Rollei RPX 400 / Kentmere 400 vs HP5+?

[Xmas]

> I use Foma 400 when I can get it

Foma has quality problems,especially holes in the emulsion layer. In contrast to dust that cannot be spotted easily.

You need to temper to 1C at least, no prebath, non carbonate developer, plain water stop, never had any pin holes in 500 or so cassettes, bulk and 120.

It is not prehardened like Kodak or Ilford the datasheet allows dilute stop, but way risky IMO...

Noel

 

[mablo]

I've always described RPX400 (in D-76 or Xtol) that it looks a lot like "Tri-X in Rodinal". It's grainy but in a pleasing way. It's a nice film if you like the rough feel it gives. HP5+ is at least one stop faster though and can be pushed even further if that's what you need.

 

[MartinP]

Mablo's description of the "feel" of RPX400 seems a little like my impression of Pan400. This is also a Harman product and is made for sale in selected areas of the world (I bought five rolls in Istanbul, for example). I wonder if by any chance these products are related . . . ?

There remains some sort of stigma attached to Foma, but several years ago they seemed to get some new management ideas and found some morale from somewhere. In exaggerated terms, they went from waiting-to-die like Efke, to seeing the possibility of long term survival and success with some small investments in quality and training. The historical problems seem to be much more rare now, to the point where I haven't actually seen any at all.

 

[Roger Cole]

I've had no problems with Foma. It is soft until it dries and scratches easily but that's a characteristic easily worked around with a little care and once dry it is fine. It is slower than box speed - again just test and expose accordingly. It builds contrast with development rapidly so, again, test and treat accordingly and this is actually useful for zone system expansions.

It's not a great film but it's certainly decent film and, in the Arista brand especially, a bargain.

 

[pmu]

I shot the first RPX 400 test roll and developed it in the same tank with a roll of HP5+. I used a mixture of XTOL and Rodinal. I took real pictures and not "test pictures", so I don't have the same images on both rolls what to compare, but the shooting condition were identical and my shooting and light measuring technique was the same like always. Initially, I though that RPX 400 film feels physically thinner than HP5+ (still completely OK) but after the films dried RPX 400 stayed dead flat (great!). RPX tonal palette...perfectly fine. The grain is a little bit mushy/clumpy compared to HP5+ and with larger prints I think I'd prefer the look of HP5+ grain. When I look at the results and the price of the film, RPX 400 is surely a great choice. Next step is to test Kentmere 400 and compare it to RPX 400...

 

[Xmas]

I shot the first RPX 400 test roll and developed it in the same tank with a roll of HP5+. I used a mixture of XTOL and Rodinal. I took real pictures and not "test pictures", so I don't have the same images on both rolls what to compare, but the shooting condition were identical and my shooting and light measuring technique was the same like always. Initially, I though that RPX 400 film feels physically thinner than HP5+ (still completely OK) but after the films dried RPX 400 stayed dead flat (great!). RPX tonal palette...perfectly fine. The grain is a little bit mushy/clumpy compared to HP5+ and with larger prints I think I'd prefer the look of HP5+ grain. When I look at the results and the price of the film, RPX 400 is surely a great choice. Next step is to test Kentmere 400 and compare it to RPX 400...

If you do a blind test with 8x10 you will have difficulties separating the 400s the tabulars Tmax and Delta easy the others difficult.

The $ varies more...

Foma sells like hot cakes to uni arts students. And I rate it at 250 in Microphen gamma 0.6 ish.