• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

R09 problems

Above examples are made on Fomapan T200 35mm film: M7 + 2,8/28mm Elmarit.

The difference of the 35mm and the 120 rolfilm versions is that 35mm is on grey/blue acetate and the 120 rolfilm has been made on blue polyester layer.
 
Retro/APX 400 rated at 400 and developed in Rodinal 1:50, Acording to a Agfa leaflet, found somewhere on internet, gives 30 min of development. This has worked for me so far. Most annoying part is trying to remember agitation for last 15 minutes, gets rather boring.
 
The Massive Dev Chart gives both 11min and 30min for Retro 400 / Rodinal 1+50. Initially I was using 11,5min, sometimes I got rich dark tones but most of the times I was a little unhappy with my results. Then I found RobertV's chart that points to 13min which I find much better. Thanks again RobertV!

Somehow I'll miss the Retro 400 even though it has been quite a demanding film to work with (I hate the way it dries u-shaped). I still have some stock left though.
 
Rollei Retro 100/400 (35mm and 120 rolfilm) has been made from the APX100/400 135 micron 35mm material (2005) from Agfa Photo. One of the reasons the 120 rolfilm material curls more then the original 100 micron APX 120 rolfilms.
 
I've just developed a Retro 100 and the film starts with frame 2 or 3 (first exposed frame is no.4) and ends at 24. Does anyone know anything about this?
The film has the following written on the can>
Art.Nr.: RR1011
Exp.: 02/2011
Emulsion: 707

I have another box of 20 films from this 707 lot and two boxes of 20 from lot 706.
 
706 and 707 seems to be the last batches of APX100/Retro 100 sold for very low prices in the EU.
But does it matter that the frame marker starts at 2 instead of 1? Foma used in the past half frame markers 1-72.
 
mea culpa. I now remeber using the leader of that film (about 6 frames) to test a camera I've bought for someone. But the main issue is that instead of 36 frames it only has 24. I was wondering if I now have 60 rolls of 24 instead of 36 frames.
 
I just looked at the Maco webshop. It seems to me that the designation for any 36exp Rollei film is xx11y and for a 24exp film is xx12y. With xx indicating the type of emulsion and y the packaging in case of bulk.
 
That means they've sticked the wrong label on the can. I'm running a small test with another roll so I'll find out soon if my luck ran out on me
 
I think that the last conditionned retro made were done at Fotokemika's plant. That could explain why some error can occur. But as Robert says, is that so important? I buy bulk rolls of foma films, with not any marks in the edge, and it is not important for me. The most important is what is on the film, no?
 
I was misunderstood
I don't have a problem with the numbering (which was OK anyway) but with the fact that it only had 24 frames instead of 36. And that's no big deal either but I was wondering if all 60 rolls I've bought could suffer the same faith.
 
did some searching but with no luck. only 1+1 times for apx. i was thinking about doing an analogy based on other films (difference in times between 1+1 and 1+3) but i have this undocumented feeling that apx/retro is in a league of it's own, judging by the times for rodinal/r09 1+50 (17 minutes!!! quite a lot of minutes)
 
the rodinal/r09 list states 17. the r09 bottle from maco also states 17 and it seems to work ok (same time from foma). i haven't run any apx/retro through rodinal-rodinal yet, but if i do i'll most likely use your times instead
 
*********
I suspect a combination of underexposure and under development. Check the frame numbers of this film against a properly development roll, looking for a difference in density.
 
it seems the problem was more likely a combination of underdevelopment and dying developer
 
. I find it hard to believe that the camera suddenly broke down.
******
But it happens.

).

I guess I'll just run a test roll to at least exclude the body/lens from the equation.

******
Yup. And remember to use the frame numbers for the same time of film as a check on development. Also, as you mentioned, any film leader which was out of the cartridge. It should be the max black you will see on the negative; and it should be black, not grey. But the frame numbers are a standard you can use for comparison of other rolls.
 
alinCiortea said:
it seems the problem was more likely a combination of underdevelopment and dying developer
Click to expand...

I doubt it. If the developer was able to build up the dense parts (print highlights) it sure as heck would have been able to develop the shadows. I am very confident this is underexposure (with correct exposure likely requiring an adjustment of the dev times you used due to the additional density resulting in the highlights from more exposure). I do not know of any 400 film that will make anything like 400 in rodinal type devs. Whats more, you shot in contrasty conditions with an incident meter, likely meaning that the shadows in the scene were miles below the mid tone captured by your meter and so incident metering actually meant you were not taking care of the shadows. Stack the two on top of each other and you got epic under exposure - probably in the order or 1-3 stops.

In very contrasty conditions, I personally never use an incident meter (hand held spot or TTL with my own adjustments from experience) and also down rate film considerably. I rate most films in rodinal at half box speed at the most unless shooting in dead flat conditions. I shoot in Afghanistan (harsh light most of the year and rate APX100/Foma 100 at 40 in my Leicas and 50 in the Mamiya 7. TriX is 160 in the Leica and 200 in the Mamiya 7.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register