Who made Rollei films ?

[kl122002]

I have googled, across these year's result I could see it should be from Agfa , but at the same time people said RPX 100 and 400 is same as Kentmere 100 and 400 . While the Retro series...also from Agfa?
Who is actually making films for Rollei?

 

[AgX]

Maco the entity behind the Rollei films so far used at least five manufacturers for their films, from multinational to small one.
To find find out you might dive yourself into the matter, Google is not the stone of wisdom on this matter.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

RPX100 and RPX400 is the same as Kentmere 100/400 and for example Agfaphoto APX100/400. These films are coated by Harman (aka "Ilford")

RXP25, Retro 80s, Superpan 400, Retro 400, IR400 are all Agfa Belgium films, Aviphot stock.

 

[AgX]

RPX100 and RPX400 is the same as Kentmere 100/400 and for example Agfaphoto APX100/400.

No.
The two RPX's already from their data are specifc, but they also react distinctively different to some developer than the other four.

 

[Helge]

What “Rollei” film are currently confectioned by Harman?
Is there any authoritative answer?

I know RPX 25 is almost certainly Harman. But the rest..?
You’d think It would be easy to guess from the wrapper, but it’s not.

 

[Nitroplait]

Who is actually making films for Rollei?

This is the crowdsourced guess from Wikipedia. As good as any I suppose:

List of photographic films - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Helge]

This is the crowdsourced guess from Wikipedia. As good as any I suppose:

List of photographic films - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Obviously wrong and lacking. Aviphot 400 has not been coated for a long time for instance.

 

[otto.f]

Maco claims that the Rollei Vintage 111 fibre based paper is very much like Agfa Classic paper. But Adox claimed that too a few years back. And/but their fibre based papers are under construction a long time now

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

RPX100 and RPX400 is the same as Kentmere 100/400 and for example Agfaphoto APX100/400. These films are coated by Harman (aka "Ilford")

RXP25, Retro 80s, Superpan 400, Retro 400, IR400 are all Agfa Belgium films, Aviphot stock.

It seems that at one time RX400 and RX100 where very close to Kentmere (if not the same) but not anymore. I use RX400 on a regular basis (more or less my staple 400 film) on both 35mm and 120 and is quite different to Kentmere.

Base is more clear on the Ketmere and the way they react are quite different. I get more contrast on the Kentmere than the RX400.

The truth is no one knows for sure (only Maco and they are not telling).

Like stated, google is not a good source of info for this subject.

 

[Paul Howell]

Question is why does it matter? I found myself getting caught up in who made Ultrafine 100 and 400, in the end it did not matter. If you like a film shoot it.

 

[Helge]

Question is why does it matter? I found myself getting caught up in who made Ultrafine 100 and 400, in the end it did not matter. If you like a film shoot it.

It matters if there is a quality difference and if the emulsions change and not the name.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

It matters if there is a quality difference and if the emulsions change and not the name.

Well that would happen even with the same manufacturer over the years I would say. I don't think it would matter in the end. If you find the film is different than before it doesn't really matter who made it. It will either suit your taste or not.

I mean if the quality is poor would it matter if Harman or Foma made it?

I guess it would make sense to find which EMULSION it is and look at what to expect from it. Say current RPX400 is the same as Agfa APX400, fans of APX400 would look for Rollei RPX400. Aside from that scenario I don't think it matter much who made it. You either like it/can use it or not.

Just my 2 cents.


Marcelo

 

[AgX]

Well, even Maco themselves once stated that they use different converters to yield different price and quality levels.

 

[McDiesel]

Question is why does it matter? I found myself getting caught up in who made Ultrafine 100 and 400, in the end it did not matter. If you like a film shoot it.

You must be joking. There are at least three obvious logical reasons and a bunch of "soft" reasons.

• Economics. When the film you like is available for 20% less under a different brand.
• Availability. You favorite film is out of stock? Well, a rebranded copy may still be available.
• Development times and other best practices from one film can be "copy-pasted" on its rebranded sibling.

And the "soft" reasons include supporting what's right. I only buy Fomapan 100 from Foma Bohemia, not its numerous rebrands, because the manufacturer gets more money this way, at least in theory.

 

[Snowfire]

I know that the IR400 film is made by Gevaert, who also supply many films sold under the Agfa label.

 

[MattKing]

In this world where it is often the case that:
1) one party "designs" a film - i.e. specifies its target characteristics;
2) another party coats the film;
3) another party confections the film; and
4) several different parties market and distribute the film, often under different names,
one needs to determine what one means by someone "making" a film.
As the cost of film is so bound up in the costs of confectioning, marketing and distributing the film, it often makes total sense that people make their purchasing decisions on the latter criteria.
All the film manufacturers contract coat, with the likely exception of Fuji.

 

[AgX]

I know that the IR400 film is made by Gevaert, who also supply many films sold under the Agfa label.

Not quite

Gevaert became in 1964 Gevaert-Agfa, later Agfa-Gevaert Belgium and in the 90's all Agfa worldwide became a belgian firm. At the belgian plants you hardly would find hints at Gevaert any longer. Practically all is just Agfa...
ALL films branded Agfa are made in Belgium. And even many more.

The film you refer to was cancelled a few years ago.

 

[Helge]

Well that would happen even with the same manufacturer over the years I would say. I don't think it would matter in the end. If you find the film is different than before it doesn't really matter who made it. It will either suit your taste or not.

I mean if the quality is poor would it matter if Harman or Foma made it?

I guess it would make sense to find which EMULSION it is and look at what to expect from it. Say current RPX400 is the same as Agfa APX400, fans of APX400 would look for Rollei RPX400. Aside from that scenario I don't think it matter much who made it. You either like it/can use it or not.

Just my 2 cents.


Marcelo

It matters insofar as Foma consistently has problems with motteling from what would seem the backing paper.
The papers structure and sometimes the print “rubs off” onto the emulsion.
No such problem with the Harman confectioned film.
The problem gets worse if you use the IR capability of the film.

I’ve learned not to use Superpan 200 and Retro 80s. RTX 25 is safe. But I lack a good clean source of the Aviphot 200 derivatives.
Retro 400s?

 

[kl122002]

Question is why does it matter? I found myself getting caught up in who made Ultrafine 100 and 400, in the end it did not matter. If you like a film shoot it.

It matters since I don't want to buy a film that is just "A=B" in different names while one might cost a lot more than the another, and then a slight different "suggested developing time" from each brand create an impression that "they must be different" .
I could feel today (in 2022) some films should be a rebranded product, or maybe an old product that from A sold to B to let B manufacture and B would claim themselves the "original" ?

Some developers give me the same feeling as well, like Rollei Supergrain. From the datasheet the RPX 100 and 400's dev. time is same as Fomapan 100 & 400. Supergrain could develop Ilford's product but not Kentmere ? Its quite suspicious Actually I suspect whether Supergain is just almost same as Ilforsol 3 , just slightly different in contain ratio.

 

[Paul Howell]

If you buy a roll of the bargain film and then a roll of the full price film, shoot, develop test, print or scan you will have your answer. I have bought from Photowarehouse for 30 years, they have changed manufactures and emulsions, sometimes they change the name sometimes not. We now know that Harmont and Inversacoat among others will custom coat. Berrger had their film custom coasted, and maybe Rolli as well, might order a custom roll, might be a close clone to an existing emulsion. Until someone on the inside spills the beans best you get is an educated guess. But a roll test, then decide.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

It matters insofar as Foma consistently has problems with motteling from what would seem the backing paper.
The papers structure and sometimes the print “rubs off” onto the emulsion.
No such problem with the Harman confectioned film.
The problem gets worse if you use the IR capability of the film.

I’ve learned not to use Superpan 200 and Retro 80s. RTX 25 is safe. But I lack a good clean source of the Aviphot 200 derivatives.
Retro 400s?

I guess I get your point. Bought a 100ft roll of Forma 400 and had a lot of issues. Not touching Foma 35mm again.

On the other hand Foma 100 and 400 are good on 120. Same with 4x5.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

You must be joking. There are at least three obvious logical reasons and a bunch of "soft" reasons.

• Economics. When the film you like is available for 20% less under a different brand.
• Availability. You favorite film is out of stock? Well, a rebranded copy may still be available.
• Development times and other best practices from one film can be "copy-pasted" on its rebranded sibling.

And the "soft" reasons include supporting what's right. I only buy Fomapan 100 from Foma Bohemia, not its numerous rebrands, because the manufacturer gets more money this way, at least in theory.

Thanks for your points. I think they are pretty valid concerns.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Question, aside from Foma, who else and what films are being repackaged now? I'm pretty sure Harman is not doing it now.

 

[mohmad khatab]

What is important in knowing the location of the factory and the name of the owner?
I don't think about these things anymore.
I love all companies that produce analog photography even if the owner of that company is Lucifer
Lucifer photo Co .

 

[MattKing]

Question, aside from Foma, who else and what films are being repackaged now? I'm pretty sure Harman is not doing it now.

Harman's Kentmere films certainly seem to have a few different identities.