Yes, I was aware of the actual speed being less. My question is their suggested 17 minutes in Xtol 1+1.In case you aren't already aware, it isn't a 400 ISO film; it's closer to 125.
Yes, I was aware of the actual speed being less. My question is their suggested 17 minutes in Xtol 1+1.
Lake Cootharaba
Gelatin-silver photograph on Ilford Classic VC FB photographic paper, image size 16.3cm X 16.3cm, from a Rollei 400 negative
exposed in a Mamiya C220 twin lens reflex camera fitted with the 55mm f4.5 lens and a IR720 filter.
The film was exposed at E.I. 10 to allow for the filter.
Development was in Xtol-R for 11minutes 15 seconds @ 20 Celcius.
According to Henning Serger, the useable speed of IR 400 and other MACO emulsions using the same film stock is likely less than E.I. 100. If we start with the fact that it is Agfa Aviphot 200, that takes us down from the laughable purported speed of 400. Henning says the speed of aerial films is established differently and their speed for pictorial use is half of the rated speed. So that gets us down to E.I. 100. But it is still a severely contrasty film at E.I. 100. So one may need to downrate it even more to avoid blocked up shadows. Using a speed increasing developer like Xtol may help, but only so much.
What is going on is that Maco is not a film manufacturer.I have been reading on this forum in deferent post about the actual speed being (much-) more less than the box speed.
I always wondered why an established photographic film manufacturer (regardless who it is) would be wrong about that, while he's the one who formulated, tested and made that particular emulsion.
I suppose that a (film-) manufacturer would try to commercialise a good performing product; but according to several posts over here, a lot of pushing and pulling needs to be done to reach any satisfying results.
If he is wrong (ore lying) about this, then he is harming his own business and would he do that?
What is really going on?
What is going on is that Maco is not a film manufacturer.
They have others confection Aviphot film and put the licensed Rollei name on.
Speed always sells to the naive person.
I know that Aviphot is made by Gevaert N.V. in Mortsel/Belgium (which is my country).
And I know that Gevaert is a very serious manufacturer.
I wonder if Gevaert will be so happy if MACO would 'do wrong' with their product...
Anyway, Rollei (MACO) is advising to process their 400 IR film, which they consider as 200 to 400 ISO and mainly an IR film, in Rollei Supergrain developer 1+12 for 7min at 20°C to obtain good results.
My Xtol-R time is closer to Maris'. 11:30. 20C EI 6 with the 720 filter.
Andy, I just went and viewed your video list and found the one with Rollei IR 400. I'm going to rate mine at ISO 10-12 (with R72) and have a go at 10:30 min. in Xtol-R (actually Adox XT-3-R). After it stops raining here????? Thanks guys!If you expose it at box speed, then 15 minutes will suffice. I typically expose it one to two stops over and cut development to about 10 minutes, and I get nice neg
My Xtol-R time is closer to Maris'. 11:30. 20C EI 6 with the 720 filter.
Andy, I just went and viewed your video list and found the one with Rollei IR 400. I'm going to rate mine at ISO 10-12 (with R72) and have a go at 10:30 min. in Xtol-R (actually Adox XT-3-R). After it stops raining here????? Thanks guys!
Both Aviphot emulsions are quite exceptional and unique. The 80 is very, very fine grained and high resolving for a cubic (?) crystal film, has the super pan sensitivity and a nice straight, not too steep mid section.
200 is much the same only a bit faster (esp. a “bit” for IR) and much grainer.
I agree. I have experience with the Rollei Retro 400S (whatever that is) in 120. Extraordinary film. I disagree with you that it's grainy though. I find it almost grain free in 120.
I suspect it's not the same as the IR product people are talking about though, because it's
1) definitely NOT a 100 EI product in my workflow (not a 400 ISO film either)
2) not super contrasty at all, but that will depend mostly on development choices of course.
Also no need to waste it using a filter with it IME. It's already a strongly red sensitive film, so it's like having an orange filter always on already.
Which reminds me I should order some more from Maco.
I agree. I have experience with the Rollei Retro 400S (whatever that is) in 120. Extraordinary film. I disagree with you that it's grainy though. I find it almost grain free 6x6 and above.
I suspect it's not the same as the IR product people are talking about though, because Retro 400S is
1) definitely not a 100 EI product in my workflow (not a 400 ISO film either)
2) not super contrasty at all, but that will depend mostly on development choices of course.
Also no need to waste it using a filter with it IME. It's already a strongly red sensitive film, so it's like having an orange filter always on already.
Which reminds me I should order some more from Maco.
You are not using it to its fullest however, if you don’t at least once in a while put a filter on.
It’s meant for filtering in its aero application.
I'll get out as soon as we get a fluffy white cloud day. I'm going to test with a few different filters too. I'll scan and post what I get. I'd do one of those fancy videos (donuts and all), but I'm "old school" and it would take me far too long to figure out how. Oh, and I don't have the face of a movie star like you Andy.I'd love to hear how it worked out!
I'll get out as soon as we get a fluffy white cloud day. I'm going to test with a few different filters too. I'll scan and post what I get. I'd do one of those fancy videos (donuts and all), but I'm "old school" and it would take me far too long to figure out how. Oh, and I don't have the face of a movie star like you Andy.
Then you essentially approach a pull, and you affect highlights and muddle the films star quality, the great mid-tones.
It is a contrasty film and is designed as such.
Much better to use a minus two stop preflash or even latensify the film. That will help contrast and speed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?