Serious problem with 'Rollei' film - when RPX 25 is not?

Tom Kershaw · Apr 30, 2019

On Sunday I shot my first roll of what I believed to be RPX 25, it certainly says so on the box, and has a 'best before' of Nov 2022. However see the picture below:

It is labelled Rollei 'ortho' 25 and isn't even the correct width for a '120' roll film cutting off some exposures, hence why I've placed the Rollei product next to a normally confectioned roll of Bergger Pancro400. Thankfully I only have four other rolls to worry about but this level of quality control seems completely unacceptable and frankly bizarre.

Any similar experiences?

AgX · Apr 30, 2019

To be fair, there is no print transfer and there is no mottling... we must be modest these days...

AgX · Apr 30, 2019

Is this RPX 25, wrongly signed and rolled too short, or Ortho 25 rolled too short. Or something completely different? Academic question... I know.

trendland · Apr 30, 2019

Tom Kershaw said:
On Sunday I shot my first roll of what I believed to be RPX 25, it certainly says so on the box, and has a 'best before' of Nov 2022. However see the picture below:

It is labelled Rollei 'ortho' 25 and isn't even the correct width for a '120' roll film cutting off some exposures, hence why I've placed the Rollei product next to a normally confectioned roll of Bergger Pancro400. Thankfully I only have four other rolls to worry about but this level of quality control seems completely unacceptable and frankly bizarre.

Any similar experiences?

With all the love for Rollei Films I have to state : You are correct - it is not OK!
Perhaps here you should ASK for refound of 100% money back?
Of ask about a new film?

with regards

Tom Kershaw · Apr 30, 2019

AgX said:
Is this RPX 25, wrongly signed and rolled too short, or Ortho 25 rolled too short. Or something completely different? Academic question... I know.

I know, I'm not sure who did the cutting and rolling but it certainly wasn't a top-tier operation. Another academic question but is 120 roll becoming something of a lottery with the Kodak print transference and / or ILFORD mottling... As the film is on a polyester base I'm inclined to believe Harman Technology is not responsible for this effort.

pentaxuser · Apr 30, 2019

It looks to be Ortho 25 Plus from the faint edge markings - whatever that is/was when it was first made. I had always thought that film had expiry dates and not best before which is a label usually used for food products. It sounds as if the whole film cutting and labelling was in the hands of amateurs. If your film is the wrong width then unless the cutting was done by hand there has to be hundreds or thousands of films with the same defect, hasn't there?

From whom did you obtain it and what is the connection between Ortho Plus 25 and RPX 25? Is it the same film simply in a relabelled box? Doesn't the Trades Description Act come in here somewhere?

Imagine if this was an Ilford, Kodak or Foma film. We'd cut those companies no slack if that were the case. I can see no reason why the "maker" of this stuff should be extended any more leeway than we'd give to the three named companies in the first sentence of this paragraph

pentaxuser

AgX · Apr 30, 2019

Tom Kershaw said:
As the film is on a polyester base I'm inclined to believe Harman Technology is not responsible for this effort.

Mako divided in the past coating and converting between manufactures if it made sense econimically. Butget films were converted at lesser standard than premium films.

AgX · Apr 30, 2019

AgX said:
Is this RPX 25, wrongly signed and rolled too short, or Ortho 25 rolled too short.

Concerning the "width" I first thought you meant "length" and by that loosing some exposure, as too narrow seemed too absurd. But now at rereading it seems to me as if the film really was cut too narrow. Indeed, it seems the whole pancake was too narrow...

NortheastPhotographic · Apr 30, 2019

Ya know there is this company called Kodak, and they make this stuff called TMax 100....

grainyvision · Apr 30, 2019

Last time I developed a Rollei film, I remember it having half cut off edge markings and it fitting very strangely in my scanner setup. No real problems scanning nor fitting in (stainless) development reels, but it did come off as odd. I cut film from sheet to 120 as a masochist side project (ortho, so can be done under safelight) and it caused me to figure out that the 120 film specification and 120 film in practice is a bit different. This looks like they followed the specification but not the common practice, and is probably just barely within "spec" tolerances, but not at all what the common size is. The nominal size is 61mm, but most films are around 61.2mm or so, and the minimum width accounting for tolerance iirc is 60.5mm. An older version of the spec (maybe before it was an official spec and just what Kodak did) though specified 60mm as the minimum size.

All that of course doesn't forgive somehow putting the wrong film into the packaging, just saying that their odd cutting size might still be "proper" even if uncommon

edit: Also, fun fact, the actual nominal image area of a 6x6 exposure is only 56x56mm, of course slightly varying by camera

Tom Kershaw · Apr 30, 2019

NortheastPhotographic said:
Ya know there is this company called Kodak, and they make this stuff called TMax 100....

I use Kodak and ILFORD films. I was simply interested in trying the RPX 25 product.

AgX · May 1, 2019

earlz said:
... it caused me to figure out that the 120 film specification and 120 film in practice is a bit different. This looks like they followed the specification but not the common practice, and is probably just barely within "spec" tolerances, but not at all what the common size is.

If that would be the case, why then is the signing cut off or rather only half exposed? In such case one would either place the signing more in direction of the image frame, without entering the official frame area, or print it smaller, but not half way.

Tom Kershaw · May 1, 2019

AgX said:
If that would be the case, why then is the signing cut off or rather only half exposed? In such case one would either place the signing more in direction of the image frame, without entering the official frame area, or print it smaller, but not half way.

You are correct, the whole assembly is odd. I sent a message to MACO yesterday early evening and will be interested to read their response. It does look as though the film cutting machine was a long way out of calibration.

Tom Kershaw · May 1, 2019

I've just processed another roll of the "RPX 25" film and it also appears to be narrow cut 'Ortho 25 Plus'...

faberryman · May 1, 2019

It's a third tier product. No surprise there are quality issues.

AgX · May 1, 2019

In times of Kodak Alaris' backing paper problem and their handling of it, the term "third tier product" should be a term of the past.

cramej · May 1, 2019

NortheastPhotographic said:
Ya know there is this company called Kodak, and they make this stuff called TMax 100....

Yeah, and it's not the only film on the market. At least the RPX is still usable with its flaws...

Tom Kershaw · May 1, 2019

faberryman said:
It's a third tier product. No surprise there are quality issues.

I hadn't read of QC issues with the RPX 25 prior to my experience. (of what turns out not to be RPX 25).

Tom Kershaw · May 2, 2019

To be clear Maco are not pricing the film as a "budget" product: https://www.macodirect.de/en/film/black-white-films/1859/rollei-rpx-25-roll-film-120. - €6.15 vs €3.75 for Fomapan 100 '120'.

trendland · May 2, 2019

Tom Kershaw said:
To be clear Macro are not pricing the film as a "budget" product: https://www.macodirect.de/en/film/black-white-films/1859/rollei-rpx-25-roll-film-120. - €6.15 vs €3.75 for Fomapan 100 '120'.

That is also my best point concerning any issues of quality!
Let's keeping calm folks - one of course can use such films!
But THEN Rollei should come back to nice pricing I remember some years before !!!!
The best offer Rollei ever made from remind was bulk APX 100 at around ~ 23,95 bucks per
100ft roll! OK that was in 2011! But listen : 3 rolls ~ 21,95 per roll
And : 5 rolls at about 18,50 bucks per roll!
So come along Rollei : Make special offers if there are some quality points or solve that problems
imediately

with regards

PS : In concern to some statements of Mirko from Adox - the train should depart in the opposite
direction (from Mirkos point) = people you should spent more money because film manufacturers
can't live if you spent alms?
With the todays pricing Trendland don't feel as an almsgiver - sorry - but I can't hear such
wimperiing of manufacturers!
OK I am able to spent more money of course - I never shot digital with own equipment!
So I am shooting film at 96% and I pay for that - and this isn't enough?

A Joke!
I can feel that as an joke (manufacturers can't live from pricing of todays films)!

So if the customer is a king in this play he has a right of refound and a serious "feel sorry
statement" from Rollei!
BTW : Where would be the problem to refound and sent 2 New Films in addition?
With a catalogue of full Rollei Portfolio for example!
With a short statement like :" We apologize for the inconvience" - because from my point
Rollei is no 4tier manufacturer!!!! Their films are "just great" - but pricing is (meanwhile)
also "just great"!

trendland · May 2, 2019

AgX said:
In times of Kodak Alaris' backing paper problem and their handling of it, the term "third tier product" should be a term of the past.

3.tier, 4.tier a.s.o. that was "Quelle Revue. Super8 film" in 1973!
From my point the todays small market has no space any more for such business!
So today we should speak about 1. and 2. class manufacturers!
1. class = Kodak, Fuji, Ilford AND all other manufacturers for example Foma, Rollei/Maco a.s.o
are 2. class manufacturers!
There is no 3tier! There is just scratch beside this 2 categorys!
The last 3.tier I remember was "Budnikowsky"

! With "Paradies Films"
I did like the E6 with tree frog on the box

because inside the film cassette was Kodak Ektachrome at € 2,15 (135-36)

looking at the todays pricing for "original" RPX25 Tom Kershaw ordered :

I am getting dizzy!

AgX · May 2, 2019

trendland said:
3.tier, 4.tier a.s.o. that was "Quelle Revue. Super8 film" in 1973!

No surprise, as in that period they were made in the USA...

trendland said:
The last 3.tier I remember was "Budnikowsky" ! With "Paradies Films"

Those were made by Fuji.

Vaidotas · May 2, 2019

Processed one 120 roll, found curly, prone to scratches base and forget this brand forever.

trendland · May 2, 2019

AgX said:
No surprise, as in that period they were made in the USA...

Those were made by Fuji.

No Agx (because then I would had prefered the original Agfa Ct100 Prcecisa at this time!)

Some said it was Ferrania Crome100 - I can't say because that was for the years before Ferrania
was bankrupt.....
The complete warehouses I was emptying at "Budni" was with "made in the US" and this was
Kodak Elitechrome 100 (a simple version of E100G for the amatheuric shooters) but with very
small diference!

with regards

PS : A 10 pack Kodak Elitechrome was priced the same time at € 28,95 (with 4Kodak AA bateries bundled).....the good old days!

AgX · May 2, 2019

I am puzzled, Ferrania Chrome 100 or Kodak Elitechrome 100 ??

Serious problem with 'Rollei' film - when RPX 25 is not?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency