First time developing with Rodinol

[Philippe-Georges]

Difference in sensitivity: You can ask the same question to Maco who are offering Aviphot Pan 200 as Rollei Retro 400S and Rollei Infrared 400.
The answer is in all cases the same: Misleading marketing. Period.
ISO 400 films are generally more popular than ISO 200 films. So these film repacking guys simply increase their sales and profits by labelling lower speed films as higher speed.
With Aviphot Pan 200 that is even more problematic as the 200 speed is given by Agfa only for aerial photography (no shadow detail needed in that application).
On the ground in pictorial photography the real speed (shadow detail) is even two stops less.



Again misleading marketing to fool the customers and hide the real source.



Please have a look here:

Agfa-Gevaert - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I am not a big fan of wikipedia, but before wikipedia I have read exactly the same about the company history in several printed photo magazines.

Thank you for the enlightening answers.

 

[MCB18]

Difference in sensitivity: You can ask the same question to Maco who are offering Aviphot Pan 200 as Rollei Retro 400S and Rollei Infrared 400.
The answer is in all cases the same: Misleading marketing. Period.
ISO 400 films are generally more popular than ISO 200 films. So these film repacking guys simply increase their sales and profits by labelling lower speed films as higher speed.
With Aviphot Pan 200 that is even more problematic as the 200 speed is given by Agfa only for aerial photography (no shadow detail needed in that application).
On the ground in pictorial photography the real speed (shadow detail) is even two stops less.

It isn’t just Macou and JCH that market film at higher speeds, Kodak and Ilford with their “3200 iso” films do it as well. The nominal speeds are only mentioned in the data sheets and let’s be honest, most people don’t look at those.

Same with Santa Rae 100 (and my current offerings of the same film), it isn’t really mentioned that it is a 400 speed film pushed a stop and a third. I wasn’t actually aware of this when I initially offered myself. I was under the impression it was 800 speed maybe.

As far as Aviphot 200, no the 200 iso isn’t pushed 2 steps, it’s more like 2/3 to 1 stop, with a normal sensitivity at 100-125 iso. Most films are fine with a 2 stop push, but this does make the film more contrasty than some like if it is exposed and developed according to times given by Rollei/CatLabs/JCH.

 

[JParker]

It isn’t just Macou and JCH that market film at higher speeds, Kodak and Ilford with their “3200 iso” films do it as well. The nominal speeds are only mentioned in the data sheets and let’s be honest, most people don’t look at those.

No, that are two completely different things. Ilford and Kodak say honestly in the product description which the real ISO is (Maco and JCH do not, they are telling lies instead).
And very important as well: Both Delta 3200 and TMZ are designed for pushing! Their HD curve is flattening at the lower E.I.s, and at E.I. 1600 and 3200 the curves becomes more linear. And despite pushing in that range, the highlights stay in the printable range, no "blocked highlights". So here we have a very significant technological difference in favour of D3200 and TMZ.

As far as Aviphot 200, no the 200 iso isn’t pushed 2 steps, it’s more like 2/3 to 1 stop, with a normal sensitivity at 100-125 iso.

Nope. Do a proper measurement with a densitometer. You will not get a density of 0.1 logD at E.I. 100/125 with Aviphot Pan 200.
I tried it with so many different developers....impossible. The shadow detail / density in Zones I, II and II is simply too low.
Much lower compared to real ISO 100/125 films like FP4+.
Light sensitivity is determined by the ISO norm. Period.
If you like the results you get at an E.I. of 125, fine for you. But that does not mean that the film has that effective light sensitivity.
If the measured density is not there, case closed. Physics cannot be cheated.

 

[MCB18]

No, that are two completely different things. Ilford and Kodak say honestly in the product description which the real ISO is (Maco and JCH do not, they are telling lies instead).
And very important as well: Both Delta 3200 and TMZ are designed for pushing! Their HD curve is flattening at the lower E.I.s, and at E.I. 1600 and 3200 the curves becomes more linear. And despite pushing in that range, the highlights stay in the printable range, no "blocked highlights". So here we have a very significant technological difference in favour of D3200 and TMZ.



Nope. Do a proper measurement with a densitometer. You will not get a density of 0.1 logD at E.I. 100/125 with Aviphot Pan 200.
I tried it with so many different developers....impossible. The shadow detail / density in Zones I, II and II is simply too low.
Much lower compared to real ISO 100/125 films like FP4+.
Light sensitivity is determined by the ISO norm. Period.
If you like the results you get at an E.I. of 125, fine for you. But that does not mean that the film has that effective light sensitivity.
If the measured density is not there, case closed. Physics cannot be cheated.

I feel that it’s worth mentioning, even manufacturers often don’t use the exact 0.1 logs measurements given by the iso standard.

Foma is notorious for this, often raising their films 1/2 to 2/3 of a stop higher than the “official” iso speed. But even Ilford doesn’t use iso standards exclusively. They rate their film based on a qualitative measurement (i.e. we chose this speed because it looks nice”). This is explicitly stated in the datasheet.

I think you may find this series of videos interesting to watch, I think there’s only 3-4 videos where the speed is bang on what it should be based on ISO. More often then not the film is marketed faster than iso says it is, as evidenced by some amount of flatness on the bottom left of the graph shown.

 

[JParker]

I feel that it’s worth mentioning, even manufacturers often don’t use the exact 0.1 logs measurements given by the iso standard.

Foma is notorious for this, often raising their films 1/2 to 2/3 of a stop higher than the “official” iso speed. But even Ilford doesn’t use iso standards exclusively. They rate their film based on a qualitative measurement (i.e. we chose this speed because it looks nice”). This is explicitly stated in the datasheet.

I know all that.
And it is proving my point that as a photographer it is best to test the real effective light sensitivity of your film-developer combination.
Also because of the fact that the ISO norm for BW negative film is quite "optimistic" concerning the real sensitivity:
- the film manufacturer is free to use any developer he wants for the speed test; that means e.g. Ilford can use DD-X for all their tests, which has the best performance concerning speed of all Ilford developers.
- in terms of the Zone system the ISO norm gives a N+1 development, so a one-stop push. That is also the reason why photographers who do real effective sensitivity / speed tests (e.g. with a densitometer) - and therefore clearly see the lack of shadow detail / real film speed - and who want perfect results for optical enlarging expose their films with +2/3 to 1 stop more (optimal shadow detail), and develop accordingly (a bit shorter for optimal highlight detail).
I can only highly recommend using a densitometer and testing your film-developer combinations. The best and most easy way to get perfect negatives for perfect prints.

 

[Angarian]

I know all that.
And it is proving my point that as a photographer it is best to test the real effective light sensitivity of your film-developer combination.
Also because of the fact that the ISO norm for BW negative film is quite "optimistic" concerning the real sensitivity:
- the film manufacturer is free to use any developer he wants for the speed test; that means e.g. Ilford can use DD-X for all their tests, which has the best performance concerning speed of all Ilford developers.
- in terms of the Zone system the ISO norm gives a N+1 development, so a one-stop push. That is also the reason why photographers who do real effective sensitivity / speed tests (e.g. with a densitometer) - and therefore clearly see the lack of shadow detail / real film speed - and who want perfect results for optical enlarging expose their films with +2/3 to 1 stop more (optimal shadow detail), and develop accordingly (a bit shorter for optimal highlight detail).
I can only highly recommend using a densitometer and testing your film-developer combinations. The best and most easy way to get perfect negatives for perfect prints.

That is absolutely spot on. I can 100% agree from my experience!
And starting evaluation of real film speed and tonality via creating the characteristic curves and using a densitometer (I use the Heiland TRD-2) has been by far the biggest boost in quality I've had in optical printing in my darkroom: Perfect shadows, wonderful tonality, perfect highlight rendition. Because the negatives have been exposed and developed in an optimal way.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Just developed some 220 FN-64 in Rodinol because I’m running out of HC-110 and holy cow, I’m stunned! I was expecting to get a crunchy high contrast negative, however when I pulled the film out the contrast actually looked very nice, and I can’t see any grain whatsoever even when looking through a magnifying glass. I really wish I could scan these properly because I don’t think my DSLR scanning will do this any kind of justice. Kinda a silly thread for now since the film isn’t even dry yet, but I just wanted to post since I was so surprised!

Rodinal, it' RodinAL, f.c.s....