• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Rollei Retro in Perceptol

Roger2000

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
61
Location
Northern Eng
Format
Multi Format
Hello,

having just mixed up a litre of Perceptol I'm keen to develop a number of RR100 rolls which were exposed at box speed.

The massive dev chart recommends 9 minutes undiluted but unfortunately my first roll has come out badly underexposed. This can't be due to underexposure at the time of taking the pictures (I don't think...) and I'm very keen to find out whether anyone has experiences to share or advice for thr remaining rolls - each one shot at 100Asa.

Shall I try again at 9 mins undiluted or extend development? Oddly enough, the MDC doesn't specify a time for agfa 100 at 100ASA in perceptol despite being the same
emulsion.

Any advice very gratefully received.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rollei Retro 100, AKA Agfa APX100 needs 9' at 20°C in stock Perceptol, according to Ilford, but you should expose at EI50. So, you've underexposed by 1 stop. BTW, how exactly do you meter? Just TTL, or some kind of incident, careful spot metering?
 
As it's shot at EI100 I'd suggest forgetting the Perceptol this time and finding some Rodinal. Try it at 1:50 for 13 minutes and keep all the chemicals at 18C. Makes for gorgeous long-scale negs if the metering is ok. If there is a possibility that the film is slightly underexposed look at DDX and try a slight push. Test that by replicating the shooting and metering conditions for half a dozen shots on a fresh roll, then clipping that and develop to see what you get ie. don't test out the developer on the important shots - do a separate test.

I'd recommend the Rodinal though, with APX100 it's a classic combination (RR100 is the last of the APX100, re-packaged, of course)
 

Is the lettering around the negatives in dark black, so that a underdevelopment can be excluded?

If the negatives are heavyly underexposed, estimated more than the one stop, then the only solution for the remaining rolls would be to develop with a speed increasing developer like Microphen or FX-39. If you estimate only one stop underexposition then switching to a box speed keeping developer like Xtol would be enough. As the others said: Perceptol decreases the speed about 1 stop. Thats the price you have to pay for the very fine grain you can achieve with it.

Best,
Andreas
 
Perceptol is a special purpose developer; it is not the kind that manufacturers use when determining the recommended EI to use when exposing the film in question. This particular special purpose developer causes less density to appear on your negatives at a given amount of exposure than does a general purpose developer, like the ones the manufacturers use for testing. In short, you need to add exposure when using that developer. How much to add can be determined exactly with personal testing, but the rule of thumb is that one stop is a good amount to start with.

Additionally, if Retro 100 is APX 100, and APX 100 is a t-grained film (like T-Max and Delta and Acros), it will appear about one stop thinner to the eye than will a properly exposed random-grain film (like Tri-X or HP5).

So, it is possible that not only is your film underexposed by a stop or so, but also that it appears more underexposed than it is.
 
Rollei Retro 100 is repacked APX 100 from production 2005 Agfa Photo. Agfa bicubical technique. It has NOTHING to do with Tgrain type films.

BTW in Rodinal (Para-Amino Phenol) most films will also loose about 1/3F stop of their regular iso speed.
I can agree that the best (preferable) developing temperature of Rodinal is about 18-20C and use slow and gentlle agitation to minimize the grain. If doing this well APX 100/Rollei retro 100 in Rodinal 1+50 is a TOP combo.
 
RobertV said:
Rollei Retro 100 is repacked APX 100 from production 2005 Agfa Photo. Agfa bicubical technique. It has NOTHING to do with Tgrain type films.
Click to expand...

...hence the use of the word "if."

So, APX-100 is not a flat-grained film that is higher in dye content than films like HP5 and Tri-X (i.e. a tabular-grained film, or t-grained for short)?

Just asking, eh.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A49 said:
Is the lettering around the negatives in dark black, so that a underdevelopment can be excluded?
Click to expand...

That's an unreliable indicator. I've seen variations in the density of the rebate markings on Kodak films that were developed to a "normal" contrast index. I've seen faint rebate markings on films that were push processed, and rebate markings that were bold and dark on films that were intentionally under developed.
 
So, APX-100 is not a flat-grained film that is higher in dye content than films like HP5 and Tri-X (i.e. a tabular-grained film, or t-grained for short)?

Just asking, eh.
Click to expand...

I do not think so.
But you're comparing iso 400 films with an iso 100 film. Tabular grain (Delta) or Tgrain (Tmax) or Fuji Acros (Sigma) techniques are different.
APX 100/Rollei Retro 100 you have to compare with Fomapan 100, FP4+, PXP etc.
 
RobertV said:
I do not think so.
But you're comparing iso 400 films with an iso 100 film. Tabular grain (Delta) or Tgrain (Tmax) or Fuji Acros (Sigma) techniques are different.
APX 100/Rollei Retro 100 you have to compare with Fomapan 100, FP4+, PXP etc.
Click to expand...

I am not comparing 400 films with 100 films. I am using the 400 films as examples of a type of emulsion, of which FP4 and Plus-X are also possible examples. I simply pulled two films from the hat to use as examples of a certain type of emulsion technology. My choice of these two as examples of this has nothing to do with film speed.

So, what I am asking is whether APX 100 is a flat-grained film, like T-Max, Delta, or Across, which have higher dye content and less silver content than films like HP5 or Tri-X, or whether it is not.

To which of these two groups of emulsion types does APX 100 belong?

If it falls into the T-Max, Delta, and Acros category, then it will look about a stop thinner than one would think it is if one was used to visually judging negative exposure on films like HP5, Tri-X, FP4, and Plus-X. (I am using four examples for this latter category of emulsions now, since two was not enough to make my description clear.)

...but then again, I said that already, when I said in my initial post, "Additionally, if Retro 100 is APX 100, and APX 100 is a t-grained film (like T-Max and Delta and Acros), it will appear about one stop thinner to the eye than will a properly exposed random-grain film (like Tri-X or HP5)," to which you took exception because you missed the meaning of the word "if."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can not follow you but that could be a lack of my poor English.

Sorry.

Measurements I am doing with a TRD-Z Densitomter if I want accurate results. With all other methods you have to guess.
 
Another slug fest in progress. Roger, the fact is that Rollie Retro 100, if it is indeed APX 100 (and I think it is), is not a T-grain or similar technology film. It is very conventional in every sense of the word, and a very nice film indeed. However, developing it in full strength Perceptol will cost you some speed, so I'm pretty sure you've underexposed your film for that developer. Fortunately, all is not lost. You could use Perceptol diluted 1+3 and still be able to exploit the film's box speed; but you will loose the fine grain effect of the developer in exchange for a very long tonal range. Fortunately, there is a development time listed on the Massive Dev Chart for APX 100 and Microdol-X 1+3, which is functionally equivalent to Perceptol. The chart recommends 20 minutes at 20C, and that sounds about right for a film of that speed in that developer. Be aware though that you need to use quite a bit of total volume when using the developer so highly diluted. Follow the minimum required amount of stock solution required, then dilute.
 
fschifano said:
...Roger, the fact is that Rollie Retro 100, if it is indeed APX 100 (and I think it is), is not a T-grain or similar technology film. It is very conventional in every sense of the word, and a very nice film indeed.
Click to expand...

When I bought my Retro from Freestyle it was listed as being cut from remaining AGFA APX stocks, and that's how it seems to behave processing. I have no reason to doubt it either.



Roger2000, do you have access to some other developer? For this Rodinol is a good choice, but there are others, too. And then use the Perceptol on film that you've exposed to account for its loss of speed.

It just seems to me that using Perceptol 1+3 and loosing its design characteristic is counterproductive.

Of course, if the Perceptol is the only developer you have available, then go for it. Getting some pictures is always more important than saving a pack of developer. You can buy more developer any time later. You might not be able to re-shoot the pictures.
 
michaelbsc said:
...It just seems to me that using Perceptol 1+3 and loosing its design characteristic is counterproductive.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily so. Microdol-X and (I think) Perceptol are Metol only formulations, and are very good at taming high contrast lighting conditions when used at the higher dilution rates. True, you give up the fine grain effect, but you get a compensating developer in exchange along with box speed. Do I think that there are better developers for this film. Yes, I do, and even though I'm not a big Rodinal fan, I think it works very nicely with APX 100. I've also used D-76 1+1 with this film and have gotten very nice results. I do miss having APX 10 arond sometimes. I'm on the last of my last bulk roll of the stuff and when it's gone, it's over.
 
fschifano said:
Not necessarily so. Microdol-X and (I think) Perceptol are Metol only formulations, and are very good at taming high contrast lighting conditions when used at the higher dilution rates.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip. I never understood that. I've got several boxes of 1-L Perceptol kits I got from a guy going out of business, and they would have been useful several times had I know that. I've been saving them for their "Fine Grain" quality.

My problem with inside photos is that even if you can use a tripod and make long exposures, it's still way more than 10 stops. Overexposing in the dim light so you can pull process just makes for even longer times until you run into reciprocity problems. I was beginning to toy with the preflash idea, but the logistics of doing that seem difficult at best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register