The Taming of the Retro 80S

Old Willow

H
Old Willow

  • 0
  • 0
  • 10
SteelHead Falls

A
SteelHead Falls

  • 2
  • 0
  • 17
Navajo Nation

H
Navajo Nation

  • 1
  • 1
  • 18
Oranges

A
Oranges

  • 4
  • 0
  • 110
Charging Station

A
Charging Station

  • 0
  • 0
  • 99

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,120
Messages
2,769,932
Members
99,565
Latest member
DerKarsten
Recent bookmarks
1
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
23
Format
Medium Format
I'm desperatly trying to straighten the boldly s-shaped curve of the Retro 80s. So far i've tried Perceptol 1+3, Rodinal 1+50 an HC110 dil. H.

With e.g. HC110 for 10 min with 1 inversion each 60 sec i'm getting Zone II logD 0.03 , Zone V logD 0.48, Zone VIII logD 1.58 at EI 64. The results with the other developers are quite similar.

So why bother with this film? Because it would be a nearly grainless IR film with high resolution.

Has anybody found a developer that would provide a 'normal' (i. e. Zone II logD 0.25 Zone V logD 0.7 and Zone VIII logD 1.3) curve with suffucient film speed (EI 50 to 100)?.
 

ath

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
844
Location
Germany
Format
35mm
Welcome to the club.
Have you seen this post by piu: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

A49 is on my shopping list to be prepared for next spring...
 

Pixophrenic

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
368
Location
Canada
Format
Multi Format
This may look odd, as this thread died away a decade ago, but I do not want to start a new one with a similar title. Since the beginning of July 2017 I was doing my own "taming" of Rollei Retro 80S, that is, achieving something close to pictorial contrast negative. I'd like to share my observations that I think are new, so far just as a statement, and hear some feedback, and perhaps I would need more experiments just to answer the questions.
So, here goes. I think the most important observation is that this film is not a pictorial film at all, and should be firmly placed in the category of high contrast document films and for pictorial contrast should be developed in specialized ultra-soft working developers. There are, obviously, quite a few known solutions for the latter. It would be a grave mistake to send this film to a lab, or use any "normal" developer, unless you aim at getting a high contrast negative. The second most important observation is that this film's emulsion is extremely thin, and as such does not benefit at all from agitation during development, less initial 30 seconds. Agitation every 30 seconds during 15 min, and agitation once for 30 seconds for a subsequent 15-min stand development gives literally the same result. For the same reason, this film completely fixes itself in 2 minutes continuous agitation (fresh Ilford Rapid Fixer) and also dries flat very quickly, under 10-15 minutes, without any forced air flow. All this refers to 35 mm film, I have not tried 120 so far.

As one may expect and that indeed I observed, two bath developers wherein the first bath contains the developing agent and the second the alkali do not work well for this film due to too little solution absorbed in a thin layer and even though the reduced contrast can be observed, the effect is marginal. For example, two bath version of the Beutler formula works better than a single bath, but the resulting contrast is still too high. However, two bath developer of Jean Fage gives a very nice result at 7+6 minutes at 20 C. A couple of other developers that I tried, known to work well in stand development, such as Caffenol C-L and Paranol-S 1:100 (a clone of Rodinal) give visually very nice pictorial negatives at 30 min stand development at 20 degrees Celsius, awaiting curve calculations.

For even lower contrast, I have been experimenting with another developer, called H&W Control (http://jdelisle.net/develop.html), with a high concentration of phenidone and a very low concentration of hydroquinone. While the fresh developer is probably the best solution I found, I am trying to work out a modified version with a longer shelf life, and this project is unfinished. As a control experiment, H&W Control produces unacceptably low contrast with Kentmere 100 or Ilford FP4, while it is usable for Ilford Pan F. Contrast of this developer can be varied with amount of hydroquinone, which is always very small compared to typical PQ developers.

The other developer that showed initial promising results was #101 from the Jacobsons' book "Developing". It is based on an old patent and contains only CD-3, sulfite and carbonate. It can be modified into a 2-bath version with a usable shelf life, but again this is a work in progress.
For every film/developer combo tried I included two shots with transparent Stouffer wedge, but it may take a while to convert those to curves. I realized somewhat late in the project that this is a better way to do comparisons than shooting outdoor scenes of high contrast.
 

Svenedin

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
1,191
Location
Surrey, United Kingdom
Format
Med. Format RF
I haven’t used 80S much but I didn’t find the contrast particularly excessive. It certainly has a different look to FP4+ though. I developed it in a standard developer, Fotospeed FD10 (which I believe is similar to Ilfosol 3). I used standard agitation.

 

Svenedin

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
1,191
Location
Surrey, United Kingdom
Format
Med. Format RF
I don’t know why the attached picture has been duplicated. I posted from my iPhone and there is no “edit post” facility whilst on my phone.
 

Valerie

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 22, 2005
Messages
1,194
Location
Magnolia, Tx
Format
Multi Format
I love Retro 80s...drop-dead gorgeous when I get it right. Pcat-HD at 12-15 minutes with very very minimal agitation.
 

Pixophrenic

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
368
Location
Canada
Format
Multi Format
I love Retro 80s...drop-dead gorgeous when I get it right. Pcat-HD at 12-15 minutes with very very minimal agitation.
Well, this is in line with what I found that agitation is not necessary for this film.
 

Pixophrenic

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
368
Location
Canada
Format
Multi Format
I haven’t used 80S much but I didn’t find the contrast particularly excessive. It certainly has a different look to FP4+ though. I developed it in a standard developer, Fotospeed FD10 (which I believe is similar to Ilfosol 3). I used standard agitation.


Sounds interesting and the picture looks good. FD10 is a metol-hydroquinone-phenidone developer with carbonate/borate, apparently similar to bath B in Jean Fage's developer, with which I also get good results. Unfortunately, I do not know where to get FD10 here in Canada. Next time I am in the UK, it will be on my list.
 

Svenedin

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
1,191
Location
Surrey, United Kingdom
Format
Med. Format RF
Sounds interesting and the picture looks good. FD10 is a metol-hydroquinone-phenidone developer with carbonate/borate, apparently similar to bath B in Jean Fage's developer, with which I also get good results. Unfortunately, I do not know where to get FD10 here in Canada. Next time I am in the UK, it will be on my list.

It is worth trying. It worked for me but I don't think there is anything special about FD10 really. We used it in the photography club at school many years ago. It is cheap and bomb proof. The other things worth trying to tame contrast are adjustments to exposure and/or developing times.
 

Pixophrenic

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
368
Location
Canada
Format
Multi Format
It is worth trying. It worked for me but I don't think there is anything special about FD10 really. We used it in the photography club at school many years ago. It is cheap and bomb proof. The other things worth trying to tame contrast are adjustments to exposure and/or developing times.

I think you are talking about overexposing (or effectively rating the film lower) and/or underdeveloping to a lower contrast. In addition, with high contrast subjects I always have to bracket the exposure. But I am looking for a more radical solution, that is converting this film into a pictorial film by a special developer and then on top of that I have to play with the exposure. The film vendor (Maco) supplies a list of developers and suggestions of developing conditions, but what stroke me initially is that this list is just examples, but says nothing of the contrast. Curiously, in this list the film is mostly rated below box speed. This is the way I am definitely not going, because there are already excellent pictorial films like RPX25 or Pan F. Also, after some reading I think that with Retro 80S I can actually get above box speed and get pictorial contrast at the same time. BTW, in European instructions for developers there is a serious point of confusion in that there used to be a film called Rollei Retro 100, which is a totally different beast.
 

trendland

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
3,398
Format
Medium Format
I'm desperatly trying to straighten the boldly s-shaped curve of the Retro 80s. So far i've tried Perceptol 1+3, Rodinal 1+50 an HC110 dil. H.

With e.g. HC110 for 10 min with 1 inversion each 60 sec i'm getting Zone II logD 0.03 , Zone V logD 0.48, Zone VIII logD 1.58 at EI 64. The results with the other developers are quite similar.

So why bother with this film? Because it would be a nearly grainless IR film with high resolution.

Has anybody found a developer that would provide a 'normal' (i. e. Zone II logD 0.25 Zone V logD 0.7 and Zone VIII logD 1.3) curve with suffucient film speed (EI 50 to 100)?.

Look above - you just answer exactly that way to your own question - nothing else
is to be said in addition.
Well it is a nice cheap IR film.Look to princing of other IR films.
And it is with very smal grain with lower E I. for example ISO 40 - ISO 20.
The tonal range of other special emulsions you can't expect from my point of view.
But with lot of experience it is surlely
possible to top this characteristic a bit.
But notice sharpess with the use of rodinal will reduce the fine grain characteristic.More tonal range will normaly reduce resolution (I hope this is correct - it is logical - but I am not sure to 100%).
Everything is a compromiss between different parts of performance.
The compromiss of this emulsion is a bit
"compromissless":laugh:.....in concern if best
resolution is an actual need with aereal
photography.
And thats fine - so retro 80s is a remarkable high quality film.
Use fomapan 100 if you want a better tonal range - for example.

with regards
 

trendland

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
3,398
Format
Medium Format
I haven’t used 80S much but I didn’t find the contrast particularly excessive. It certainly has a different look to FP4+ though. I developed it in a standard developer, Fotospeed FD10 (which I believe is similar to Ilfosol 3). I used standard agitation.

Well - I would like to agree with, in exact this way.
Looking to this shoot (hope it is comparable with a real darkroom enlargement) but if it is exact in this way like this scan shows - we can see here :
It is a sharp clear sw shoot with normal contrast.
Everything you want from a sw film.
If it has an enormous tonal range we can't say with the help of scans.
If it has ultra high resolution we also can't say from a scan.
But this is we know.Bigger enlargements
as with PanF at same E.I.
More you can only expect from high priced special high resolution films with soecial developer.
The max is at about 700 - 900lp/mm at
1:1000 contrast.
A bit theoretical of cause ( I don't know a lens witch comes in the near of it ).

with regards
 

Svenedin

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
1,191
Location
Surrey, United Kingdom
Format
Med. Format RF
I think you are talking about overexposing (or effectively rating the film lower) and/or underdeveloping to a lower contrast. In addition, with high contrast subjects I always have to bracket the exposure. But I am looking for a more radical solution, that is converting this film into a pictorial film by a special developer and then on top of that I have to play with the exposure. The film vendor (Maco) supplies a list of developers and suggestions of developing conditions, but what stroke me initially is that this list is just examples, but says nothing of the contrast. Curiously, in this list the film is mostly rated below box speed. This is the way I am definitely not going, because there are already excellent pictorial films like RPX25 or Pan F. Also, after some reading I think that with Retro 80S I can actually get above box speed and get pictorial contrast at the same time. BTW, in European instructions for developers there is a serious point of confusion in that there used to be a film called Rollei Retro 100, which is a totally different beast.

My limited experience is that it DOES behave as a pictorial film and I would not compare it to some kind of document film. It does have a distinctive look and the grain is very small. I exposed it at box speed EI 80. I do have some more rolls of it to play with some time.
 

Murray Kelly

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2007
Messages
661
Location
Brisbane, Australia
Format
Sub 35mm
I was brave enough (silly?) to take it on holiday and decided to develop in a mix of 1ml HC-110 and 1ml Rodinal in 250ml water with minimal agitation after 1 minute min vigorous to start. I used box speed and the time in the tank was about 1 hr. The results pleased me. ISO I chose 80. used the Bessa R and Snapshot Scopar 25mm
Arches monpazier.jpg
 
Last edited:

Svenedin

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
1,191
Location
Surrey, United Kingdom
Format
Med. Format RF
I was brave enough (silly?) to take it on holiday and decided to develop in a mix of 1ml HC-110 and 1ml Rodinal in 250ml water with minimal agitation after 1 I used box speed and the time in the tank was min vigorous to start. The results pleased me. Time was about 1 hr ans ISO i chose 80. used the Bessa R and Snapshot Scopar 25mm View attachment 187753

Seems to have turned out very nicely!
 

Pixophrenic

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
368
Location
Canada
Format
Multi Format
I was brave enough (silly?) to take it on holiday and decided to develop in a mix of 1ml HC-110 and 1ml Rodinal in 250ml water with minimal agitation after 1 minute min vigorous to start. I used box speed and the time in the tank was about 1 hr. The results pleased me. ISO I chose 80. used the Bessa R and Snapshot Scopar 25mm View attachment 187753

This is interesting, A very nice picture. Second, not at all clear how you arrived at a mixture of HC-110 1:250 and Rodinal 1:250. HC-110 contains hydroquinone and pyrocatechin, and Rodinal p-aminophenol. Very original. A common denominator seems to be little or no agitation, as in my case.
 

Pixophrenic

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
368
Location
Canada
Format
Multi Format
Welcome to the club.
Have you seen this post by piu: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

A49 is on my shopping list to be prepared for next spring...

this link no longer works ;-(
 

Murray Kelly

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2007
Messages
661
Location
Brisbane, Australia
Format
Sub 35mm
Sorry about the delay but the rural gite in France has very poor i-net access.. The mix was prompted by curiosity and a guess. The HC-110 is very buffered and the mix had the pH of HC-110 (8.8). The buffering is like Rodinal with added borax/boric acid buffered pair and that has a reasonable following. I chose to let it semi-stand 'cos that is what I am used to.
That's it really.
Thanks for the comments.
 

Pixophrenic

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
368
Location
Canada
Format
Multi Format
Sorry about the delay but the rural gite in France has very poor i-net access.. The mix was prompted by curiosity and a guess. The HC-110 is very buffered and the mix had the pH of HC-110 (8.8). The buffering is like Rodinal with added borax/boric acid buffered pair and that has a reasonable following. I chose to let it semi-stand 'cos that is what I am used to.
That's it really.
Thanks for the comments.

On a second thought, this combination makes sense. Was it inspired by the now extinct developing agent meritol? Also, next time you do it, could you also measure the pH of the developer after it was used? Second, while you are in France, I would like to ask you a question related to Jean Fage's developer, and I'd rather do it directly.
 

Pixophrenic

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
368
Location
Canada
Format
Multi Format
Look above - you just answer exactly that way to your own question - nothing else
is to be said in addition.
Well it is a nice cheap IR film.Look to princing of other IR films.
And it is with very smal grain with lower E I. for example ISO 40 - ISO 20.
The tonal range of other special emulsions you can't expect from my point of view.
But with lot of experience it is surlely
possible to top this characteristic a bit.
But notice sharpess with the use of rodinal will reduce the fine grain characteristic.More tonal range will normaly reduce resolution (I hope this is correct - it is logical - but I am not sure to 100%).
Everything is a compromiss between different parts of performance.
The compromiss of this emulsion is a bit
"compromissless":laugh:.....in concern if best
resolution is an actual need with aereal
photography.
And thats fine - so retro 80s is a remarkable high quality film.
Use fomapan 100 if you want a better tonal range - for example.

with regards

The price of Retro 80S was not the leading factor in its selection for me, since where I live every film costs ten bucks or more, and I know from my travels that today in the film market you do not necessarily get what you pay for, but you need to familiarize yourself with different films in the 25-100 ISO category. So, If you hint that I am after a cheap IR film or a cheap film in general, I am not. The initial motivation was to put current films into categories of how they survive development in a lab, which typically uses either D-76 or T-Max developers. Then I sorta got carried away with the process.
 

destroya

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
1,201
Location
Willamette Valley, OR
Format
Multi Format
I use RR80s and 400s/superpan as my main 35mm films and while they may have more contrast than most films, it is very much an everyday pictorial film in my mind.

for the 80s I use 3 developers depending oon the scene shot. for a normal well balanced light scene I use pyro-mc which keeps my highlights in check nicely. I shoot the film at 50 when I use pyro-mc

if there is a little more contrast in the scene than I like, or Im looking for a little compensation I use beutler. the nice thing is it gives me a true 80 speed on the film. wheat i see in this developer is it really reduces the contrast fotr the film and a flat light scene can look very flat if I use this developer. But man does it give real sharp crisp negs.
Very seldom used, but handy if i have a roll with many different shots in different lighting conditions, I will use a stand 1+200 in rodinal for a hour, with agitation at 30 min. I hate stand development, but for some reason, for me, the only film that has ever worked that way was rr80s. for me i use this maybe for 5 rolls a year, so its really only an emergency issue.

when dialed in this film gives fabulous results. I have many 11x14 inch prints from 35mm negs that look like they came from a 645 neg. sharp, great tonality, grain that is hardly noticable and when it is adds to the imgage, does not detract from it. It just took me a few months to get a handle on this film. just keep at it.

oh, I find that for the 400s/superpan XTOL replenished works real well with that film
 

trendland

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
3,398
Format
Medium Format
The price of Retro 80S was not the leading factor in its selection for me, since where I live every film costs ten bucks or more, and I know from my travels that today in the film market you do not necessarily get what you pay for, but you need to familiarize yourself with different films in the 25-100 ISO category. So, If you hint that I am after a cheap IR film or a cheap film in general, I am not. The initial motivation was to put current films into categories of how they survive development in a lab, which typically uses either D-76 or T-Max developers. Then I sorta got carried away with the process.

Yes - nice thoughts, indeed. But notice
Rollei Retro 80S is a real good offer with
122ft rolls.
To me the price with films is a special think.All the years in the past I bought films the same way.Some films I stored at home (2 - 3 films) and when I decided to shoot I first have a look to films : "Have I to buy films for tomorrows shooting or not?"
And often I decided to buy 2 films in addition.While having cheap offers I perhaps bought 1 or 2 films more.
This costs the poorest photographer can afford. Even if you have higher pricing every few month.
It is no problem to spent a few bugs.
Also if it is $10,- , $ 27,- a.s.o.
I also heard of people who are absolutely
in a position to spent $ 89,- to buy films at one time :laugh:.... coming back soon.

With regards

PS : There have eben a remarkable change with digital.
 

trendland

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
3,398
Format
Medium Format
The price of Retro 80S was not the leading factor in its selection for me, since where I live every film costs ten bucks or more, and I know from my travels that today in the film market you do not necessarily get what you pay for, but you need to familiarize yourself with different films in the 25-100 ISO category. So, If you hint that I am after a cheap IR film or a cheap film in general, I am not. The initial motivation was to put current films into categories of how they survive development in a lab, which typically uses either D-76 or T-Max developers. Then I sorta got carried away with the process.



Part II " The Chance "

......more than a decade ago some people
has to realize : The good old times came to an end.
One can not say if your favourite film is also avaible in 1 year, if it is - one can not say to what price it is avaible.
But what one can say for sure : Many films you normaly get everywhere you can buy nowere in the next future.
And films you can buy could have every price you can not imagine at this time.
I decided this in the beginng of digital
and so it happened.
This is in regard of everything you don't need also with digital equipment.
What is to do ? My decition (years ago)
If I don't like digital and I want to shoot I have to buy everything I will need in the
next ...... whow how long ?????
Consequentely in the next 15 years ?
No of cause in the next 15 - 20, may be 25 years!!!
And it is smart to buy some stuff in little
bigger amounts to avoid the day when you realize to buy it in addition years later to 2x , 3x, 5x higher pricing.
If I like a film today (wich is still not on my list) I will definitifly know what is about this emulsion.
Because I decide to buy min. 50 - 100 films.Also in 100 ? If I decide so - I have to double it (min. 100 films max. 200 films)
AND THEN THE PRICE IS FROM ABSOLUT INTERESST.

with regard

PS : Retro 80S is definitifly on my list.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom