Retro 80s, XTOL stock. High contrast.

[elerion]

I've just starting using Retro 80s, and XTOL (first time for both).
After some test rolls (35mm), I found that XTOL stock give a steep tonal curve. Highlights develop quick and intense. To get perfect densities for highlights, I need a developing time that delivers low midlights and shadows. Even shooting at EI 40.

I shot last roll when the sun was going down (at about 35º-40º), with some very clear shadows, and scenes came out with far too high contrast, but shadows look very well exposed.

To get a more linear curve, it seems that I'd have to shoot at even lower speed. I get around 0.10 density for zone I for an EI 20, which sounds about right. But means sacrifing a lot of speed, for an already medium-low sensitivity film. All density test were done using gray card, adjusted illumination and densitometer, so they are quite precise.

Fomapan 100 and FP4+ work perfect in the same dilution (XTOL stock) at boxspeed though.
Maybe I should try 1:1 dilution.
But repeating all tests again for it,... makes me want to use the exact same dilution all times for every film. Would that be too restrictive?
Do you think it is worth trying 1:1?

 

[R.Gould]

I have tried Retro 80S, and no what I did I could not tame the contrast, I tried D76 at stock, at 1/1 I tried Rodinal at the suggested times at 1/50 and 1/25, I increased the film iso,reduced it, gave less and less developing time, tried everything in my armament, and in ten roll of 120 and ten rolls of 35mm I could not get a negative that looked even remotley printable, so I gave up and went back to my Fomapan, never had these problems with that

 

[Doremus Scudder]

You have some misconceptions about how developing works. Reducing development time to control overall contrast has very little effect on film speed. Expose at an E.I. that gives you the shadow detail you want and reduce developing time to get the highlight density that you want. If you reduce development by 15-20% to get your highlights right, you might have to add 1/3-2/3 stop extra exposure (you might not, either).

If your film needs E.I. 20 to get shadow detail, then either that's close to its effective speed at most any development time, or your tests are not as accurate as you seem to think they are. I develop from N-3 through N+1 and don't change film speed more than a stop from one extreme to the other.

I don't know Retro 80s, but I kind of doubt you need to overexpose it two stops to get adequate shadow detail... that would be "Retro 20s."

However, if the film has a really contrasty emulsion, you may need to resort to compensating developers to tame it; or use it for flat scenes...

Best,

Doremus

 

[pentaxuser]

elerion, do a search here on APUG because I have a feeling that Retro 80S appears to suffer from high contrast but there may be users who have given a solution.

Best of luck

pentaxuser

 

[elerion]

Reducing development time to control overall contrast has very little effect on film speed.

Sure. I'm not trying to "change" film speed. I llok for shorter developing times to get a lees steep tone curve. The EI does seem to be 20 in XTOL (undilluted).

elerion, do a search here on APUG because I have a feeling that Retro 80S appears to suffer from high contrast

Yes, I've done it. But didn't find any XTOL specific detailed results or solution.

I wrote this post mainly to share my results, for anyone who could get here in the future, and to keep posting my work on it.

Even though I didn't want to use different XTOL dillutions, I think I will try 1:1.

 

[zanxion72]

Try XTOL 1+3. You will get a bit more grain, but the tonal range will broaden considerably.
Alternatively, overexpose the film by half a stop and under-develop by 15-20%.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

xtol is not the developer for this film,. both literally and metaphorically speaking, its a superadditve developer ( it has WAY TOO much synergy) try a single developing agent developer like POTA or modified Windisch, or a cut in half the Obsidian aqua.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

also this film should NOT have the same regiment of aggitation, try a very slow rotation , inversion is too aggressive, and quickly build the high lights, you also might want to try to keep your aggiataion down to 5-10 for all development.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Maybe something on the order of Rodinal 1+200 or 1+300 might be called for. I have used this with high-contrast copy films and it does work.

 

[Anon Ymous]

FWIW, I've tried Rollei Retro 80S in (homebrew) Perceptol 1+3, 16' 20°C and it looks very nice IMHO. Perceptol is a low pH developer, considerably lower than Xtol and could help you tame contrast. EI 25 should be about right for that combination.

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

Having used Retro 80S, I find I have the best luck with stand developing in HC-110 1+100 for 30 minutes. Gives a more reasonable contrast level and excellent grain.

 

[elerion]

Thank you everyone.
I have now plenty of material to work on.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Thank you everyone.
I have now plenty of material to work on.

Good luck and may the Force be with you.

 

[destroya]

I found that xtol is just a little to harsh for this film, especially at stock strength. Try as mentioned above 1+3 for better results with xtol. For better, I found that either rodinal 1+50, pyro- hdc or especially beutler work best with this film. Rodinal and pyro I get an EI of 50 and beutler a true 80

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The standard method with contrasty films is to use a more dilute developer. Certainly Xtol FS is not going to work. Since Kodak no longer recommends any dilutions greater than 1+1 for this developer you need to try something different. As suggested you might try Perceptol, D-76 or D-23 all diluted 1+3.

The problem with Retro 80s and indeed with other repurposed films is that they were not intended for general purpose photography. Retro 80s is an aerial film whose higher contrast is designed to help with atmospheric haze. In addition aerial films also have extended red sensitivity again to cut through haze. While these repurposed films may be fun to play with their use for serious work is problematic.

 

[pentaxuser]

Yes, my recommendation to do a search was really for the purpose of finding out if there was a better developer for that film. I resume that as long as there is 100 ml of Xtol stock in the tank then 1+3 may be possible. It just means using a very big tank that holds 400ml. Worth a try, I suppose, but there may be better developers for Retro 80s

pentaxuser

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes, my recommendation to do a search was really for the purpose of finding out if there was a better developer for that film. I resume that as long as there is 100 ml of Xtol stock in the tank then 1+3 may be possible. It just means using a very big tank that holds 400ml. Worth a try, I suppose, but there may be better developers for Retro 80s

pentaxuser

Yes, that's what I had to do with diluted Rodinal also. I used a two reel 120 tank for one roll of 35mm.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I get the best results from XTOL by using it in the replenished method. Stock XTOL gets very good results but not as good as replenished XTOL. I highly recommend replenished XTOL which I have used for many years.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I get the best results from XTOL by using it in the replenished method. Stock XTOL gets very good results but not as good as replenished XTOL. I highly recommend replenished XTOL which I have used for many years.

With a film like this I don't think Xtol-R is the way to go. I'm not putting down Xtol-R at all since it's my main developer, but sometimes one has to take a different approach.

 

[elerion]

Before XTOL I used Rodinal (1+25) and Caffenol.
I switched to XTOL mainly because of speed lost.
HP5+ had to be shot at EI 100 and 200 to get a decent linear curve and good density deep shadows (for Caffenol and Rodinal, respectively).
XTOL seems to work far better (for FP4, HP5, Fomapan,...).
I never tried stand development with Rodinal, neither 1+50 dillution.
I think it is now time for it.

 

[subsole]

Xtol 1+2 as suggested in the data sheet : https://s3-eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/ni-sw-mahn/media/pdf/7a/bc/ea/RR1801X_Datenblatt_d.pdf

 

[John Wiegerink]

Before XTOL I used Rodinal (1+25) and Caffenol.
I switched to XTOL mainly because of speed lost.
HP5+ had to be shot at EI 100 and 200 to get a decent linear curve and good density deep shadows (for Caffenol and Rodinal, respectively).
XTOL seems to work far better (for FP4, HP5, Fomapan,...).
I never tried stand development with Rodinal, neither 1+50 dillution.
I think it is now time for it.

Thinking about what you say here about trying Rodinal. I have used Rodinal 1+100 (semi-stand) for 1 hour @ 70F with Ilford Panf+ a few times. I agitate two slow inversion at 30 minutes. PanF+ can be pretty contrasty when the sun is bright and this Rodinal semi-stand works just fine for that. The negatives were very sharp, but not only that, they printed very easy.

 

[pentaxuser]

Yes it is interesting and significant that in the Rollei instructions it is 1 inversion after filling the tank then only 1 inversion every 30 secs as opposed to inverting for 30 secs at start and then inverting up to 5 times every 30 secs

pentaxuser

 

[Gimenosaiz]

Hello!!

I'm very happy with the results I get with 09 One Shot "rodinal" 1+50 (time=15')
https://www.flickr.com/photos/antoniogb/albums/72157652401404201/with/17208330319/

The negative looks really great!

Cheers
Antonio

 

[John Wiegerink]

Hello!!

I'm very happy with the results I get with 09 One Shot "rodinal" 1+50 (time=15')
https://www.flickr.com/photos/antoniogb/albums/72157652401404201/with/17208330319/

The negative looks really great!

Cheers
Antonio

Those look very nice indeed. What did you rate the film at? ISO 80 or lower?