Rollei 400 IR film in Xtol

[John Wiegerink]

I'm going to burn a roll of Rollei 400 IR film in my Pentax 67 and use Xtol-R as the developer. According to the inside of the film box the developing time is 17 minutes for Xtol 1+1. That seems awful long for 1+1 to me. Anybody out there that uses Xtol-R with this film?

 

[retina_restoration]

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 negs.

 

[revdoc]

In case you aren't already aware, it isn't a 400 ISO film; it's closer to 125.

 

[John Wiegerink]

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.

 

[Maris]

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.

 

[retina_restoration]

Yes, I was aware of the actual speed being less. My question is their suggested 17 minutes in Xtol 1+1.

As I said, if you expose at box speed, you WILL need to develop at least 14 or 15 minutes to get usable negs, but you're essentially pushing the film at least one stop to get there, as it's NOT a 400 film. It's going to be much better if you expose at around 160 and develop for ten minutes.

 

[bluechromis]

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.

 

[bluechromis]

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.

Very nice. Handy to use a TLR with the super dark filters that you can't see through with an SLR.

 

[Helge]

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.

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.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

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?

 

[Helge]

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.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

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.

 

[Helge]

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.

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.
Compare to the other available super pan film SFX which has lower contrast and more rounded curve and a bit less extension.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

My Xtol-R time is closer to Maris'. 11:30. 20C EI 6 with the 720 filter.

 

[retina_restoration]

My Xtol-R time is closer to Maris'. 11:30. 20C EI 6 with the 720 filter.

Exactly.

 

[John Wiegerink]

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!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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!

I'd love to hear how it worked out!

 

[albireo]

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 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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

Rollei Retro 400s (and Rollei 400 IR) are repackaged Aviphot Pan 200...

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...-films-and-kentmere-100-and-400-films.196304/

 

[Helge]

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.

Much grainier compared to 80. It’s perhaps a little bit less than HP5.

It’s not microfilm contrasty. But it is more than for example SFX 200.
IMO you better leave the curve largely alone and play to the films strength.

Of course you can use it without a filter. That’s what great about it compared to regular IR film.

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.

Filtering it can also be a way for taming the dynamics or lack thereof. It’s takes out the sky glow and Rayleigh scattering.
So overall the scene is more manageable and the sky is not just white, as if often the case without heavy use of dodging.

 

[albireo]

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'm finding it so gorgeous as it is, that I haven't felt the need to try filters. Also, I shoot handheld and live in northern Europe so with the little light they have over here any sensitivity savings are welcome. But I might try it with my new Hoya yellow-green on, it's giving me interesting results with Foma 200.

As for grain, I don't know. I don't see any in MF with the developers I'm using.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

There is nothing wrong using this film without filter. I did it a few years ago with sheet film version over in Japan. Because LF takes up so much space, making it tricky to travel with, I brought only the one film and used it sometimes as an IR film, or a conventional (with extended red!) film.

 

[John Wiegerink]

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

 

[bluechromis]

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.

If it really were a 400 speed film, then to shoot it at, say EI 80, would be a significant pull. But since it is, according to Henning, at best, a 100-speed film, to shoot it at 80 is not much of a pull. If you are interested in pre-flash, it is rumored that Adox uses a sophisticated pre-flash treatment with their HR-50 film, which they call Speed Boost. HR-50 is currently only in 35 mm, but hopefully, Adox will get 120 production ramped up. By the way, there was a lengthy thread about the Aviphot based films not long ago where a lot of this ground was covered.