHich will make a small dent in my film stash, but one has to start somewhere. When I'm ninety...

(For those who thrive on such information, the color photography during our journey willl be done by my partner, with my kit of that "unmentionable" medium.)

 

[Down Under]

This is a lovely thread, with so much information. Some of it even accurate, or close to. I couldn't resist another post.

As usual Ian Grant (#13) has the right ideas, I think. He is one of a handful of APUG posters who speak with knowledge born of experience and much testing.

Like Ian, over the years I've collected a nice small collection of old photo books. At times,usually in the winter when I tend to hibernate and venture less out of doors to shoot my outdated films, I sort negatives, archive, keyword and file, print, and I enjoy mixing and using old developers. Many (okay, some) developers from the 1950s and 1960s still suit the modern emulsions.

As Ian wrote, developer formulas by Windisch, Beutler etc were advanced for their time, and still work well with some of the thinner emulsion (now called T grain, I believe) films available today. As with anything to do with everything worth doing, testing and keeping careful notes are important.

I still use Kodak D76, which is as "retro" as you get. Also Thornton's two bath, in the Ansel Adams variation for the slightly higher contrast I prefer. The results suit me (and my clients, whenever I sell a print or two) even with Jobo rotary processing. With Xtol, I run hot and cold. A few photographers I know use it and say they like it, but to my eye the results lack the "sparkle" I consider vital to the visual quality of a fine print.

A comment by Ian in his post really resonated with me and reflects much wisdom. (Quote) "A lot is down to the talents of the printer, I'd say (...) In the case of the Kertesz work the papers really needed just weren't available to modern printers, and who ever printed from his negatives had no clue how to emulate them. The difference is AA only used Bromide papers while Kertesz's early prints were on long gone Warm tome papers and look stark and unnatural on Bromide (if you've seen earlier versions)"

I agree. A few years ago I saw a Kertesz exhibition in Melbourne, which was printed on modern ("gicle", the loathsome yuppie term for inkjet) paper. The work was crap. Lacking in tonality, without the sparkle of images on traditional papers, not even sharp. It was so bad, I was left with the suspicion that the exhibitors (a private gallery, which will remain unnamed) had copied the images from a book. No sales were made, I believe. The gallery is now closed.

And yes, bromide. A few years ago I got 30 boxes of outdated ('70s or '980s) single weight square cut Ilfobrom paper at an estate sale. I've used about a quarter of it, with interesting if inconsistent results. Some fog, varying from a little to a lot, from sheet to sheet. Gallons of bendotriazole in my home brew D72 helps. Making a new print is an adventure. Some just glow, and are now framed on the walls of my den. There is great fun to be had in using old papers, but not consistency.

mattking (#21), have you tried Rollei films with D76 1+1 with -say -10%-15%) processing times? I use this, and it works for me. FWIW, I tame the high contrast of Australian light with yellow and occasionally orange filters. Four or five years ago I used Rollei infrared filtered with orange and red, but I no longer shoot it, largely as I used up my stocks. The effects were... again, interesting if inconsistent. Shooting two of everything worked for me, but in the end getting only eight images from one 120 roll in my Rolleiflex T, was too expensive.

In the end we should agree that as there are different roads to Rome, there will always be different ways to produce new (and different) results from many varied photographic techniques, films or darkroom. The pleasure for me, is in the doing. No chimping when you print with an enlarger, you see what you did when the print lands in the fixing tray. It can be an expensive education, but corners can be cut, and costs reduced. Use printing paper with care. Print small. Make many test strips. Ilford makes a good test printer for 4x5 paper, I use it with 2.5x5" strips for greater economy. Nitpicking maybe, but hey honeys, it's my pension money!

It's so much more creative (and more fun) than just pushing the view button on the back of a Nikon D-whatever and wondering if the auto-everything did it right for you or not - or like so many do, machine-gunning 13,429 images in nonstop and then posting the lot on Sh***er or Facef**k).

My two hundred rupiahs' worth...

 

[MattKing]

For clarity, I have absolutely no problem with anyone who wants to experiment with this aerial surveillance film. I hope they achieve results that nicely fulfill their needs.
The visceral reaction comes in respect to the attribution of its qualities to it being "classic" or "retro". It is just a different, special purpose film that people are trying to achieve general purpose results from. I get the same reaction from people ascribing to older film technology mythical benefits that by legend cannot be achieved with modern films.
Older technology films have certain characteristics that can be desirable, but they often have disadvantages too. And in many cases, the advantages were best realized in larger formats than 35mm, while the disadvantages are most evident in 35mm.
I'd like Plus-X to return though - I am almost out, and Kodak is having trouble supplying its replacement in 120.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I just finished printing on Ilford Ilfomar I (uno, one) paper. In the Dektol. Negatives taken with lens made in fifties. It is retro with film. Kentmere 400 must be Svema film. Cheap . By all means...