Rollei Digibase® CN 200 PRO ?!?!

hi... any experience with this film (in medium format preferably) ?
initially it seems to be a great idea and a promising film, but i would like to hear from the users - whats the nature of this thing ... ?
thanks.
ah, for some scans or test or sample works from it - i would be super thankful ...
bests vic

Hi Victor,

there seems no interest in this film from over the pond, so I feel free to answer you. I discovered this film only recently as I was on Fuji superia and kodak gold for years and was looking for a alt cheap colorfilm. I encountered it on the big german film supplier website beginning with M and ordered 3 double 135 cannisters(6 films). I wasn't dissappointed when the 6x4" prints came back from the lab: gorgeous colors is the only word which fits it. Digibase CN and CR are made in the original Belgian AGFA factory and I know a lot of people working over there personally, so another reason to support them by buying this marvellous color film.
I'll upload some scans soon to the gallery on DPUG to give some small example of it's potential. Scans from negs aren't doing honour though to the film.
Regards.

PS: @ moderator: this thread seems not correctly started in B&W, it needs replacing to color film

i have mixed feelings about this film. Quite grainy in 35mm in 120 not so bad.

here is a set of photos 120 and 35mm of mine from this film. Careful because light does pipe through the base and unless you and the lab load and unload in total darkness you will get some messed up frames. as per one of the photos in the set.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/richsteinbach/sets/72157622165805530/

After having tested it I can only recommend to avoid this film. here in germany it was advertised by M*** as the super-trouper-all-in-one film: a C41 being b&w at the same time and perfect for scanning because of having no orange mask.
Well, let me tell you, none of this is really true: the colours are strange (70s like), it irritates any scanner because the orange mask is lacking (tip: scan it as a slide film, then it is supposed to work better). My scanner came up with scans that looked very strange (blue shadows, orange fringing). The lab had problems with the film too, because it tends to have chalky spots when it is not watered before the actual developing process. So, avoid sending this film to your usual chain lab, give it to some minilab which might be able to handle this film properly.
The only thing that works well is the use/scanning of the film as a b&w film, but then, there are enough real b&w films around so why blow your money on such a film which is overpriced anyway?

I have used a couple (about 10?) rolls of this in 35mm. No problems here with sending this either to the standard chain finishers, nor with 1h minilab processing. However, indeed one has to take great care when loading this film, to prevent fogging.

Results (prints and scans) from different finishers will not necessarily be consistent (all of them seem to scan&print today, and I somehow doubt the machines will have custom profiles for this film...). Punchy colors, of an "outside this era" palette. Looks somewhat 50ies-ish, but with the saturation turned well up. Avoid underexposure, but interesting effects can be had when overexposing up to 3 stops.

I wouldn't really call it "a great idea and promising film", but rather a nice film to experiment with, that will yield quite a unique look. As such, it is well worth having a few rolls in the fridge.

Some images using this film can be seen beginning here: http://agw.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Oberbayern/8208525_mZFPk5#536440098_YCRPE

vic vic said:

hi... any experience with this film (in medium format preferably) ?

Click to expand...

Yes.
My experience after lots of rolls in 135, 120, cross-processed in E6 and printed on BW paper in wet darkroom:
- more grain compared to ISO 160/200 Kodak and Fuji films
- less resolution compared to ISO 160/200 Kodak and Fuji Films
- warm color balance
- color rendition reminds me of the color film look of the 70th; different look to current Fuji and Kodak films
- lot's of water drying marks when film was developed in mass labs; no problems with developing in minilabs, professsional labs and with DIY C-41 homeprocessing
- because of lack of the orange mask and the clear base cross-processing in E6 delivers quite normal slides, but with a bit muted colors, a bit less contrast compared to normal slide films and quite high dynamic range
- prints on BW paper in wet darkroom are possible and easy, but compared to prints from Ilford XP2 Super and Kodak BW 400 CN more grain and less resolution, detail rendition with the Ilford and Kodak film is better.

If you want this special 70th look in color, try it.
Otherwise, both Kodak and Fuji films give better detail rendition and more neutral, natural colors. And no problems with development in standard mass labs.

I admit the film has a retro palette, but that's what I'm looking for. Off the beaten track of F and K. F and K tend to be more and more growing to each others color palette, so for color this is pure heaven for me. I really got bored with the ultra greenish superia 200.
I will get more of digibase CN200 for sure as I'm not sc*nning color film. I just drop it in the color lab corner in my supermarket and get very nice 6x4" color prints from it through the Fujifilm lab service. There's a slightly bit more grain in these prints, so it's perfect for my goal: cheap medium fast film with a special palette. I will try CR200 and CN200 in 120 format soon. The same for CR200 transparancy. 135 looks nice on the table viewer; very nice skin tones indeed.

rhmimac, you call it a cheap film? Then you must have a good source for it, because one of my strongest arguments against this film is, that it is totally overpriced (4,50€ per roll)!

Yes, around Eur. 4,50 but it's an Agfa Gevaert emulsion indeed, older type. But very nice clear layer and possible to print in B&W too.

A regular Fuji pro emulsion is about the same pricing. But of course it's just what you're looking for.

I admit, 4,5€ is not the "cheapest", portra 160 is listed for 5€ but isn't made in Belgium ;-) ,
and new portra 400 lists even 6,5€ and that's beginning to get high price, though it's said being an olympic champion emulsion.
The RCN640 is going to be next in my camera and that's around 2,3€/roll, so my next choice to replace F or K 400iso emulsions.
For 800iso, the Lomo 800film, probably made by Fuji, is listed for 3€/roll and looks a fair deal in their exceptional expensive film range.
Exploring the less known emulsions is one of my targets for 2012. Experiment and enjoying the "aha!" effect or the "oh no!" deception is what analog photograhy separates from d*g*t*l and that's what keeps me into shooting all my images on pellicule.

I've shot this film in 35, using Contax with Zeiss lenses, so the optimum results can be seen. It's a fantastic film, just like the colors I remember & love. This younger generation, just won't understand how bright and alive color used to be.

Shot a roll of CR200 with a Hassy (Zeiss is always the best lens to test film with.......it's the best glass period), but haven't received the roll back from processing. And here in the States, shopping via Freestyle, yes, it is a very good bargain. Remember, you get what you pay for.

I love to see another color addict here.
I will buy some CR200 and CN200 in 120 format soon.
Newspapers talk about Kodak in a Titanic situation so you'd bether make a choice in back up emulsions :-(
But there will be almost for certain be interested buyers for K's pattents and products as was for Agfa's in 2006.

CR200 (Rollei, made by Gevaert too) is exactly the same type emulsion as former Agfa RSX II emulsion from the 90's. Not the finest grain possible (like Fuji Provia 400X ) but very vivid colors.

so I tested this film today, with new old camera, and got NOTHING . just all pink
I am not sure what I did wrong.

camera is new (Fuji GW690II) this was my first shooting, seller told me all is ok, when testing without film everything seems to be ok (different shutter speeds are working etc.)
user manual to this film on maco webpage says:
Important handling notes for films with a synthetic film base:
The emulsion is coated onto a transparent synthetic base providing excellent long-term and dimensional stability.
This films has to be loaded in the camera and unloaded in subdued light. Before and after exposition always store the films in the black light-tight film-container. Not following these advices can cause light infiltration through the base material to the exposed pictures. Rollfilms: Please take care in handling the 120 size films in keeping the film-roll tight with two fingers after breaking the unexposed adhesive label to avoid that the film is rolling to "spring off". The same procedure should be followed after taking the roll film out of the camera. The exposed film should be kept compellingly again in the black light-tight rollfilm-container.

Film was in black container all the time, but I was inserting it into camera and removing from camera in normal day light. Is that the reason my film is empty?
I know yesterday was long night for me (champions league and some drinking etc.), so I totaly forgot that this film doesnt have orange coat, but still I didnt expect it will be empty

Development was done by standard C41 process and digibase chems

I tried a roll or two about 2 years ago and was really pleased with the colour rendition, quite neutral but with a bit more contrast and depth than the common portraiture optimised films. In 35mm I found it too grainy but in 120 fine. I ran another 120 some time later and was disappointed as there seemed to be some colour degradation. I bought a few new rolls last week and yesterday tried one to test my first home C41 processing and it came out well, sample attached. A little different to my first experience, perhaps, but again it was my first home process so another variable.

What I did notice, though, was that the first roll I tried 2 years ago had the rebate markings as 'Rollei Digibase CN200 Pro' and the lettering was green ( remember this film does not have mask) and the lettering on my recent roll just said 'Rollei CN200' and the lettering is magenta. So they are obviously different batches but how different?

The image attached I just scanned as a positive and inverted with no other corrections.

Keep in mind that Maco (Rollei Film) do not have any film manufacture or converting facilities of their own.
So they just may have changed toll-converter.

pdmk said:

so I tested this film today, with new old camera, and got NOTHING . just all pink

Click to expand...

Actually you did not get nothing, as that would be a clear film.

A not exposed but properly processed film would be clear except for the edge signing.
A properly exposed but not developed film would be completely clear


Did you get no image-forming at all, but instead a uniform pink stain?

I've been using it lately, mostly to photograph still lifes . The manufacturing quality is pretty bad: the paper is a bit thinner than usual, and there's almost no glue to stick the end of the roll. The film itself is grainy and has very deep colors, especially greens and reds, which made me infatuated for it.

Here are some samples, taken with a pentax 6x7 and 105mm smc:

AgX said:

Actually you did not get nothing, as that would be a clear film.

A not exposed but properly processed film would be clear except for the edge signing.
A properly exposed but not developed film would be completely clear


Did you get no image-forming at all, but instead a uniform pink stain?

Click to expand...

I was angry/disapointed by this yesterday so I sacrificed one portra400 for test shots at home. developed and again nothing. then I realized there are no markings on each of the films.. developer was dead. I should not drink so much.. and lesson learned (the hard way)

pedrocruz said:

I've been using it lately, mostly to photograph still lifes . The manufacturing quality is pretty bad: the paper is a bit thinner than usual, and there's almost no glue to stick the end of the roll. The film itself is grainy and has very deep colors, especially greens and reds, which made me infatuated for it.

Here are some samples, taken with a pentax 6x7 and 105mm smc:

View attachment 88553 View attachment 88554

Click to expand...

I'm actually impressed with the color here.

How much post adjustment was done? This almost looks like Velvia, also seems better than Ektar100 and how's the grain?