Rollei Retro 80S - inaccurate start arrow placement on backing paper?

[trendland]

An update on this situation:

I have just now shot another Rollei film (Ortho 25 plus) through the Hasselblad and had the exact same problem: first frame starts too far into the roll, and the last frame is therefore only partial and cut off by the end of the roll.

This problem has now occurred in RR80s and the above Ortho 25 plus in two different Hasselblad A12N backs (both of which perform flawlessly with films from Ilford, Kodak, Fuji), AND in my Pentax 6x7.

I have checked the backing papers for the affected RR80s and Ortho 25 plus, and the start arrows/frame numbers for both either match other films, or at worst are offset about 1 cm earlier. The latter situation should help the problem, if anything, not make it worse! The overall length of the backing papers also match other films.

I have just now measured the Ortho 25 plus film + backing paper and have recorded the following:

Distance from start arrow to deformation where the film was taped on = 16.5 cm

Distance from the same deformation to the middle "1" on backing paper = 9 cm

Distance from the start arrow to the middle "1" on backing paper = 25 cm

Film length = 81 cm

Frame spacing = 4 - 9 mm (nothing really out of the ordinary here)

Distance from start of film to the edge of frame 1 = 6.5 cm (this is abnormally large)

(The RR80s backing paper measurements also match those given above)

Can anyone please shed any more light here? This issue is getting aggravating, and is making it difficult to trust Rollei films (although I have shot a roll of RPX 25 through the Hasselblad, and that didn't have this problem).

Can be true what you stated! I remember some simular issues (last shot isn't 6x7 because it is 6x6) but I allways was sure : It is me - quick loading (much to fast loaded )

with regards

PS : The films have the correct lenght!

 

[trendland]

An update on this situation:

I have just now shot another Rollei film (Ortho 25 plus) through the Hasselblad and had the exact same problem: first frame starts too far into the roll, and the last frame is therefore only partial and cut off by the end of the roll.

This problem has now occurred in RR80s and the above Ortho 25 plus in two different Hasselblad A12N backs (both of which perform flawlessly with films from Ilford, Kodak, Fuji), AND in my Pentax 6x7.

I have checked the backing papers for the affected RR80s and Ortho 25 plus, and the start arrows/frame numbers for both either match other films, or at worst are offset about 1 cm earlier. The latter situation should help the problem, if anything, not make it worse! The overall length of the backing papers also match other films.

I have just now measured the Ortho 25 plus film + backing paper and have recorded the following:

Distance from start arrow to deformation where the film was taped on = 16.5 cm

Distance from the same deformation to the middle "1" on backing paper = 9 cm

Distance from the start arrow to the middle "1" on backing paper = 25 cm

Film length = 81 cm

Frame spacing = 4 - 9 mm (nothing really out of the ordinary here)

Distance from start of film to the edge of frame 1 = 6.5 cm (this is abnormally large)

(The RR80s backing paper measurements also match those given above)

Can anyone please shed any more light here? This issue is getting aggravating, and is making it difficult to trust Rollei films (although I have shot a roll of RPX 25 through the Hasselblad, and that didn't have this problem).

ASK Rollei what is up with backing paper - gues they have solved the problem meanwhile!

With regards

 

[Maris]

I have experienced last frame cut off with Rollei 80S and wondered why. Turns out the film is shorter than other 120 format films by about 15 millimetres. Now when I load Rollei 80S I position the start arrow on the backing paper about 10 millimetres before the start mark in the camera back. This moves the first frame closer to the taped end of the film and allows the last frame to land inside the trailing edge of the film ... just. If it wasn't for the interesting fine grain infrared properties of this film I certainly wouldn't bother with it.

 

[GLS]

I have experienced last frame cut off with Rollei 80S and wondered why. Turns out the film is shorter than other 120 format films by about 15 millimetres. Now when I load Rollei 80S I position the start arrow on the backing paper about 10 millimetres before the start mark in the camera back. This moves the first frame closer to the taped end of the film and allows the last frame to land inside the trailing edge of the film ... just. If it wasn't for the interesting fine grain infrared properties of this film I certainly wouldn't bother with it.

Yes in lieu of other solutions I will have to start doing this myself with these two films, although in my case the offset will need to be at least 2 cm I would think.

I suppose any first examples of Rollei film stocks I shoot will have to be regarded as tests, with possible sacrificial last frames, in order to determine whether the issue is present or not. This is a real shame with something like ATP 1.1 though, as it is now discontinued and I only have 8 precious rolls.

 

[wombat2go]

I recently had 2 cases of a similar problem on the Graflex RH8 and RH10 backs.
The Kodak TMY400 paper and the Ultrafine Extreme ISO 100 here both measure 170mm
from start arrow point to the first edge of the adhesive tape.

My problem was that the holders ( my fault) had the frame counter "S" mark in position before loading the film.
So now, I make sure (by winding the holder through a sequence if necessary),
that the frame counter is on the last frame (8 or 10) before loading the film onto the take-up.
When start is lined up, back is closed, the counter is pushed to "S", then then film wound to frame 1.

 

[AgX]

What does Maco say on this issue?

 

[GLS]

What does Maco say on this issue?

I have not made any enquiries to official sources yet.

Doesn't Agfa make these films though?

 

[AgX]

Maco gets their film from different manufacturers, either out of their portfolio or custom made.
The conversion to type 120 then again is on the part of Maco, here again they employed so far different toll manufacturers (at varying quality levels).

 

[MattKing]

Doesn't Agfa make these films though?

For photographic products, Agfa is just a licensed brand name now.

 

[AgX]

For photographic products, Agfa is just a licensed brand name now.

NO

Agfa is still the old Agfa.

What you mean is AgfaPhoto. A brandname owned by Agfa but licensed out in the context of their salle of the consumer business. The licensing got on after the collaps of business after a legal case on stopping that licensing failed.

 

[MattKing]

NO

Agfa is still the old Agfa.

What you mean is AgfaPhoto. A brandname owned by Agfa but licensed out, after a legal case on stopping that licensing failed.

But does Agfa make photographic products that we might use?

 

[AgX]

A great part of Maco's, Rollei-branded portfolio, was made by Agfa, to give just one example.

 

[Henning Serger]

I have not made any enquiries to official sources yet.

Doesn't Agfa make these films though?

Retro 80S is Agfa Aviphot Pan 80 aerial film:
https://www.agfa.com/specialty-products/solutions/aerial-photography/aviphot/

Agfa cannot convert their Jumbo rolls (masterrolls) into 35mm film cartridges, 120 medium format film or sheet film. They don't have the machinery for that. Therefore companies which buy Agfa film and offer it to photographers - like Maco or Silberra - have to cooperate with film manufacturers who have these capabilities. Maco is cooperating with Foma, Ilford and B&G for converting/confectioning. The last Retro 80S 120 I have used were converted by Foma. In the past unfortunately I've had several different QC issues with roll films converted by Foma. It is not the same quality level like Ilford, Kodak or Fujifilm (Fuji has the best 120 converting quality).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[GLS]

OK thanks for that info Henning.

I may contact Maco and see what they have to say.