Rollei 80s in 510 Pyro -- 1st experiences (and hopefully a long-term log)

[Andrew O'Neill]

Strangely, anytime stand or semi-stand are mentioned here, the conversation goes a bit sideways. Keep tinkering, if that makes you happy. Nothing wrong with that. At some point give Pyrocat-HD a go. It's fantastic for semi-stand development, and of course for conventional development. It's been in my darkroom now for twenty years.

 

[john_s]

Of the photographers whom I have personally known, the one whose results were best used one film, Plus-X, and one developer, D-76, and just got on with it. Times have changed since then, especially the price of film. I can understand anyone trying to find a combination that can utilize a cheaper film.

I have done some tinkering over the years, but as old age becomes reality, and time is running out, I'm happy to have settled on one main film developer, Pyrocat-HD. My tinkering will be limited to some semi-stand experiments with some outdated Neopan400. I found this interesting:

https://gitbucket.tundraware.com/tundra/Stand-Development/tree/master

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Of the photographers whom I have personally known, the one whose results were best used one film, Plus-X, and one developer, D-76, and just got on with it. Times have changed since then, especially the price of film. I can understand anyone trying to find a combination that can utilize a cheaper film.

I have done some tinkering over the years, but as old age becomes reality, and time is running out, I'm happy to have settled on one main film developer, Pyrocat-HD. My tinkering will be limited to some semi-stand experiments with some outdated Neopan400. I found this interesting:

https://gitbucket.tundraware.com/tundra/Stand-Development/tree/master

I've been using the EMA method for about 20 years. This is the first time I've heard it called that, actually. I always considered it semi-stand. Anyway, it is the safest method to use in my opinion.

 

[Maris]

I've shot a lot of Rollei Retro 80 S as a panchromatic film at EI=40 and as an infrared film behind a IR720 filter at EI=4. It goes into the same developing tank together with other films and gets 11minutes 15 seconds at 20C in replenished Xtol agitated intermittently like any other film. The negatives are amenable and predictable and print easily on variable contrast paper.

 

[removed account4]

I know many APUGers have been very vocal about their dislike for Jay and his developers, but this is not a thread about him or his history in this site. It's a thread about attempts to nail down the developer of a particular film with a particular developer. It should be possible to discuss the developer without bringing up any baggage people may have about its creator, right?

hey Andre
why don't you contact jay himself and have a conversation with him. I've never used the developer or film you are asking for advice &c
... jay's a nice guy and probably would give you some insights. regarding people's dislike for him
I never have had anything but admiration for him .. its just the "old guard" as he called it ( you might realize there are people online who are over 50-something and are established with reputations &c from before the internet ) who didn't like jay encroaching on their territory so they got all bent out of shape.
I had similar problems with so-called caffenol-experts ... people are strange ...

 

[Foto Ludens]

hey Andre
why don't you contact jay himself and have a conversation with him. I've never used the developer or film you are asking for advice &c
... jay's a nice guy and probably would give you some insights. regarding people's dislike for him
I never have had anything but admiration for him .. its just the "old guard" as he called it ( you might realize there are people online who are over 50-something and are established with reputations &c from before the internet ) who didn't like jay encroaching on their territory so they got all bent out of shape.
I had similar problems with so-called caffenol-experts ... people are strange ...

I might do that, John. I actually posted a photo from this roll on Flickr and he commented on it, so I'll just figure out how to send PMs on that platform (I just started using it).

Yeah, the old guard here is a trip. Too many people more worried about being right then about making/enjoying/appreciating photography... And God forbid someone experiments and ends up with something different or fun!

 

[Foto Ludens]

I've shot a lot of Rollei Retro 80 S as a panchromatic film at EI=40 and as an infrared film behind a IR720 filter at EI=4. It goes into the same developing tank together with other films and gets 11minutes 15 seconds at 20C in replenished Xtol agitated intermittently like any other film. The negatives are amenable and predictable and print easily on variable contrast paper.

That's good to know! Maybe I gave those horror stories about this film too much credit

 

[gone]

I think the proper term is experimenting, not tinkering. Amazing discoveries have been made in all fields by simply saying "OK, that does that, what happens if I try this?" You have to do these things or you're stuck in a rut, and I don't care how good the photos may be, one needs to try new things or risk sliding into mediocrity. Many of my advances in photograph and art arose from mistakes, or what I thought at the time were mistakes. We should always be alert to new discoveries and try new ways of doing things, not just in this area but in all areas of or our lives. A routine is simply another word for habit, and that implies doing something w/o really paying much attention, just doing it automatically. We do it mostly because we always do it. Not good.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

OP: another route to tame high contrast films without tinkering with the developer or agitation is SLIMT. You can read more about the technique here.

 

[removed account4]

I might do that, John. I actually posted a photo from this roll on Flickr and he commented on it, so I'll just figure out how to send PMs on that platform (I just started using it).

Yeah, the old guard here is a trip. Too many people more worried about being right then about making/enjoying/appreciating photography... And God forbid someone experiments and ends up with something different or fun!

to message someone you click on their avatar and there is an envelope, to see your mail you click on your icon top right corner of the page and see "flickr mail" ... that's great that he commented !

oh well, lots of people don't like other people rocking the boat I guess it makes them nervous.

 

[Foto Ludens]

OP: another route to tame high contrast films without tinkering with the developer or agitation is SLIMT. You can read more about the technique here.

Interesting!

 

[Foto Ludens]

to message someone you click on their avatar and there is an envelope, to see your mail you click on your icon top right corner of the page and see "flickr mail

Hey, thanks! That saved me the trouble of looking this up!

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

OP: another route to tame high contrast films without tinkering with the developer or agitation is SLIMT. You can read more about the technique here.

Here's a report on SLIMT applied to a different high contrast film:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1789186194718562/permalink/2585239588446548/

 

[scheimfluger_77]

That's good to know! Maybe I gave those horror stories about this film too much credit

Personally I like this film, wish it was available in sheets. Most of what I’ve shot is in a pinhole camera with an IR-720 filter, and the results, while typically “pinhole-ish”, have a nice “creamyness” in the tones lending a more dreamy feeling. An ISO of 1 at f/128 makes for interesting photo outings.

 

[Foto Ludens]

An

I bet! Sounds like the kind of photo outing you bring a good book to

But yes, I do like the tonality I've been getting from my scans of this film so far. Haven't tried it with an IR filter, but the orange filter I've used has brought out a bit of that IR character already. It's fun stuff!

 

[Foto Ludens]

Incidentally, I've posted a shot from my 2nd roll in the gallery here. Not sure if the forums will let me embed it here, but here goes nothing:

The negatives from this roll may be too thin for darkroom printing, but they scan beautifully, with standard post processing (white and black points + gamma set in Color Perfect, then on to Photoshop Elements for layers work: some burning of the edges, some more contrast tweaking, and the standard high pass sharpening I give all 35mm scans)...

 

[destroya]

Personally I like this film, wish it was available in sheets. Most of what I’ve shot is in a pinhole camera with an IR-720 filter, and the results, while typically “pinhole-ish”, have a nice “creamyness” in the tones lending a more dreamy feeling. An ISO of 1 at f/128 makes for interesting photo outings.

if you are talking about RR80, it is. RPX 25, according to people I trust and thru my own experience, is the same emulsion. the RR80 is finished by foma and rpx 25 is finished by harman. the sheet film is nice, but man, is it really thin. hard to not accidentally load 2 sheets and also it likes to misbehave with my mod54 holder when developing. but still, gives great results.

john

 

[Foto Ludens]

if you are talking about RR80, it is. RPX 25, according to people I trust and thru my own experience, is the same emulsion. the RR80 is finished by foma and rpx 25 is finished by harman. the sheet film is nice, but man, is it really thin. hard to not accidentally load 2 sheets and also it likes to misbehave with my mod54 holder when developing. but still, gives great results.

john

I've read this in many posts in various websites, but the datasheets from Agfa and Rollei don't bear this out. Looking at the spectral sensitivity chart for each film, it seems that Retro 80s is Aviphot Pan 80, and RPX 25 is Aviphot Pan 40:

Aviphot 40:

RPX 25:

Aviphot 80:

Retro 80s:

 

[scheimfluger_77]

if you are talking about RR80, it is. RPX 25, according to people I trust and thru my own experience, is the same emulsion. the RR80 is finished by foma and rpx 25 is finished by harman. the sheet film is nice, but man, is it really thin. hard to not accidentally load 2 sheets and also it likes to misbehave with my mod54 holder when developing. but still, gives great results.

john

I did not know this.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

On the subject of tinkering:

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1419846623258103809/photo/1

 

[pentaxuser]

On the subject of tinkering:

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1419846623258103809/photo/1

Wow I never expected such a wide a range of views about tinkering It has to be nearly as wide as the range here
pentaxuser

 

[removed account4]

On the subject of tinkering:

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1419846623258103809/photo/1

“Never cross a river that's 4-feet deep on average”
thanks for that
I had a dream once I stepped off the curb and there was a slushy puddle, and the same thing happened to me
thanks for the memories !
- John

 

[Foto Ludens]

It's been a while since I shot this film, so this week I decided to shoot a proper test roll and try a standard 1:100 development in 510-Pyro. Given the widespread rumors that 80s and RPX25 are the same film, despite the fact that the datasheets for these films suggest that they are Aviphot 80 and 40 respectively, I decided to test RPX alongside rr80s.

The methodology was simple: I set my Canon AE1P to full program mode, put the camera on a tripod, and photographed the same frame over and over again at EI 25, 50, and 80. I did this as quickly as possible with both rolls so as to minimize changes in lighting. So, both films were exposed identically (or as nearly as I could manage).

I then cut 1/2 to 1/3 (at a guess, hard to measure when using a dark bag) off each roll and loaded strips of both films in a two reel tank. Looking at listed times for D76/ID11 for these films (usually decent guide times for 510-Pyro 1:100, from what I gather), I decided to develop for 7 minutes at 75.5° Fahrenheit. Agitation was continuous for the first 30 seconds, then two inversions every 30 seconds.

The end result indicates that these are indeed the same film, or at least close enough to be practically identical. Here's a straight (no auto anything, no editing other then resizing) scan of both films. I wet mounted both strips to the scanner's glass plate, so both films were scanned at the same time, in the same image (thus eliminating variations in scanning):

And here's a quick inversion with Color Perfect (gamma set to a grade 2 paper):

And here's a closer look at the EI 25 frames:

Keeping in mind that these have undergone no editing at all aside from inversion and resizing (no burning/dodging, sharpening, or additional contrast work), I'm calling this developing time a resounding success for EI 25! I really like how easily these scan...

But I am disappointed that RPX doesn't seem to be Aviphot 40s after all. It would be nice to compare the renderings from those two agfa stocks.

It's looking more and more likely that I'll buy a bulk roll of one of these in the near future. Probably RPX, just because the edge markings will match the EI at which I'll shoot the film.

 

[Foto Ludens]

Looking at the scans i just posted, it looks like the RR80S was shot at 25, 50, 50 (rather than 80) in this sequence. Oops! Of all the 3 shot sequences in that length on developed film, I just had to scan the one I messed up on...

No matter, this is clearly an EI 25 film, and it's clear that RR80S and RPX25 can be used interchangeably.

 

[Helge]

Did you try latensification and preflashing to lower contrast?
Washing off the anti halation layer, pre exposure also produces, among other things, a lowering of contrast.