What is Rollei RPX 25?

[braxus]

I have used a few rolls of this in the past, but never got a real feel for it yet. I haven't used it enough to make any comparisons. Is this emulsion a stand out on its own, or is it based off another film from the past? Is this a clone of Agfa APX 25? Or is it its own film with no comparison? I have some rolls in 35, 120, and 4x5 at the moment. My local store has it on sale, and I wasn't sure I was wanting to stock up on some more rolls or not. Is there anything special about this film that makes it stand out? Or is it a rather blah-say film in general? I really liked APX 25, of which I also have a stash of. My favorite 25 ISO film is Efke 25, but there is no comparison there. Another favorite slow film is Panatomic X, but that is 32 ISO.

 

[braxus]

I just read someone believes this film is actually Agfa Aviphot 80 which is rated around 50 ISO. Why then is RPX 25 a 25 ISO film and not 50 then? I guess I can forget it being an APX 25 clone.

 

[braxus]

If I were to shoot this roll at 12 ISO and develop in Xtol 1:1, what kind of time should I expect? At 25 ISO, they want 8 minutes in Xtol 1:1.

 

[awty]

It is very contrasty. Hard to get a printable picture in a contrasty scene. Best used in low contrast even light situations. Good for multiple exposures.
Im about to darkroom print some, judging by the scans its going to be hard work.
I only have used it at 25 iso, be careful not to overdeveloped, tends to build up density in a negative quickly.

 

[braxus]

Should I try shooting at 12 ISO and develop accordingly? There are no times for Xtol straight. Only 1:1.

 

[Klaus_H]

RPX-25 is based on the AGFA Aviphot 80 material. It is the same material like the Rollei R80S, but in much better quality (film convertion)..
Forget the data sheet. It is fake (it is taken from Aviphot 40).
Expose the film at 32/16° ISO (developer ATOMAL 49).
This film is IR sensitive. Use a R72 filter and shoot at 1.2/2° ISO (developer ATOMAL 49).

For "normal" photography Ilford PAN F+ produces better tonal separation, but for IR photograpy this film is a good choice.

 

[Nitroplait]

I just hate it when film "producers" don't wan't to disclose the origin of their film and you have to second guess what it may be, to get useable results.
For that reason I have tried to stick to primary producers that I know make their own film.
Due to a need for cheaper film I wanted to buy some Kentmere 400 which wasn't available where I usually buy from, and was suggested AgfaPhoto APX400 instead. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photographic_films it is likely Kentmere - but I would really like to know for sure so I could utilise the collective knowledge of the internet to get the best possible results without having to guess.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I just hate it when film "producers" don't wan't to disclose the origin of their film and you have to second guess what it may be, to get useable results.
For that reason I have tried to stick to primary producers that I know make their own film.

I know. These producers are really very misleading, especially to newer entrants to film photography, giving the impression of distinct products, whereas the situation in most cases is that these films are branding exercises. I have been caught out by MACO / Rollei product before and the 'fake' datasheets.

 

[revdoc]

It's definitely Aviphot 80 (as are Retro 80s and HR50.) I generally expose at 50 and develop 13' in pyrocat. The negs are pretty contasty, and print fine on grade 0 or 1, but I know a lot of people find it has too much contrast. You'll have to run some tests.

12 ISO is probably too much, but I've used it at 25 with no issues.

 

[Don_ih]

AgfaPhoto APX400 instead. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photographic_films it is likely Kentmere

Here's a question: why doesn't Agfa sell its own film? I would assume that "AgfaPhoto" is not actually a brand of the Agfa that makes Aviphot (the film Rollei uses). How much use for aerial film is there in the world, anyway?

 

[AgX]

Here's a question: why doesn't Agfa sell its own film? I would assume that "AgfaPhoto" is not actually a brand of the Agfa that makes Aviphot (the film Rollei uses). How much use for aerial film is there in the world, anyway?

-) AgfaPhoto and the red dot is indeed a brand owned by current Agfa and a term they partially used at the last years for their consumer department.
They had to keep licencing it after a legal case to the owner of the remnants of that sold department: AgfaPhoto Holding (which assets today practically only consists of that licenced brand name).

-) The use of aerial film is dwindling. That is why all manufacturers Agfa, Kodak, Tasma reduced their respective portfolios.

-) Agfa could have set up a small sales department as the Maco enterprise themselves, but their idea just was to get rid of the consumer business. This they followed strictly.

 

[Don_ih]

Agfa could have set up a small sales department as the Maco enterprise themselves, but their idea just was to get rid of the consumer business. This they followed strictly.

I wonder if that counts as prudent or as shortsighted? The trend will eliminate all use of aerial film relatively soon (it's hard to imagine there's any real reason to use it now, for that matter, since it's specifically to record information - which can be done much more directly with digital means). That would leave the production of it for the use of rebranders only (selling it as 35mm or 120). So, prudent if they just want to stop making it (they make other stuff). But I would be inclined to believe that the amount of film Agfa makes that is resold as Rollei quite possibly is greater than the amount used in aerial photography. (That is complete speculation, though. Maybe there are thousands of planes flying around using thousands of feet of film at this very moment. You know, photographing the surface of the ocean or something.)

 

[AgX]

I do not get your point at all. Anyone can order at Agfa a tollcoating. If Maco has a demand that makes a production run viable they can order such for an aerial film no longer produced by Agfa for their own behalf.

If Maco or anyone else established on the consumer business has no demand for a re-run why then should they even consider a rerun on own behalf?

 

[Don_ih]

I do not get your point at all. Anyone can order at Agfa a tollcoating. If Maco has a demand that makes a production run viable they can order such for an aerial film no longer produced by Agfa for their own behalf.

If Maco or anyone else established on the consumer business has no demand for a re-run why then should they even consider a rerun on own behalf?

You can't run a production line based on speculation. That is, you can't keep a factory going by hoping people order production runs. If you want to keep a factory going, you should be the one dictating how much is made and attempted to be sold.

 

[AgX]

Go and visit Agfa, after all downsizing their main plant alone is still a huge chemical plant.

Advising it to run on a few amateurs using some film of theirs is a silly idea.

 

[Don_ih]

Go and visit Agfa, after all downsizing their main plant alone is still a huge chemical plant.

Advising it to run on a few amateurs using some film of theirs is a silly idea.

What I'm saying is that's what they're headed toward - rebranders will be their only film customers in no time.

 

[AgX]

The film business is only one part of their materials making business, and that again only a part of their whole activity.
And within the film business again the aerial film business only is a part.

I know that company from the inside and they got advise on consumer related products, but the management so far was not inclined to become active on this field on their own behalf. Keep in mind that the idea to get rid of the consumer departmenmt dates back to the year 2000. And from that until the final sale in 2004 they had enough time to consider a downsizing. But they opted for a complete sale of all consumer related activities. Consider this as a dogma.
And so far they sustained the following years much better than Kodak, who in contrast even moved their center of activity more towards cosumer products by giving up fields as medical X-ray, microfilm, and moreover even creating their own competitor on the field of technical X-ray.

 

[Arcadia4]

Agfa Gevaert - is a business - business company. They actually produce several hundred million sq ft of PET film every year both as base for coating their own products such as X ray film (still important in developing markets) and microfilm sold through the EPM Imagelink business and film for PCB manufacture. They also sell the raw film for other industrial purposes. Compared to business use the aerial film volumes sold to rebranders to convert for consumer photography must be very small albeit cheap source of film. Their film markets are generally decline hence focus on digital imaging in areas such a CT/medical scanners, Offset printing, Healthcare IT. etc, but like many business with a strong focus in one area are still finding the transition to new markets difficult.

 

[removedacct1]

RPX-25 is based on the AGFA Aviphot 80 material. It is the same material like the Rollei R80S, but in much better quality (film convertion)..
Forget the data sheet. It is fake (it is taken from Aviphot 40).
Expose the film at 32/16° ISO (developer ATOMAL 49).
This film is IR sensitive. Use a R72 filter and shoot at 1.2/2° ISO (developer ATOMAL 49).

Specs I have seen state that its cutoff is 660 nm, which would make an R72 filter useless, would it not?

 

[Arcadia4]

According to the Agfa data sheet - 'Its spectral sensitivity to up to 750 nm makes Aviphot Pan 80 an outstanding tool for differentiation of species in agricultural and ecological studies'.

 

[removedacct1]

According to the Agfa data sheet - 'Its spectral sensitivity to up to 750 nm makes Aviphot Pan 80 an outstanding tool for differentiation of species in agricultural and ecological studies'.

Thanks. I found the spec sheet and you are correct. I'm going to try it with my R72 filter and see how it looks.

 

[braxus]

So should I expose at 12 ISO and underdevelop the neg from the ISO 25 time? At 25 ISO the time is 8 minutes in Xtol 1:1. What should I do it at? Or should I expose at 32 ISO and develop for the 25 ISO time?

 

[removedacct1]

So should I expose at 12 ISO and underdevelop the neg from the ISO 25 time? At 25 ISO the time is 8 minutes in Xtol 1:1. What should I do it at? Or should I expose at 32 ISO and develop for the 25 ISO time?

How about setting the meter at box speed (25ASA) and do a test by exposing a scene starting at Minus 1 stop, and increase exposure by 1/2 stop with each successive frame. Develop with Xtol 1:1 for 7 minutes, and see what the test results look like. Take good notes about what you exposed each frame at, and then see which frame looks best for your purposes. That way, you will have a good idea what ASA to rate the film for a modest pull in Xtol. You might find that you can reduce the development time by as much as another minute and get excellent results. Xtol is a good choice, because Ive found it has the ability to tame high contrast films nicely, avoiding overdeveloped highlights.

 

[pentaxuser]

Every time I read a thread about Rollei I am left even more puzzled that the previous time I read about Rollei films in terms of what each Rollei film is and how many films in its range there are really. It is almost as if all the films are based on 2-3? Aviphot films which appear to have problems for everyday use.

The conclusions I draw are: 1.That getting the "maker" Rollei to give honest and accurate information would seem to be impossible: 2. Exposing the films and getting good prints is a difficult chore; 3. The range or certain films in the range are OK for IR but the "IR" labelled film is no different from the films with other labels.

However despite these difficulties with Rollei or perhaps because of them some are drawn to the challenge despite misgivings.

It is almost as if we need a bike and the bike shop sells a few models. One maker, let's say Ilford just as an example, sells a reliable bike that comes with a full maker's handbook and on the road generally does what a bike is supposed to do if we follow the maker's instructions in the handbook. The other bike does not have a reliable handbook and requires the user to find a way round its difficulties which the maker has chosen not to fully reveal and which in some cases those difficulties cannot be fully overcome but amazingly that bike still sells and potential customers are still drawn to trying to make it work.

If it was a car or a washing machine or any other appliance that we needed to be sure would work every time and in the way we needed it to then would we even consider choosing it?

If I were an Ilford executive I'd be bald by now - simply from the amount of times I had shaken my head when reading these threads

pentaxuser

 

[braxus]

Im using a 120 roll in my 6x9 camera, so I only have 8 shots to play with. Maybe I'll just shoot it at box speed and do the normal time. Its sunny today, so not the best conditions for this film.