mottling on RPX 25 in Xtol

[MattKing]

I wondered about that. Might have to drop back a tech level or so -- this wasn't a big problem with the films of the 1950s. Tempting to suggest the technologies that lead to higher speed with finer grain might be more sensitive to wrapper offset and backing paper mottling.

That in combination with the current soy based inks.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Yeah. Like the way Eastman Kodak got a patent on something in mustard greens (via the cattle bones that went into the gelatin) increasing sensitivity of the film. Solution here probably isn't as simple as applying an even coat of the same ink in different colors, because the synthetic dyes that color the ink are probably the real culprits...

 

[Angarian]

several people, myself included, had this exact issue with Rollei retro 80s, which is reported by some people to be the same film as RPX 25. It was from 120 rolls only and did not affect 35mm rolls. sorry you had this issue.

Rollei RPX 25 and Rollei Retro 80S are indeed the same film: Agfa Aviphot Pan 80.
But RPX 25 is more expensive and has a different data sheet: As so often again this cheating policy and dishonest behaviour by Maco Photo Producs, the license holder of the Rollei-Film brand and supplier of these films.
They think their customers are idiots.
I have compared both films side-by-side and evaluated the characteristic curve: It is the same film. Chemistry manufacturer SPUR has done intensive tests as well and has got exactly the same results.
And I have talked to several other experienced photographers who did comparison tests and they also came to the same conclusion.

 

[Angarian]

Since there is now only one source in the World of backing paper, as Mr. Spock would say, "It is only logical ..."

Do we really have a reliable source for that? Or is this just a rumor? I ask because I have never seen a reliable source for it. Any link would be really appreciated.
And when I look in detail at the backing paper of my current Ilford, Kodak and Fuji 120 films, it is definitely very different.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

And when I look in detail at the backing paper of my current Ilford, Kodak and Fuji 120 films, it is definitely very different.

Current in-date ILFORD film I've used certainly has a different backing paper to the Kodak 120 film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Do we really have a reliable source for that? Or is this just a rumor? I ask because I have never seen a reliable source for it. Any link would be really appreciated.
And when I look in detail at the backing paper of my current Ilford, Kodak and Fuji 120 films, it is definitely very different.

Kodak clearly stated that there was only one backing paper source in the world. Ilford said that same thing. That does not state that the source was limited to one type of paper, but one would expect those companies to know their suppliers.

 

[Henning Serger]

Kodak clearly stated that there was only one backing paper source in the world. Ilford said that same thing. That does not state that the source was limited to one type of paper, but one would expect those companies to know their suppliers.

Hello Sirius,
maybe or probably there has been a misunderstanding of or (over)simplification in some statements. At least this "only one source" is not quite correct in a general sense. It's more complicated:
There has been a German backing paper manufacturer who was the supplier of all European film manufacturers over the years. Ilford, Foma, ADOX, Forte and Fotokemika all have bought their paper at this source.
Several years ago this company stopped business, and sold their equipment and technology to two European film manufacturers.
I don't know to 100% whether Kodak has also been their customer, but probably they were not.
Fujifilm has always had their own source (afaik make it by themselves in house).

By the way, the challenge is not so much the paper itself, but the lacquer for the paper (and its coating process), and especially the ink for the numbers, which is really a high-tech product.
Looking at the current backing papers of Fujfilm, Kodak, Ilford, Foma and the Chinese sources (Shanghai, Lomo) the differences in quality and design are so big that from that assessment alone it is obvious that there is more than one current source.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[thicktheo]

I am reviving this old thread. Five years later, it seems Rollei RPX 25 still has trouble with mottling.

I shot a number of rolls of medium format RPX 25 and this issue is still here. Tried pre-soaking, tried different developers, nothing is happening.

The first image was shot a couple of days ago. The (fresh) roll of film was out of the fridge for two weeks or so, it was developed in Microphen one hour after it was exposed, normal inversion method at 20c, and all the frames have the same mottling lines.

The second image was shot with the film being 1-2 days out of the fridge, same batch, the film was even more fresh. Developed in HC-110(B), 20c, in a rotation tank. Same mottling lines in the shadows.

I am looking at a wonderful film that is actually unusable, and it is a big shame indeed.

 

[retina_restoration]

I am reviving this old thread. Five years later, it seems Rollei RPX 25 still has trouble with mottling.

I shot a number of rolls of medium format RPX 25 and this issue is still here. Tried pre-soaking, tried different developers, nothing is happening.

The first image was shot a couple of days ago. The (fresh) roll of film was out of the fridge for two weeks or so, it was developed in Microphen one hour after it was exposed, normal inversion method at 20c, and all the frames have the same mottling lines.

View attachment 390634

The second image was shot with the film being 1-2 days out of the fridge, same batch, the film was even more fresh. Developed in HC-110(B), 20c, in a rotation tank. Same mottling lines in the shadows.

View attachment 390636


I am looking at a wonderful film that is actually unusable, and it is a big shame indeed.

Were both rolls within their expiration date? I ask, because the markings look exactly like the classic "wrapper offset" marks we often see with expired (or improperly stored) 120 films.

 

[thicktheo]

Were both rolls within their expiration date? I ask, because the markings look exactly like the classic "wrapper offset" marks we often see with expired (or improperly stored) 120 films.

They still are within expiration date, I got a brick of 10 rolls six months ago and have used half of them. They have been stored in the refrigerator from day 1, along with all my other films.

A couple of them spent some time outside the refrigerator before they were used, say 3-4 weeks, but even so they were in a cool dry place, nothing extreme.