Rollei RPX 25: Grain and Resolution

Dear Matt,

MattKing said:

Henning's work is interesting and useful, but comparing film resolution numbers is only really important for a very small subset of photographic tasks, and only in those circumstances where photographers' procedures are incredibly exacting.

They are, for instance, essentially meaningless for anyone who shoots hand held.

Click to expand...

with all respect, but I have to disagree, or at least would not make such a generalization.
Of course the resolution is lower shooting hand held compared to shots with a proper tripod.
But how significant the difference is is depending on the shutter speed, the dampening of the mirror and shutter in the camera (or the lack of the mirror in rangefinders and TLRs), the hand held technique of the photographer etc.

The higher the shutter speed, the better the camera (better dampening), the higher the resulting resolution, the better the detail rendition.
When I take a 1/30s shot with my SLR I will have a visible loss. But with a 1/250 or 1/500s the loss in resolution is minimal.

We've done these tests, too. And with higher shutter speeds (and cameras with less mirror / shutter vibration) you can get 85-95% of the resolution you get compared to shots from a tripod.
That is a lot!
85-95% of the resolution of a Provia 100F, Velvia 100, TMX, Delta 100, Retro 80S, RPX 25.....that is in each case more than 100 Lp/mm.
With Adox CMS 20 II you even reach 200 Lp/mm (I've lots of handheld shots here with this film at such resolution levels).

I have thousands of transparencies here with the current, excellent films, colour and BW, all hand held shots done in my normal, daily photography.
I project them, mostly on a 1,50 meter screen (sometimes on bigger screens as well).
A 35mm transparency projected on a 1,50 meter screen is a 40x enlargement.
If I "put my nose" on the screen, look at the projected picture shot on Provia, Velvia, CoRa, RPX 25, Adox CMS 20 II etc., all hand held shots with shutter speeds of 1/125 and shorter, I can see even the finest detail.The resolution and detail rendition is incredible ( I use the Leica Super-Colorplan P2, Zeiss P-Sonnar and Kindermann 2,4/90 MC-B (Docter-Optics) als projection lenses in my 35mm projectors).
For example I've made pictures of my little niece: She was running to me, I had to react very fast, made the shots with 1/250 at f4. On her face I can see even every of their extremely tiny baby fluff (tiniest hairs) in projection. A resolution of more than 100 lp/mm.
The detail rendition is awesome.

Or let's look at this topic in another way:
If you make hand held shots with TMX or Delta 100 on the one hand and FP4+ or Fomapan 100 on the other hand:
Do you see higher resolution / better detail rendition with Delta / TMX?
Yes, of course.
If you make hand held shots with TMY-2 or Delta 400, and compare that to HP5+ or RPX 400:
Do you see higher resolution / better detail rendition with TMY-2 / Delta?
Yes, of course.
When I project Provia 100F, Provia 400X, Ektachrome 100 etc. and compare that to Rollei CR 200:
Do I see finer details, better resolved, sharper with Provia + Co. as with the Rollei?
Yes, clearly visible, a big difference.

From my 35 years experience in photography, and 25 years experience in photographic tests I can assure you the test results are relevant and can be helpful for normal, daily photography. Otherwise I would not do it.
I am a photographer, and as such interested in valid information helping me in my photographic work.

Best regards,
Henning

Henning,

Thanks for your work. I often use my Mamiya 7II hand held at reasonable shutter speeds and agree with you that it is possible to get good results. If I were to insist on a tripod then many of those negatives would not have been possible to make.

Tom

Added to my subscriptions. Thank you, Henning!!

Henning:

I'm not trying to minimize the importance of your results. I am trying to throw up a caution flag though - when I see someone new to film wanting to make your numbers a "Sticky", my immediate reaction is to say: "there are a lot more factors you should work on before you focus on the relatively minor differences in the results obtained from various high quality films".

I referred to hand held use as an example because a low resolution film shot using good technique on a tripod is going to out-perform the highest resolution film shot hand held - in other words, film resolution needs to be understood as only one factor, and when technique is not at its best, not even a determinative factor at that.

Your numbers would be a great subject for the reference section of APUG - the "Articles". Would you consider re-posting them there?

MattKing said:

Henning:

I'm not trying to minimize the importance of your results. I am trying to throw up a caution flag though - when I see someone new to film wanting to make your numbers a "Sticky", my immediate reaction is to say: "there are a lot more factors you should work on before you focus on the relatively minor differences in the results obtained from various high quality films".

I referred to hand held use as an example because a low resolution film shot using good technique on a tripod is going to out-perform the highest resolution film shot hand held - in other words, film resolution needs to be understood as only one factor, and when technique is not at its best, not even a determinative factor at that.

Your numbers would be a great subject for the reference section of APUG - the "Articles". Would you consider re-posting them there?

Click to expand...

I agree with Matt, and also want to thank Henning for the excellent and useful information posted in this thread (and elsewhere).

My own experience and observation, being a non-scientific kind of person, is that I make the best prints with ISO 400 film, namely the two worst performers Henning has shown us, Tri-X 400 and HP5+. I print a lot of 11x14 and the odd 16x20 from 35mm negatives, and in spite of the technical superiority of almost any other film, I prefer the grain and the look I get from those two films. I think that is a type of quality I like from those films that can not be measured. It's a reaction to how I feel it supports the content and just a slight preference.
With that said I'll happily shoot FP4, Pan-F, or whatever else. It doesn't matter that much. In the end, the only thing that matters is whether the resulting print is interesting or appealing to the senses or not.

I don't want to take anything away from Henning's results, or those who love films like Pan-F+, Efke 25, or the new RPX 25 from ADOX. To some people those numbers matter, and I don't want to diminish that importance. However, when you start out with photography and darkroom, there are other things that are arguably more important. Lighting comes to mind, as does composition, content, and gesture. If you're a portraitist, report with the model and getting the best out of the people you photograph is super important in order to make a good photograph. And when you get those things *just* right, very few people are going to be looking at grain or resolution.

Definitely, I have used both Acros and Neopan 400 a lot this year. I much prefer the tonality of Neopan 400 but one would have to be blind to not see that Acros has not only much finer grain but easily captures more fine detail importantly in a clean fashion (that fine grain) that make its useful fine detail. Hennings numbers are very useful as I can relate them to the different films I have used and it then helps to inform what I may or may not want to get out of the other alternative but similar films for my own use cases.

Something which his testing very much shows is what a tragedy it is that we have lost Neopan 400. I bought a brick of 10 rolls cheap have fallen in love with the stuff but probably won't be able to shoot it after this year.

Hello friends,

@ Tom,Old-N-Feeble, Michael R, NJH:
You're welcome and thank you all for your kind words.

Dear Matt,

MattKing said:

Henning:

I'm not trying to minimize the importance of your results. I am trying to throw up a caution flag though - when I see someone new to film wanting to make your numbers a "Sticky", my immediate reaction is to say: "there are a lot more factors you should work on before you focus on the relatively minor differences in the results obtained from various high quality films".

Click to expand...

we are probably not so far away from each other in our assessment.

This is the original post:

"Hi All,

I am curious about the grain and resolution characteristics of Rollei RPX 25. Anyone have any experience or knowledge about this film as it pertains to it's grain and resolving power? How would it compare to TMax 100 or Across 100? "

The original poster does not look like a beginner in film photography. And he had a precise question.

I tried to answer his question, as good and detailed as possible.
Then another one ask me whether I have further test results concerning ISO 400/27° films.
And again I tried to answer his question, as good and detailed as possible.

I just wanted to stay on topic and answer the questions of the other forum members.
No more, no less.

Of course there other factors as well to get stunning pictures. It is a "Binsenweisheit", a commonplace (I hope it is the right word, my English is just horrible). No one is denying that.

MattKing said:

I referred to hand held use as an example because a low resolution film shot using good technique on a tripod is going to out-perform the highest resolution film shot hand held.

Click to expand...

That can be of course the case in certain shooting conditions, but it is not a general rule. I did these comparisons as well. For example my hand held shots with Agfa Copex Rapid all have higher resolution and better detail rendition than my FP4+ or APX 100 tripod shots.
My hand held Provia 100F, Sensia 100, Astia 100F, Elitechrome 100, E100G, Velvia 50 and 100 shots all outperform the Rollei CR 200 tripod shots.

MattKing said:

Your numbers would be a great subject for the reference section of APUG - the "Articles". Would you consider re-posting them there?

Click to expand...

Well yes, I've already thought about that, writing a detailed article including all test results (I have tested almost all of the films on the market). And then publishing in that section.
I would like to add some sample pictures as well. But as no scanner is able to resolve the full detail of our best films, I have to go a different route.
Direct shots from the microscope or the projection screen may be an option. I will work that out. But please have patience. I have so much to do in my job. It will take some weeks.
Thank you.

Best regards,
Henning

Wonderful! What a fine resource this will be.

RR

I wonder if caffenol would affect the overall sharpness tbough?

aRolleiBrujo said:

I wonder if caffenol would affect the overall sharpness tbough?

Click to expand...

To Henning:

Res Ipsa Loquitur

mweintraub said:

I didn't see if this magazine comes in an English version... does it?

Click to expand...

as far as I know,it only comes in German.

K-G said:

I think it is only in German so far. The magazine is only a litle less than two years old and you never know if there will be an English version in the future . They write exclusively about analogue photography so an investment in a German dictionary and grammar may be worth the money.

Karl-Gustaf

Click to expand...

that's hard;much easier to be bilingual.German isn't hard. In Germany,even the kids can speak it.

RalphLambrecht said:

that's hard;much easier to be bilingual.German isn't hard. In Germany,even the kids can speak it.

Click to expand...

Me too!

MattKing said:

To Henning:

Res Ipsa Loquitor

Click to expand...

Sic semper tyrannis lol

Me thinks we have a few members with Asperger's syndrome. You're not including enough qualifiers in your Latin quotes, fellas. Are you intentionally leaving your intentions open to vague interpretation?

Old-N-Feeble said:

Me thinks we have a few members with Asperger's syndrome. You're not including enough qualifiers in your Latin quotes, fellas. Are you intentionally leaving your intentions open to vague interpretation?

Click to expand...

Twas mi only known Latin phrases aside from my fave quid pro quo although I may have ADHD and I don't know what assberger is too. Seriously thought I think or don't think at all that maybe the quote Matt stated may have something to do with my question involving caffenol and it's resolution since I probably should have known the idea common sense wise I really don't know but that's the majick of Latin do we really know what they knew? My Spanish heritage roots from Latin but heck I don't know zilch.

I've improved the spelling of my entry. My example came to my attention initially as law french.

MattKing said:

I've improved the spelling of my entry. My example came to my attention initially as law french.

Click to expand...

Matt, But what does it all mean! xD

aRolleiBrujo said:

I wonder if caffenol would affect the overall sharpness tbough?

Click to expand...

Do you want sharp results? I never thought jnanian (a favorite caffenol aficianado) was ever looking for that kind of quality in negatives or prints... His prints are what I think of when I think of caffenol. Fun? Yes absolutely... But scientific measures of sharpness... Not expected of caffenol.

Would be good to know though, if caffenol delivered more...or less... sharpness and resolution than standard developers in comparison.

Bill Burk said:

Do you want sharp results? I never thought jnanian (a favorite caffenol aficianado) was ever looking for that kind of quality in negatives or prints... His prints are what I think of when I think of caffenol. Fun? Yes absolutely... But scientific measures of sharpness... Not expected of caffenol.

Would be good to know though, if caffenol delivered more...or less... sharpness and resolution than standard developers in comparison.

Click to expand...

No, Not really, it is what it is, however, I was slightly curious if it even meant anything to my photo at all! I guess that really is up to me and my mind's eye! i usually enjoy my photo's though others have complained, so, maybe this is why I pondered the query! See these, one is 120 6X6 film, and the other Polaroid, and despite their lack of most likely everything standard by photography means, I like them! Sure they are mine own, I guess I am much more important than anyone else with my photography!

Americo J Rodriguez-37 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

POLAROID via Mamiya RB67 Pro S and fujifilms

Scorn by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

aRolleiBrujo said:

I wonder if caffenol would affect the overall sharpness tbough?

Click to expand...

As I 've explained in my description of my test method, Spur HRX is used as standard test developer (with the exception of films like Agfa Copex Rapid and Adox CMS 20 II, which are developed in their dedicated developers). HRX is optimised for very fine grain and very good sharpness, resulting in high resolution. As I have tested and used dozens of different developers during the last three decades, I have a very good overview of the different strenghts and weaknesses of developers.
With caffenol you have to accept losses in detail rendition with most films compared to Spur HRX or similar developers.

Best regards,
Henning

With 50 rolls of 120 on hand now I can't wait to shoot some test targets and study resolution for a few months. I need to order more H&D graph paper and calibrate, calibrate, calibrate!

RalphLambrecht said:

that's hard;much easier to be bilingual.German isn't hard. In Germany,even the kids can speak it.

Click to expand...

You are quite right. Once you have learned the two basic rules for German, then there is no problem. The rules are :

1. No sentence may be shorter than half a page.
2. Dump a truckload of verbs in the end of each sentence.

Thats all there is to it.

Karl-Gustaf

Curt said:

With 50 rolls of 120 on hand now I can't wait to shoot some test targets and study resolution for a few months. I need to order more H&D graph paper and calibrate, calibrate, calibrate!

Click to expand...

Curt, serious answer here but nobody else has to, which also has the benefit that one doesn't have to waste time wading through subjective opinions elsewhere on those metrics either. It would be nice however if someone did some testing of those films to compare the tonal response, this is one area where the opinions can be so polarised sometimes its really hard to know which opinions are valid.

Yep, bit the bullet and ordered some today in 120.
I've got a great idea for a film series of landscapes that would require some fairly good resolution, so I'll be shooting APX25 on my EOS 3 with a Samyang 35/1.4 on 135 alongside RPX 25 in my Mamiya 645 with 45mm Takumar.
Haven't exactly decided how I'm printing them yet, hence taking two formats, and choosing which has the best look and tones and whatever at the time.
Not a direct comparison, but it'll also be interesting to see how the uber-sharp Samyang does on 135 compared to the good (but not as good) Tak on 120.

Plus it's just an excuse to play with new RPX25...