Rollei RPX 25 @ 400 developing adjustment

[Laci Toth]

Whatever you decide to do Laci I hope you will let us know and show the results. It is the only way we expand our boundaries of knowledge Thanks

pentaxuser

Will do. I’m processing the infos and will decide soon. I’ll be back! =) Thanks to all of you, I appreciate it!

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Have you considered reversal processing? Apparently this film responds really well to reversal processing. You might not be able to save the shadows but midtones and highlights might show some life due to the potent first developer used in reversal processing. While the final slides might look dull to the eye, you may be able to make good copy negatives from them.

 

[Laci Toth]

Have you considered reversal processing? Apparently this film responds really well to reversal processing. You might not be able to save the shadows but midtones and highlights might show some life due to the potent first developer used in reversal processing. While the final slides might look dull to the eye, you may be able to make good copy negatives from them.

No I haven’t, I’m aware that there’s a process but I never got into it to know what it’s about. I have a look at it and might give it a go.
Thanks for your suggestion!

 

[tezzasmall]

The suspense!! I don't know how much more I can take!!

Terry S

 

[pentaxuser]

The suspense!! I don't know how much more I can take!!

Terry S

I know the feeling Terry but on a more serious note I'd welcome not just the results of 4 stops under but the seeing results on the latest Ortho which is Ilford Ortho 80 Plus at say one stop under. Acceptable exposures at 160 might persuade me to try it given we are now in a period of the year where a fallback to one stop under could be the difference between taking an exposure and not bothering.

pentaxuser

 

[Rudeofus]

If you start underexposing, you will know in advance, that your shadows will be deep, medium tone contrast will be weak, and high tones as well as grain will go through the roof. All of this works very well for some subject matter, and not at all for some other. Since these wildly underexposed shots were frequently made with the lens wide open and no tripod, chances are high, that these shots will be soft, too. Overall it's very difficult to predict, whether a random subject matter will work out at severe underexposure. Headshots may work, while ambient portraits will look terrible (as in: 3 grains per contrastless mushy face). Then there will be lucky folks who do it anyway and create very successful images nonetheless.

There are some procedures to get the absolute last out of a strongly underexposed roll (and these have already been presented here in great detail), but whether the pics will turn out alright depends on a lot of factors outside the realm of chemical engineering.