Rollei RPX 400 / Kentmere 400 vs HP5+?

[pmu]

I read all the threads I could find, but I still need to ask. Some people say that they are definitely not the same film, but it remained a bit of mystery what is actually the difference. So, what is the main difference between HP5+ and RPX 400 / Kentmere 400 (in 135 format)?

Thanks for comments.

 

[pdeeh]

The one thing you can be sure is that they are all different films.

Harman have been absolutely clear that they no longer sell their own branded products (i.e. Ilford and Kentmere) to be sold by others under different brand names.

Even if Harman manufacture RPX400, it won't be the same as any of Harman's other films.

Apart from that, you will probably have to shoot examples of all three for yourself for any comparison to be meaningful.

 

[pmu]

Ok, thanks. So, does anyone have any idea what film that current RPX 400 actually is?

 

[darkosaric]

I used all of them. All are good, if money is not a problem HP5+ is the best one.
Developed in HC110 or D76 and then printed on Fomabrom or Ilford multigrade, HP5+ looks really great.

 

[pmu]

I used all of them. All are good, if money is not a problem HP5+ is the best one.
Developed in HC110 or D76 and then printed on Fomabrom or Ilford multigrade, HP5+ looks really great.

Can you tell how does the grain size and shape differ between these three films? At the moment, RPX 400 would be the most cost effective film in bulk. And yes, money is a problem

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

If money is a problem just buy the cheapest you can and shoot shoot shoot. All mainstream films and all mainstream developers are capable of terrific results and the minor differences, if any in the practical end, are so minor as to be inconsequential for the hobbyist photographer.

 

[pdeeh]

Did anyone ever really bother about grain size and shape before the advent of scanning and hybrid printing?
Apart from the engineers designing and making the films I mean.
I don't remember anyone talking about it in the 70s and 80s except mentioning that fast films were a bit grainier than slower ones, and it was left at that.
Or was it?

 

[pmu]

Did anyone ever really bother about grain size and shape before the advent of scanning and hybrid printing?
Apart from the engineers designing and making the films I mean.
I don't remember anyone talking about it in the 70s and 80s except mentioning that fast films were a bit grainier than slower ones, and it was left at that.
Or was it?

Irrelevant question in this thread, IMO.

If there are differences between these films (that's what people keep saying) it would surely be nice to hear how do they differ... I am most familiar with HP5+ / ADOX CHM 400 (shot maybe 600 rolls of it) and Ilford PAN 400 (shot maybe 100 rolls of it). I guess PAN 400 is the cheap and inferior version of HP5+, but I was 100% happy with it. If RPX 400 is in the same ball park as these films, I think I will buy that.

 

[pdeeh]

Oh I do apologise.
I hadn't quite understood that you had to approve of the content of posts in your thread.

On the other hand, it remains the case that how other people shoot and process their film won't bear much relation to how you will, and you can probably find ways of making any or all of them print the way you want.
of course the irrelevance of my question won't have any bearing on this so long as you are wet printing. It becomes less irrelevant if you are hybrid printing, where the impact of grain aliasing from scans starts to make a difference to how the different films look.

But I expect you knew that, and were just joshing with me.

Nevertheless, in future I'll pop you a PM before posting in one of your threads, just to make sure you're perfectly happy with any contribution I might want to make.

 

[pmu]

Oh I do apologise.
I hadn't quite understood that you had to approve of the content of posts in your thread.

On the other hand, it remains the case that how other people shoot and process their film won't bear much relation to how you will, and you can probably find ways of making any or all of them print the way you want.
of course the irrelevance of my question won't have any bearing on this so long as you are wet printing. It becomes less irrelevant if you are hybrid printing, where the impact of grain aliasing from scans starts to make a difference to how the different films look.

But I expect you knew that, and were just joshing with me.

Nevertheless, in future I'll pop you a PM before posting in one of your threads, just to make sure you're perfectly happy with any contribution I might want to make.

OK, wow, relax. I just meant that I would like this thread to be about these particular films and not about something completely different.

 

[jmdco]

I agree darkosaric. HP5 is better. It is more scratch resistant and more sensitive in low light. Pushed to 3200 and in the developped MICROPHEN, it offers a greater range. But the RPX is a very good and less expensive to purchase.
The RPX 400 should be better exposed. It must also be carefully Developed. You will like it in this case. Both have a classic grain. RPX grain is little more visible, but just as beautiful as the HP5.
The RPX is softer, less contrasted.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Ok, thanks. So, does anyone have any idea what film that current RPX 400 actually is?

It is actually Rollei RPX 400.
It is true that some Rollei films are Agfa emulsions. But not on the RPX films.

 

[Xmas]

Did anyone ever really bother about grain size and shape before the advent of scanning and hybrid printing?
Apart from the engineers designing and making the films I mean.
I don't remember anyone talking about it in the 70s and 80s except mentioning that fast films were a bit grainier than slower ones, and it was left at that.
Or was it?

They used to have the option of swords or pistols at dawn...

So yes they cared only difference there was no tabular grain.

 

[Xmas]

HiRicardo

So whose manufacturing code did the cassette have, or did you not look?

&

Your signature text is out of date again...

Noel

 

[fotch]

Did anyone ever really bother about grain size and shape before the advent of scanning and hybrid printing?
Apart from the engineers designing and making the films I mean.
I don't remember anyone talking about it in the 70s and 80s except mentioning that fast films were a bit grainier than slower ones, and it was left at that.
Or was it?

Absolutely, fast films were always grainy compared to medium or slow films. Nothing new there.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

HiRicardo

So whose manufacturing code did the cassette have, or did you not look?

&

Your signature text is out of date again...

Noel

I'll check.

Checking...

Kentmere 400 = 017703

Rollei RPX 400 = 834004

Boxes are the same as you know. They are similar, but different films.

 

[darkosaric]

Can you tell how does the grain size and shape differ between these three films? At the moment, RPX 400 would be the most cost effective film in bulk. And yes, money is a problem

Grain size is not so important in my judgment - all 3 films are typical classic iso 400 in grain size. HP5+ have overall nicer and more pleasing look in final print. If you want small grain in iso 400 go for Tmax or Delta 400.

 

[pmu]

Grain size is not so important in my judgment - all 3 films are typical classic iso 400 in grain size. HP5+ have overall nicer and more pleasing look in final print. If you want small grain in iso 400 go for Tmax or Delta 400.

Thanks.

I definitely don't want too small grain. I read that HP5+ generally does not mix well with Rodinal. Well, I used to shoot those PAN400 (HP5 cheapies) and developed exclusively in 1+50 Rodinal. The grain is rather huge, I might say If I liked that result, surely I can get also pleasing results out of RPX400 by little trial and error. It seems that RPX400 does not suffer from general quality issues either, so that solves it for me. RPX400 it is.

 

[Copyhat]

I love the look of HP5 in Rodinal, but using mostly RPX400 at the moment because of the lower price. HP5 looks nice in 1+50 while RPX will benefit from the higher contrast in 1+25.

 

[Xmas]

Thanks.

I definitely don't want too small grain. I read that HP5+ generally does not mix well with Rodinal. Well, I used to shoot those PAN400 (HP5 cheapies) and developed exclusively in 1+50 Rodinal. The grain is rather huge, I might say If I liked that result, surely I can get also pleasing results out of RPX400 by little trial and error. It seems that RPX400 does not suffer from general quality issues either, so that solves it for me. RPX400 it is.

I use Foma 400 when I can get it then Kentmere then HP5+ not tried RPX.

Foma is the cheapest and just detectably more grainy, not had any QA problems yet - after a few hundred films ~ if you treat it as a non prehardened film you should be ok.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Any film with Rollei name on it is terribly overpriced where I'm, can't tell anything about this film because of this.
Within one year period I went through two bulk rolls of Kentmere 400 and and bulk roll of HP5+. I like both films @200. But Ilford seems to be better overall.
No difference in darkroom printing.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

But Ilford seems to be better overall.

"Better" how?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Well, I like it more in terms of developing results. Flat and seems to be better quality, physically.
It gives better scans, but it is for digital forums, I think.

 

[piu58]

> what film that current RPX 400 actually is?

Some years ago, Maco tend to repack film which was known with a different name. Sometimes even the same material was sold under different names. Most prominent example: Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 .

With the RPX series Maco follows a different product philosophy: These are their own films, that means they are independent recipes. Most of us know that Maco cannot create films from scratch, so that could be older, but possibly never produced recipes.

The film are without much doubt manufactured by Ilford, which means that they have a high quality standard. The RPX 100 is quite similar to the Kentmere 100. The RPX 400 is similar to nothing I know. Most important in comparision to Kentmere films: These lower budget (lower vs. FP4/HP5) materials are produced in 35 mm and 120 as well. Kentmere films are only available in 35mm.

> 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.

 

[Roger Cole]

Did anyone ever really bother about grain size and shape before the advent of scanning and hybrid printing?
Apart from the engineers designing and making the films I mean.
I don't remember anyone talking about it in the 70s and 80s except mentioning that fast films were a bit grainier than slower ones, and it was left at that.
Or was it?

Yes, we did.