Uh oh!!! another 120 film with possible backing paper issues and its not kodak

[Klaus_H]

Nothing changed in the last two years.
R80S, SP200, R400S in the 120 format are converted / confectioned by FOMA. Please check the punched hole in the backing paper where the film begins (not the end fixed by tape). This hole is unique to FOMA. My actual test of these materials (fresh from the source) had the same results like in the past: micro scratches and dots.
I have no issues with IR400S and RPX25. Both films are converted / confectioned by HARMAN. These guys produce quality.

 

[Agulliver]

I've shot lots of Fomapan 120 and never had any issues. I've thus far shot 6 rolls of Rollei Retro 400S and while I like it very much, one roll had a frame where there appeared to be pin prick holes in the emulsion. I was able to use Photoshop to mask these but it was strange. I'd agree both are converted/finished/confectioned by Foma as the hole in the end of the film which does seem unique to them.....but I'm not going to be quick to blame Foma as their in-house product seems great.

 

[R.Gould]

I agree with Aguliver, I shoot Foma film's 200 and 400, in both 35mm and 120 exclusivly, and have done so for 15 or more years and never had any issues with the film, I would not be to quick to blame them, The only time I tried 400s I had problems with pin holes in the emulsion, surely if the Foma film is trouble free then the Maco film problems must come from somewhere else

 

[kingbuzzie]

So is superpan just sh*t now? I had my last batch that had spots on it graciously replaced, but one of the replaced rolls I took with me on vacation has spots on it again (same spots as post #38 but not as severe). This film was developed at the same time the same way as other brands of b&w 120 (stand development in rodinal with a good knock on the sink to prevent bubbles). I used to love superpan 200, but I don't know what I am doing wrong or if I'm doing anything wrong.

 

[pentaxuser]

Destroya, what was your eventual conclusions on your issue. Did it go away in the sense that the next and or subsequent batches of the same film were fine or go away because since the problem you have abandoned that film?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[destroya]

Destroya, what was your eventual conclusions on your issue. Did it go away in the sense that the next and or subsequent batches of the same film were fine or go away because since the problem you have abandoned that film?

Thanks

pentaxuser

i never ever got a reply from Maco other than my first request. every roll of film from that batch, all 20, had the same issue no matter how, when or whatever other variable I tried. because of this i have decided not to support their product anymore. if they are unable to reply to a simple request, than to me, they must have known of the issue and decided to do the wrong thing. hopefully it was a one time issue and was fixed. But there are to many replacements for me to use from companies that stand by their products. seems like there are still issues with their 120 films. i still use my older 35mm bulk rolls along with the older 120 rolls and have had no issues, just the new rolls, when they switched from the plastic cigar style roll holders to the box finishing.

john

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks, John. I note that Klaus H reported that as of Jun 2018 nothing had changed and only the IR400S and RPX25 confectioned by Harman was OK The R80S , SP200 and R400S confectioned, he alleges by FOMA , still had the same issues

So has anyone else who has bought R80S, SP200 and R400S since June 2018 has problems with the 120 rolls?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[mshchem]

i never ever got a reply from Maco other than my first request. every roll of film from that batch, all 20, had the same issue no matter how, when or whatever other variable I tried. because of this i have decided not to support their product anymore. if they are unable to reply to a simple request, than to me, they must have known of the issue and decided to do the wrong thing. hopefully it was a one time issue and was fixed. But there are to many replacements for me to use from companies that stand by their products. seems like there are still issues with their 120 films. i still use my older 35mm bulk rolls along with the older 120 rolls and have had no issues, just the new rolls, when they switched from the plastic cigar style roll holders to the box finishing.

john

Yeah, this isn't you. The original Acros and Tmax prove that to me. Something is going on. Kodak, Ilford, Foma and Fuji. That's my plan. With Kodak they figured out the problem, fixed it and replaced film. Maybe Lomo can sell as "Black Rain" to go along with "Earl Grey"

 

[Tumbles]

I've had some of these marks appear with Rollei IR400 and 80S. I posted about the IR400 problems a while back. At the time I had no idea that people had such strong feelings about rodinal stand processing:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/strange-marks-with-rodinal-stand-processing.153720/

With the 80S I had a few of these marks on a single frame with some backing numbers. My film scanner is currently broken, so I don't really have a good way to show it. The IR400 was shot and processed soon after I bought it, so I don't think it could of been exposed to much moisture. I was using the 80S when it was raining a lot, so it may have gotten some moisture.

 

[kingbuzzie]

I've had some of these marks appear with Rollei IR400 and 80S. I posted about the IR400 problems a while back. At the time I had no idea that people had such strong feelings about rodinal stand processing:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/strange-marks-with-rodinal-stand-processing.153720/

With the 80S I had a few of these marks on a single frame with some backing numbers. My film scanner is currently broken, so I don't really have a good way to show it. The IR400 was shot and processed soon after I bought it, so I don't think it could of been exposed to much moisture. I was using the 80S when it was raining a lot, so it may have gotten some moisture.

I developed the superpan a couple of different ways the first time I had the issue. I need to test a camera, so I'm going to run another roll of superpan through and develop with hc-110 or something...

 

[Agulliver]

All the 120 rolls of Rollei Retro 400S that I used 2018-2019 were the "new" version in the cardboard boxes and not the "cigar" tubes. I had 10, and 9 were perfect. One had a few holes in the emulsion of the first frame.

I haven't shot any 80S or IR....I wonder if there's a difference and the emulsion of 400S just doesn't react with the backing paper? Or me living in a temperate climate helps?

 

[fs999]

So has anyone else who has bought R80S, SP200 and R400S since June 2018 has problems with the 120 rolls?

Didn't see that thread until now !

Yes I bought 20 rolls of R80S from Retro Camera Belgium in 2019, all those I have tried (4) had backing paper numbers especially in the skies... All developed in Caffenol CL.
Retro Camera never wanted to take back the films

I am searching a replacement of that film in 120, for its fine grain and IR capability.

Some say (wikipedia) R80S and RPX25 are both Aviphot Pan 80 is that true ?

 

[Pentode]

Some say (wikipedia) R80S and RPX25 are both Aviphot Pan 80 is that true ?

As far as I can tell, yes, that's true.

 

[fs999]

As far as I can tell, yes, that's true.

Is it possible to expose RPX25 at 80 ISO and develop like R80S ?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Is it possible to expose RPX25 at 80 ISO and develop like R80S ?

You might be better off splitting the difference - the Aviphot 80S is EAFS 80, which is about a stop faster than the proper EI at sea level. 25 may be closer to a realistic speed when developed for a more useable contrast.

 

[fs999]

You might be better off splitting the difference - the Aviphot 80S is EAFS 80, which is about a stop faster than the proper EI at sea level. 25 may be closer to a realistic speed when developed for a more useable contrast.

But I never had contrast problems with R80S at 80 ISO.
But I will try both. Thanks !

 

[AgX]

Some say (wikipedia) R80S and RPX25 are both Aviphot Pan 80 is that true ?

As far as I can tell, yes, that's true.

Well, only looking at the datasheets, Maco for their RPX 25 give hints hints at 3 different Aviphots...

 

[Lachlan Young]

Well, only looking at the datasheets, Maco for their RPX 25 give hints hints at 3 different Aviphots...

Aviphot 20 & 40 are only available on PE0 base (0.06mm), while 80 & 200 are available on PE0 and PE1 (0.1mm) base thicknesses - which tends to suggest that Maco are mainly re-purposing film coated on the PE1 base, rather than the super thin PE0 base.

 

[Pentode]

For whatever it’s worth, I get much nicer negatives with Retro 80s at 40 or 50 than I do at 80. I think it looks nice at 80, too, but it looks pushed to me.

I can’t remember where I read it - probably here or on Rangefinderforum - but somebody posted extensive tests suggesting... well, proving, really... that Retro 80s, RPX25 and Aviphot 80 were all, indeed, the same emulsion. Since I can’t remember where I read it I also can’t verify it but there seems to be a consensus about it, more or less.

 

[fs999]

For whatever it’s worth, I get much nicer negatives with Retro 80s at 40 or 50 than I do at 80. I think it looks nice at 80, too, but it looks pushed to me.

That's why I use Caffenol CL stand which gives more details in the shadows...

A pity to put 16 rolls in the bin :'(

 

[Pentode]

That's why I use Caffenol CL stand which gives more details in the shadows...

Intended as an aerial reconnaissance film, it definitely lends itself to compensating developers.