Test of Rollei Retro 100 Tonal against AGFA APX100

[kompressor]

Furter testing of Rollei Retro 100 Tonal
Today i have done some more testing of films. And i have also made all the testresults in one image per URL.
The film i have tested is Rollei Retro 100 Tonal, Kodak Plus-X125, Kodak Tri-x Professional and AGFA APX400

All films are developed at 20 degree celsius for contrast Beta 0,55 all exposures are done by greycard. The greycard is in the first scene.

The developer are as follow:

Rollei Retro 100 Tonal @50 iso in Tetnal Neofin Bleu 6 minutes.
Rollei Retro 100 Tonal @100 iso in Tetenal Neofin Bleu 10 minutes
Kodak PX125 @64 iso XTOL 1:1 in 8,5 minutes
Kodak Tri-x @200 iso HC110 Dilution G 18 minutes
AGFA APX400 @200 Iso Rodinal 1+100 15 minutes

Equipment: Hasselblad 500C Carl Zeiss 80/2,8 *T Distance from optics to greycard 2,5 meters

Sunny and contrasty weather.

The first link is to a view of the scene with the greycard. This image is resized for viewing purpose:
http://tmax100.com/photo/the5filmtest/a.jpg


Next is 100% crop of the greycard and flowers:
http://tmax100.com/photo/the5filmtest/b.jpg

Next is a 100% crop from the shadow side of a park bench. Distance from optics is 8 meters:
http://tmax100.com/photo/the5filmtest/c.jpg

And final is in the out of focus area in the branches across the river, distance 40 meter:
http://tmax100.com/photo/the5filmtest/d.jpg


Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/Hattipop

 

[clayne]

This is good testing - but we really need APX 100 in this lineup. 400 isn't the same emulsion.

 

[kompressor]

100 was in the past lineup from yesterday

 

[nworth]

Tonal looks quite good in these comparison shots, although the photos are not identical in lighting and framing. The Plus-X looks overexposed and might have been better rated at 80 or 100. (Plus-X isn't as tolerant as some films.) In the overall scenes, the APX400 looks slightly better for my tastes, and the Tri-X looks comparable to maybe a bit better, but these are 400 speed films compared to a 100 speed film.

 

[Changeling1]

Oh yes he would!

Well, then you download the images and set the side by side in picture viewer program

Fred Picker would have just sent you a set of developed negatives.

 

[skahde]

Being an author myself, I hope Harthmuth got Thomas' permission to modify his copyrighted article from the Phototec-Website and use it in his marketing-campaign.

As of today, the copied and modified section from Thomas' article was deleted and the link now leads to Maco's own publication about PO100c. Good move, if you ask me.

Though, I still dont't buy the statement about 250% higher resolution than comparable panchromatic films but that is a minor point...

 

[RobertV]

Some facts

Some clear explanation about Maco and this new Rollei Retro 100 Tonal film, verified by facts which are valid in the actual film business.

As we all know Maco is not a film manufacturer but a marketing company that relabels mainly Agfa films.

If you say that Maco is only a marketing company, then you have to be consequent and must say that all photo companies which are ordering custom coatings and have established their own brand names are only marketing companies.
Freestyle, Tetenal, Fotospeed, Adox, Bergger and many other firms have all established their own brand name (and they are responsible for the product quality of these own brands) and are distributing products under these brands, which are produced by other specialised companies.
Developing your own brand and worldwide distribution needs much more than only marketing capabilities. You have to be a competent and reliable partner for the manufacturer. You must have a strong financial power. You must have a good (World wide or at least Europe wide) distribution system. It is very hard work to build all this up.
Photographers, who know a little bit about the market, would never say that companies like Freestyle, Adox or Maco are only marketing companies.

If you think it is all about marketing and advertising, then try to order some film or paper from Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, InovisCoat, Foma or Efke and establish your own film brand. If you prefer Kodak film? Then ask Kodak and order some masterrolls, create a brand name and start a business which will make all the things so much better compared to the companies you have criticised. Good luck.

It will be interesting to find out what is really inside the film cartridge. So, what orthochromatic or similar films on a polyester base around ISO 100 are currently offered by Agfa, probably industrial or surveillance film? I bet it will be one of those.

You are wrong. This film is a unique product, based on a Maco owned recipe, designed and produced by a cooperation of different manufacturers. And available on the market exclusively as Rollei Retro 100 Tonal.
A lot of new Research & Development was necessary, because some former raw materials are not available anymore, and intensive research had to be done for suitable replacements. The emulsion was also optimised for modern coating machines. And a lot of money had to be invested. Film R&D is not cheap at all.

It's quite funny that once again someone tries to warp reality in a way to sell a "legitimate successor" of a totally different product.

That is also wrong. Maco has made a very clear and precise official statement, that Rollei Retro 100 Tonal is not intended to be a successor for the APX 100 / Rollei Retro 100 film.
It was clearly said that Rollei Retro 100 Tonal is meant to be in the tradition of the former Maco PO 100C film.
Here is the official statement: http://www.aphog.de/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=13819.
Rollei Retro 100 Tonal is designed to have nearly the same characteristics like former Maco PO 100C.

Concerning the name: The main film line of Rollei-Film’s programme are films with classic cubic crystals: Retro 80S, Retro 100, Retro 400 (meanwhile sold out), Retro 400S. The name “Retro” represents a film type with classic cubic crystals (similar to Kodak or Ilford with their T-Max and Delta lines for T-grain films, the film line shares the same basic name).
Retro 100 Tonal has a classic cubic crystal emulsion, therefore the name “Retro”. 100, of course, is the film speed. “Tonal” stands for the different tonality of this film compared to the majority of films on the market, which have a standard panchromatic or superpanchromatic sentization. Whereas this film has an orthopanchromatic characteristic.

It is clearly visible by name that ”Retro 100 Tonal” is different to “Retro 100”.
You have mentioned the new T-Max 400 film. A nice film, quite different from the first version. You have to do new tests with developers and times to get the best with the new emulsion. Different film, but same name. Was Kodak fooling the customers? I don’t think so. Keeping established names for product lines is quite common in this industry. Look at Ilford: The Delta 400 emulsion was modified two times (1994 and 2000), name Delta 400 stayed, FP4 and HP5 were replaced by FP4+ and HP5+, XP2 by XP2 super.

But in the end, my personal experiences with my own (Dutch) customers is that photographers are not interested in names of films, but only in quality and price. If they like the film, it doesn’t matter at all whether Kodak, Freestyle, Adox, Ilford, Bergger or Rollei-Film is printed on the box. The pictures counts, not names.

There will be plenty of discussions this year about original APX vs. Maco's relabeled Agfa films vs. Adox' films made on the used Agfa machines vs. all other films around 100 ASA.

We have already seen the reactions of the market and some companies long ago: With closing of the AgfaPhoto Leverkusen plant, and the following strong price decrease of the remaining AgfaPhoto film stock (sold as AgfaPhoto APX and Rollei Retro films) a market for very cheap high quality film with classic cubic crystal emulsions was established.
This now quite cheap old AgfaPhoto film stock attracted lots of users, especially beginners, students and photographers with low budgets, and was very successful on the market.

Freestyle reacted first and entered the competition in this (new) low price market with his Arista Premium and Legacy Pro films.
Then Ilford answered with its Kentmere films. All low price, high quality products aiming at photographers who are or have to be price sensitive.
And now InovisCoat is working on their new APX based emulsions for this market. Main part of the planned production will be sold again as AgfaPhoto APX, the brand name used by Lupus Imaging. They will do worldwide distribution. And later the films should be available as Adox, too.
We have a free market, everyone has the right to offer products, and several companies are already offering products in this market segment.
But, Rollei Retro 100 Tonal is not intended for this market segment.

In the end photographers will make their choice, and manufactureres and distributers will have to accept that.

But for sure I hope the film will find it's way via the regular sales channels.

best regards,

Robert

(Dutch Rollei-Maco distributor)

 

[cmo]

If you say that Maco is only a marketing company, then you have to be consequent and must say that all photo companies which are ordering custom coatings and have established their own brand names are only marketing companies.
Freestyle, Tetenal, Fotospeed, Adox, Bergger and many other firms have all established their own brand name (and they are responsible for the product quality of these own brands) and are distributing products under these brands, which are produced by other specialised companies.

Nobody ever doubted that. The only reason why people say that there is a difference between a manufacturer and a marketing company is that sometimes marketing companies are not really clear about the content of the boxes. Freestyle sells rebranded Acros, for example, but they make no secret out of it, and there are other examples. Most companies do not make a secret out of it because it helps to sell. Only very few companies - only one comes to my mind - promise so much greatness in such a high dosis in so many posts in so many forums by so many users that it's quite obvious for everyone that the marketing aspect of their activity is a little too emphasized for many people. A little less would be more. I cannot remember that Freestyle, Tetenal, Fotospeed, Adox, Bergger ever promised the world nor did they praise themselves in such a ridiculous way.

Photographers, who know a little bit about the market, would never say that companies like Freestyle, Adox or Maco are only marketing companies.

I am a photographer and know a little bit about the market, and I know many others, and most of them would say they are suppliers, but not manufacturers.

If you think it is all about marketing and advertising, then try to order some film or paper from Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, InovisCoat, Foma or Efke and establish your own film brand. If you prefer Kodak film? Then ask Kodak and order some masterrolls, create a brand name and start a business which will make all the things so much better compared to the companies you have criticised. Good luck.

In fact, if I would do what you recommend the first thing I would do is send a legal notice to a certain competitor telling him to stop unfair competition. According to the laws here in Germany I would be able to send a certain competitor a decision given in summary proceedings the next day. So, it's much better for some people if I never offer one single film to one single customer, don't you think?

You are wrong. This film is a unique product, based on a Maco owned recipe, designed and produced by a cooperation of different manufacturers. And available on the market exclusively as Rollei Retro 100 Tonal.
A lot of new Research & Development was necessary, because some former raw materials are not available anymore, and intensive research had to be done for suitable replacements. The emulsion was also optimised for modern coating machines. And a lot of money had to be invested. Film R&D is not cheap at all.

As a consumer I have all the freedom I like and can tell you that the results I saw so far do not impress me at all. If some people invested a lot of money to create this new version of an old film with a lot of research I can just say it will be difficult to achieve a return on investment. Sorry about that, but there are so many good films on the market at competitive prices with much finder grain at higher ISO I really wonder who will buy a film like that. I wouldn't, not even if it were made by a manufacturer that I really trust.

That is also wrong. Maco has made a very clear and precise official statement, that Rollei Retro 100 Tonal is not intended to be a successor for the APX 100 / Rollei Retro 100 film.

It just comes to my mind that the title of this thread is "Test of Rollei Retro 100 Tonal against AGFA APX100". Of course, it was not Maco who made this thread nor an official dealer. But it still confuses people, you know?

You have mentioned the new T-Max 400 film. A nice film, quite different from the first version. You have to do new tests with developers and times to get the best with the new emulsion. Different film, but same name. Was Kodak fooling the customers? I don’t think so.

That's why they call it "Tmax 400 New". And even Tri-X was changed over the years, sure. Nobody ever said that this is wrong.

We have a free market, everyone has the right to offer products, and several companies are already offering products in this market segment.
But, Rollei Retro 100 Tonal is not intended for this market segment.

Now we're talking. What market segment does it target? I have no idea.

In the end photographers will make their choice, and manufactureres and distributers will have to accept that.

I'm pretty sure that well-informed customers will be able to make their choices.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Thanks for posting the new tests, kompressor, and confirming my preference for Tri-X.

 

[kompressor]

Thanks for posting the new tests, kompressor, and confirming my preference for Tri-X.

More tests to come. I will test this film to the bone

 

[JPD]

I like orthopanchromatic films like Efke, but stopped using them becuase of the irritating curl. Does the "Retro 100 Tonal" in 120 curl up as a tube as well?

I don't like the name "Retro". It sounds like the films are meant as nostalgia and not as serious "here-and-now" products.

 

[cmo]

Thanks for posting the new tests, kompressor, and confirming my preference for Tri-X.

To be fair, I think this test was not very "comparable" - if you test 4 films in 4 different developers and not at "box speed" it is really hard to compare the results.

In this case we had:

- "Tonal" in Neofin Blue, which was made for definition and sharpness, a relatively old developer which was really good with old-fashioned 'thick' films and does not create significantly more or less grain than a film has. It is not recommended for high-speed films, just like Rodinal it's not the first choice for films beyond 100 ASA.

- Plus-X, a good traditional film; it was exposed at 64 ISO, e.g. 1 stop more than box speed. XTOL is a very good choice for this film, but diluted at 1:1 and developed for 8.5 minutes Kodak says it has 125-250 ASA, so your result is overexposed by 1-2 stops which makes it difficult to compare results.

- Kodak Tri-x in HC110 in Dilution G for 18 minutes, that is something very special - HC-110 1:119. A few people used this dilution with Tri-X Professional (the 320 version) for sheet film to achieve a compensating effect, it's a method you don't hear about that often. Obviously your ISO 200 setting is not box speed, and the massive dev chart has contradictory information about this, including an entry which would suggest that you reach something like ISO 1600 to 3200 with 18 minutes development. And HC-110 is a very active, very fast developer and not known as the world's finest grain developer.

- AGFA APX400, one of the grainiest ISO 400 films, not at box speed but overexposed by one f-stop at ISO 200. Development in Rodinal does not make this film a fine-grain film either, not at all.

May I suggest for your next test that you expose each film at box speed and develop in good old D76 using the time provided by the film manufacturers? D76 is still the reference. Or you might choose some Microdol/Perceptol style developer for all films.

That will create comparable results that say something about the properties of all films. And for most photographers here it will be interesting to see what you achieve with 35mm or 120 roll film because only a very limited number of people uses only large format.

Another matter is the choice of films that you compare.

If you want to make a statement about a film and compare it with others you might try to compare only 50-100 ISO films because this is what people would like to know: how is that film compared to a film with a similar speed or other similarities? Acros 100 would even be similar when it comes to sensitization, I think it is the only popular orthopanchromatic film today and "tonality" will be almost identical. Telling Acros users that there is a similar film is difficult, just to mention that because Acros was a milestone in film production, it is well-known for extremely fine grain, very high sharpness, an unimpeachable quality standard and robustness. As all other films are not orthopanchromatic you could simply put a blue or green filter on the lens for a kind of "orthopanchromatic look", then we could really see comparable results.

 

[clayne]

Very well said cmo - and I couldn't agree more. The past testing has *too many variables*.

 

[RobertV]

Does the "Retro 100 Tonal" in 120 curl up as a tube as well?

I don't like the name "Retro".

Rollei Retro 100 Tonal (in 120 ) will not curl like Efke. It has been made on 100 micron Polyester with an effective non-curling layer. My first (120) negatives are in their sleeves now and they are flat. They were dryed at room temperature in a regular 60% humidity.

The explanation of the name:

Retro 100 Tonal has a classic cubic crystal emulsion, therefore the name “Retro”. 100, of course, is the film speed. “Tonal” stands for the different tonality of this film compared to the majority of films on the market, which have a standard panchromatic or superpanchromatic sentization.

 

[kompressor]

If you want to make a statement about a film and compare it with others you might try to compare only 50-100 ISO films because this is what people would like to know: how is that film compared to a film with a similar speed or other similarities? Acros 100 would even be similar when it comes to sensitization, I think it is the only popular orthopanchromatic film today and "tonality" will be almost identical. Telling Acros users that there is a similar film is difficult, just to mention that because Acros was a milestone in film production, it is well-known for extremely fine grain, very high sharpness, an unimpeachable quality standard and robustness. As all other films are not orthopanchromatic you could simply put a blue or green filter on the lens for a kind of "orthopanchromatic look", then we could really see comparable results.

WTF
I dont to scientific testing here. And this post in all ways learned me one thing; dont use the word "test" anymore. Not before i use D76 and box speed.

My point is to show a new fil in use up against other films in the way i use film and developer combos. Nothing else. Period.

 

[JPD]

Rollei Retro 100 Tonal (in 120 ) will not curl like Efke. It has been made on 100 micron Polyester with an effective non-curling layer. My first (120) negatives are in their sleeves now and they are flat. They were dryed at room temperature in a regular 60% humidity.

Orthopanchromatic emulsion, flat negs and polyester sounds great in my ears. I will definitely try this film.

The explanation of the name:

Yes, I read that, but I still don't like the "Retro" part. But I don't like the word "Classic" in product names either. I guess I'm just oversensitive. All the cameras for film I use are very old, but I refuse to see them as "things of the past". My "newest" camera is a Rolleiflex 3,5F from the 60's.

 

[cmo]

WTF
I dont to scientific testing here. And this post in all ways learned me one thing; dont use the word "test" anymore. Not before i use D76 and box speed.

My point is to show a new fil in use up against other films in the way i use film and developer combos. Nothing else. Period.

No. But your comparison (it's not a test, of course) looks like this, sorry for the pun:

- 1 new car that you want to present
- 1 formula 1 racing car, but with a VW Beetle engine
- 1 BMW M3 series, driving in reverse
- 1 Space Shuttle, dragged by a tractor

And now the results are... what are they? Meaningful?

If you don't want to make a comparison, the title "Test of Rollei Retro 100 Tonal against AGFA APX100"? probably raised false expectations.

I am sorry if you get the impression that I am making fun of you. I don't, but I always exaggerate to make things clear.

One final note: if you use Plus-X, Tri-X and APX 400 in a way the manufacturers recommend it you will get much better results. It's a very simple recommendation, but it helped generations of photographers to achieve good results without too much testing.

 

[kompressor]

One final note: if you use Plus-X, Tri-X and APX 400 in a way the manufacturers recommend it you will get much better results. It's a very simple recommendation, but it helped generations of photographers to achieve good results without too much testing.

I really shouldnt care. But for newcomers in this way of working, i respond. With your way of thinking, the world would be a very bored place for me. If Andy Warhol used photography products as manufacturers recommended, we wouldnt have the soupboxes, Monroe and the Polaroid series. Ansel Adams wouldnt make up the zone system and experiment at all. Your way of "teaching" photography is in my thinking stupid and stone age. I like to check out what photographic materials can do for me under different circumstanses and chemicals. And if you say that my style of photography isnt good enough results, that my photos would be better if i shoot box speed and use plain D76, im fine with that. But i dont agree.

Mabe this will provoke you: Dead Link Removed Bruce Barnbaum on half of box speed and developer dillutions that you describe as "wrong and strange"

So my message to the community people who wants to test/check/try/experiment/walk down new and un-known paths: Do it, try it, test it. Se how your photomaterials reacts on your methods. Dont listen to they who try to tell you there is correct way or a wrong way.

My initial "test" was to run the new Rollei film like it was an APX100 to see how it ended up. I developed it like i develop APX100 in 85% of the times i use APX100.

 

[cmo]

When I wrote my reply I was afraid you would get me wrong. In the end, you did.

 

[Aurelien]

MOre than speaking I prefer to work and to test.
These are two samples of retro 100 TONAL exposed @ 50 ISO and developed in PMK.
Grain is discret.

 

[clayne]

That's more like it. While I won't say it is the same as APX100, the shot by Aurelien has a similar subjective "feel" between the two films. Alternatively the scene and subject matter go very well with both films.

 

[Aurelien]

Another high res scan with a crop to see the grain

 

[Aurelien]

I have to add that the use of PMK is very adapted: negatives stains very well, look:

 

[cmo]

Grain is discret.

What film format was that?

 

[Aurelien]

That was 6*7.