Need help with Rollei R3 negative

[noiretblanc-brian]

Hi there,

I am trying out Rollei R3 b/w negatives. My experience with it belongs to the disappointing side. Rollei claims it to be a fine grain film with a clear film base which gives outstanding fine grain when scanned. From by experience, I found none of it to be true, but, rather, of the exact opposite.

I did the prewashing, developed the film in Rollei RHS according to Rollei's times, but stopped and fixed in Kodak's stop bath and rapid fixer. Yet I found the developed film to be less than clear, as a matter of fact, a bit "foggy" overall. Results from scanning with an Epson 4990 flatbed have proved the grain to be not even close to fine.

Does anyone on here have similar experiences, or does R3 work just as described by Rollei to you? I should love to hear if I have done anything wrong with the film.

Thanks.

Brian

 

[Aurelien]

I used R3 for a test. Exposed @ ISO 200 and developped in RHS no problem. Very fine grain, very clear base.
Here are some examples.

 

[RobertV]

Starting with a pre-wash, RHS, a regular stop and fix the film base must be clear.
Very fine grain you will get with the Rollei Low Speed (CG512) developer. A normal grain with the Rollei High Speed.

But the film base must be clear.
Here is the data sheet:
Dead Link Removed

And here an example in RHS 1+9 16:30 minutes E.I. 400:

 

[Aurelien]

I ve tried the rollei LS, and as far as my results were bad, I would not support its use for a first use. The results were clearly underdevelopped for EI 200 ISO, developped as recommended by rollei. So... I think the use of RHS is a better approach for this film and a fine grain.

 

[RobertV]

R.L.S. is the reference developer from Udo Raffay, CG-512 the German chemist. But you have to develop exclusively on 24 degrees C. with this developer which can be a problem if you do not have the right equipment.

It's an ultra fine grain developer like Perceptol or Microdol-X.

Here some more info about this interesting developer:

http://www.ottobausw.de/CG512.htm

 

[noiretblanc-brian]

guys, thanks a lot for your responses and advices. Film grain of your photos does seem to be pretty fine, which is not characteristic of mine.

Please see this, which was exposed at EI 160 but developed in HC-110. http://www.flickr.com/photos/19thavenue/3546031902/sizes/l/in/set-72157606500890856/

This one was exposed at EI 400 and developed with RHS: http://www.flickr.com/photos/19thavenue/3271204485/sizes/l/in/set-72157606500890856/

Did I screw up on something that prevented me from obtaining a clear film base? I suppose the a clear film base is vital to get a good scan, and I have found that scanning and post processing Retro 400 is a much easier task than R3.

Thanks a lot again

 

[RobertV]

I can not see your examples because you gave then a private status in Flickr.

R3 is a three layer film: iso 50-150 and 500 so you need a developer who is penetrating deep in the emulsion.
RHS/AM74 in 1+7 or 1+9 is very suitable for this film. Therefore the pre-soak is also important for this film.

 

[noiretblanc-brian]

My apologies if the links don't work.
This is the one exposed at EI 160 and developed in HC-110

And this one is the one @ EI 320 and developed in RHS:

 

[RobertV]

I have no experience with HC-110 but a lot of experience in RHS/AM74.

Especially the low light scene should be outragious for the R3 film. It has an extended red sensitivity to 700nm and it should give you the full iso rate speed under these (artificial) lighting bulbs.
I suppose this is 35mm (??) but it looks like the film has been fogged. Maybe one of the reasons your film has not a completely clear base. And by clear base I am meaning 0,02 log D. (= real clear!)

You have to load and unload R3 in subdue light due to it's clear base because otherwise you will have a light piping effect. But this can only happening with the first 5 images. This film looks like it's fogged - pre-exposed. There is no real contrast and you have grain.

Something is wrong........

 

[keithwms]

Some years ago, Rollei sent me some R3 to play with and I didn't care for it. They sent me acu developer and that's what I used; I think I tried perceptol as well. Everything I tried was fine, grain-wise, but to me the overall tonality was characterless unless at least a yellow filter was used. So I lost interest.

 

[wogster]

Hi there,

I am trying out Rollei R3 b/w negatives. My experience with it belongs to the disappointing side. Rollei claims it to be a fine grain film with a clear film base which gives outstanding fine grain when scanned. From by experience, I found none of it to be true, but, rather, of the exact opposite.

I did the prewashing, developed the film in Rollei RHS according to Rollei's times, but stopped and fixed in Kodak's stop bath and rapid fixer. Yet I found the developed film to be less than clear, as a matter of fact, a bit "foggy" overall. Results from scanning with an Epson 4990 flatbed have proved the grain to be not even close to fine.

Does anyone on here have similar experiences, or does R3 work just as described by Rollei to you? I should love to hear if I have done anything wrong with the film.

Thanks.

Brian

Whenever I see the words grain and scanned in the same sentence, often the problem is in the scan processing, rather then the film processing. Some scanners and films play very nicely together, some do not.

You should make a conventional silver B&W 8x10 print and see how that looks, if it looks good, then it's your scanning process that isn't working. If the conventional print has a lot of grain and looks foggy, then it's your film process that isn't working. Some people find that a scan of a 4x5 print will work better then a scan of a negative does.

 

[RobertV]

The film is especially in 35mm not extreme fine grained, if you compare to Tri-X (400), about the same. The film is however pretty selectiv about usefull developers.

Here some shots in the Rocky Mountains, R3 on iso 400 where some haze in the mountains is filtered out by a Yellow filter and is a good combination with the extended red sensitivity of the R3 film. M7 + Summicron 2,0/50mm.

 

[noiretblanc-brian]

wogster: that's a good suggestion of yours. I will probably have a frame printed and see how it looks. Thanks.

keithwms: it's too late for me to run out of interest in R3; I still have 100 ft to go!

RobertV: Thanks again. Those two shots were indeed 35mm film. I want to say all, but at least most of the R3, as well as other rolls of films, were loaded and unloaded under shades, if not indoors. I can attest to that piping effect that you mentioned. See the attached example. But very luckily it didn't spoil as many frames as you mentioned.

Would using a hypo clearing agent help in clearing the film?

I suspected that something must have gone wrong with my procedures, either with developing or with scanning, as wogster mentioned. But it's depressing to have it confirmed.

Thanks to each of you for helping again.

Brian

 

[RobertV]

I can attest to that piping effect

Yes that's the phenomanae.

Would using a hypo clearing agent help in clearing the film?

No, a H.C.A. (hypo clearing agent) will shorten your wash time but has nothing to do with your greyish base.

This is the point to worry. Again this film must have a clear base after finishing the development which made it also easier to scan.
And grey is not clear, so here is a problem to solve.

Your R3 sequence should be:
1) pre-soak 2-5 minutes
2) develop RHS 1+7
3) stop 0:30 min.
4) fix 4-5:00 min.
5) wash 10-15:00 min.
6) wetting agent 1:00 min.
7) drying

 

[RobertV]

If you have picked up Kodak rapid fixer with hardener then we have found your problem.
Step 4) must be a fix without hardener otherwise you wash our time for a complete clear base can not be reached.

 

[noiretblanc-brian]

I pretty much did those procedures that you mentioned. But I did not presoak it for as long as 5 minutes; I did the lower end of you recommended time - 2 minutes. Otherwise, I have been quite consistent with what you advised me of doing.

I am unsure of whether I added a few drops of the hardener to the rapid fixer. But I suppose that I didn't, for I read elsewhere that the hardener is somewhat useless for most modern films. It wouldn't hurt too much to dump my solution of fixer and remake some just to be sure.

By "clear" do you mean "transparent", like Glad Wrap or an untinted piece of glass? log 0.02 D makes my head as foggy as my R3 film base!!

Thanks for all your great help once again.

 

[RobertV]

Yes "clear" = transparant and the R3 film can be like a glas.

The pre-soak of 2 minutes is the recommended minimum but that will work.

When adding a hardener in the fix (not necessary with this films) you are extending the wash cycle of the film for about 3 times.

Here is the developing data sheet for Rollei:Dead Link Removed

In case you're out of solutions, you can sent in a part of exposed but not developed R3 film to me to search out what is wrong.

 

[noiretblanc-brian]

thanks for the clarification. i'll try to run through a roll of it quickly and see what happens. so far i don't see significant deviations from your procedures. but let me presoak it for a longer tie, and replace the fixer.

thanks.