Thickness of Rollei 4x5'' film sheets.

[Marco Gilardetti]

I am pondering to purchase a pack of Rollei 25 ASA 4x5'' sheet film, which became fairly easily available here, lately. However, I have pretty much disliked films like Foma or Efke which are coated on a very thin plastic film. It is tolerable with 120 rollfilms, but gives me too many problems on 4x5''.

How does the film thickness of Rollei 4x5'' sheets compare to that of other great classics, like Ilford FP4 which has a thick and stable film support?

 

[John Salim]

Just google it .....
http://www.maco-photo.de/files/images/Datasheet_Rollei_Tonal_gb.pdf

Probably the same 175m micon base as the rest of Rollei's sheet films ( FP4 is on 180 micron base ).

John S

 

[JensH]

Hi,

well, it depends...
Normal thickness ca. 175 μm with Rollei Ortho 25 4x5" but only 100 μm with Rollei RPX 25 4x5".

Best
Jens

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

Thank you very much Jens! Enough for me to rule out RPX 25, unfortunately...

 

[JensH]

Thank you very much Jens! Enough for me to rule out RPX 25, unfortunately...

... and the Adox CMS 20 II 4x5" is 130 μm, but needs a special developer.
Haven't used it, maybe that is thick enorgh.

Yours
Jens

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

Thank you Jens, I appreciate the data you provided. But I might give a try to Rollei Ortho 25 instead. I believe it also needs a special developer, but at least it's coated on a thick film.

The truth is that since Kodak Techincal Pan was discontinued, I haven't find another reference film on the "slow side".

 

[locutus]

Not want to flame or second guess you, i've never used those films but i'm curious to try them myself.

But whats the reason to dismiss sheet films on thinner base? Do they sag easier in the film holder or during development (say in a mod54) ?

I guess for focal plane position a difference of 80 micrometer doesn't sound matter given the tolerances of 5x4", i'd imagine the position of the film septum in my various holders might differ more then that.

 

[JensH]

Thank you Jens, I appreciate the data you provided. But I might give a try to Rollei Ortho 25 instead. I believe it also needs a special developer, but at least it's coated on a thick film.

The truth is that since Kodak Techincal Pan was discontinued, I haven't find another reference film on the "slow side".

Hi Marco,

the Rollei Ortho 25 (now called Ortho 25 Plus btw) is a great film, works very good with the RLS developer, I've newer had problems with it - if ortho is fine for you, get it.

The Adox CMS 20 is said to be even finer grained and offers higher resolution, but I haven't used it yet.

Best
Jens

 

[AgX]

There also is the alternative to stick instead the sheet film to a modified holder. Sinar even once had such holder on offer.

 

[Ian Grant]

Marco, I've used EFKE sheet film for many years (about 30) in 5x4 and 10x8 and Foma for about a decade, in that time I've never had any issues.

Ian

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

Do they sag easier in the film holder or during development (say in a mod54) ?

Both. I use a Combi-Plan tank and they tend to bend and touch each other, of course causing uneven development when this happens.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I have been using Rollei IR 4x5 for about 10 years. When I first started using it, I accidently loaded some holders with the backing paper on top of the film, and a couple holders with two sheets stuck together... all down to never ever using a film that is coated on thin base. I was pissed, to say the least. As I progressed through the box, I noticed that the notch codes gradually disappeared, until completely gone! I vowed never to use this film again... Well, I'm still using it. The only issue I have with it now is pulling the developed film out of the BTZS tube or when I go to scan it. I can't use the holder for it. The film is so thin when you snap shut the cover on the film, it crimps and distorts it. So it's wet mounting or laying directly on the scanning glass, with A/N glass on top. Image-wise, quite lovely.

 

[locutus]

Just one more question and i hope i dont stray too far OT.

Rollei IR seems to be on a transparent base instead of having a purple mask like most other B&W films, does this affect printing?

I dont intend to scan the negatives but to print in the darkroom, is a higher grade contrast filter enough to offset this?

 

[AgX]

Typically the base of consumer films is dyed to avoid light piping. Also it can be a anti-halo means.
However where there are other, better anti-halo means employed and when the film is loaded in the dark, as with aerial film there is no need to use a dyed base.

 

[jim10219]

Just one more question and i hope i dont stray too far OT.

Rollei IR seems to be on a transparent base instead of having a purple mask like most other B&W films, does this affect printing?

I dont intend to scan the negatives but to print in the darkroom, is a higher grade contrast filter enough to offset this?

Rollei IR prints just like normal B&W film. At least it does for me. Even scans the same. The only difference for me beyond the extended sensitivity range and additional prewash step in development, is the thinner film base.

Just out of curiosity, which films have a purple mask to them? Most of the ones I use do prior to development, but you're supposed to wash that out until they are clear before you print, scan, or store the negatives. So they pretty much look identical to Rollei IR when they go in the enlarger.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Not for Ilford sheet films that I use. Prewashing is not recommended. But... I have heard from some people if you let it soak in the prewash for an extended period of time, all will be well. I've never seen the need.