Two new Rollei B&W films, RPX 100/400

<p>Two new Rollei films are introduced. Based on classical tri-acetate and they are panchromatic. Both films will be available in Twin 135-36 package and 120 roll film.<br>

RPX 100/400 are two cubical classical type films. The emulsion and product is the end-result of a cooperation between Ilford/Harman, Efke and the Rollei-Maco company.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/Rollei_RPX_100_dt.pdf">http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/Rollei_RPX_100_dt.pdf</a><br>

<a href="http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/Rollei_RPX_400_dt.pdf">http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/Rollei_RPX_400_dt.pdf</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Robert,<br>

What, if any, are the advantages of triacetate over other, more modern bases, given the following:</p>

<p><strong>Acetate Film Base</strong><br>

Nitrate film was, and is, highly flammable. It releases hazardous gases, when it decomposes naturally. Beginning in the mid 1920's, it was slowly replaced with cellulose acetate film base (cellulose diacetate, cellulose acetate propiarate, cellulose acetate butyrate and cellulose triacetate.) It became known as "Safety" film. However, the cellulose acetates do have stability problems. The deterioration of cellulose acetate is autocatalytic, like that of cellulose nitrate; once deterioration has begun the degradation products induce further deterioration. It affects the plastic support of acetate film, causing it to become acidic, to shrink, and to give off an odor of acetic acid (vinegar).<br>

The above is excerpted from this site:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nedcc.org/resources/leaflets/5Photographs/01ShortGuide.php">http://www.nedcc.org/resources/leaflets/5Photographs/01ShortGuide.php</a></p>

<p>I suspect the only advantage is economic, and favors the manufacturer at the expense of the consumer. I hope I'm wrong.</p>

 

<p>From the data sheet:</p>

 

<table dir="ltr" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="7" width="597">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td height="10" valign="top">

<p>ARCHIVIERUNG:</p>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td height="14" valign="middle">

<p>Die vollkommen trockenen Filme werden zumeist in Streifen abgelegt.</p>

 

 

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td height="13" valign="top">

<p>Nur Polyesterfolie hat die Beständigkeit, Filme für sehr lange Zeit ohne schädliche Einwirkungen zu schützen.</p>

 

 

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td height="13" valign="top">

<p>Jede andere Art der Aufbewahrung läuft Gefahr, kurz oder lang, den Film zu schädigen.</p>

 

 

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td height="13" valign="top">

<p>Vor allem bei Feuchtigkeitseinwirkung.</p>

 

 

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td height="12" valign="top">

<p>Die über Jahrzehnte üblichen Acetatfilme bergen die Gefahr, zu Staub zu zerfallen.</p>

 

 

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td height="13" valign="top">

<p>Es ist zu vermeiden, alte und neue Acetatfilme nahe beieinander zu lagern.</p>

 

 

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td height="13" valign="top">

<p>Falls es bei alten Filmen zu einer Absonderung von Essigsäureethylester kommt, dann werden davon vielleicht</p>

 

 

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td height="13" valign="top">

<p>auch ganz frische Filme „angesteckt".</p>

 

 

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td height="11" valign="middle">

<p>Nur Polyesterfilme sind vollkommen sicher und perfekt für die Langzeitarchivierung geeignet.</p>

 

 

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>I'm afraid my Deutsche is a little, rusty, Robert.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What, if any, are the advantages of triacetate over other...bases</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only other base used for 120 and 135 films today is polyester. While triacetate does have a shorter life expectancy, its advantage over polyester is that, should a camera transport jam occur, the triacetate will rip while polyester will not. Polyester's strength greatly increases the likelihood of camera damage in that situation.</p>

<p>Are many films still coated on triacetate? I think the Arista Edu Ultra must be. I use SS film clips with teeth, and hang my film diagonally to dry. When I returned to my dark room, I found the Arista film had shrunk and tore out of the clips. That never happens with films from the major makers. All things being equal, I think I prefer a stable, non-shrinking, non-ripping film. The polyester bases tolerate a lot more tension, keeping film flatter. If my camera was to jam (none of mine ever have), I think I could show some restraint and not rely on my film ripping to spare my gear, even if the polyester base is not "Classical". </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Are many films still coated on triacetate?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Almost all 135 and 120 are. Only a few from specialty finishers, like Rollei, including those adapted from stocks intended for other uses, are on polyester.</p>

<p>In sheets, polyester is virtually universal. Only a few color emulsions, if memory serves, are still on triacetate.</p>

<p>There must be a lot of variation in the qualities of acetate bases. The Kodak/Fuji/Ilford films bases are crystal clear (120), and never shrink or curl. To be fair, the Arista Edu Ultra doesn't curl much either, but it does shrink, and it's not nearly as clear as the other films are. I've learned something about film bases today; thanks Sal!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In English:<br>

<a href="http://www.macodirect.de/download/TA_RPX_100_gb.pdf">http://www.macodirect.de/download/TA_RPX_100_gb.pdf</a><br>

<a href="http://www.macodirect.de/download/TA_RPX_400_gb.pdf">http://www.macodirect.de/download/TA_RPX_400_gb.pdf</a></p>

 

<p>It's interesting that the ISO 400 film develops faster than the ISO 100 film. They say the 400 film is actually 800 in microphen, and 50 in RLS or Perceptol! Yet, their development chart shows development time for Perceptol at 400, not at 50, and the chart shows EI 200 for RLS. The pdf for the RPX 100 contains the same statement about RLS/Perceptol being rated at ISO 50, so I think it's just sloppy editing, and Perceptol costs a stop with either film, which is standard. Both pdfs also include identical exposure charts, despite the 2 stop difference in the films' sensitivities. A lot of inconsistencies for one publication. It doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the technical publications. I hope this film is very inexpensive, because I don't see it competing with the big boys on an even price point. </p>

<p>Surely, Mr Mahn has to be totally overworked - and nobody around to edit his output.<br /> Dozens of copy-paste mistakes have occured both between the two descriptions and when translating it all.<br /> Then, sermoning, babling, and lousy quality of information (filter corrections for example). Oh-well.<br /> In the dev chart Diafine times just aren't happening... and the RPX400 dev times for LC20 1+29 are truly optimistic. Poor Xtol dilution is still proposed as 1:1 and Microdol-X seemingly still available. Hm.<br /> Even though loading my camera in a changing bag will be a p.i.t.a., I think I'll give RPX100/120 in RSX3 a try.<br /> No availability up until now.</p>

<p>Interesting. Because of the references to "classic", does this mean the 400 ISO version of this film doesn't push well?</p>

<p>Is there a past or current film that these films are roughly comparable with? It's hard to get an idea of what good applications are for this film with the limited samples in the spec sheets.</p>

<p>It occurs to me as I type that given the name "RPX", is this an attempt to revive new production of something similar to APX?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I would dearly love it if someone could reproduce the old AGFA APX. It was my favorite film for shooting models. Loved the skin tones, sharpness, and the blacks.<br>

<img src="http://www.timcarrollphotography.com/Assets/images/Environment.jpg" alt="" width="480" height="480" /><br>

Truly miss it.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

-Tim</p>

<p>Here are some first experiments on this new film. I´ve taken some pictures on the RPX100 and RPX400. The RPX is not a APX. Later this week I´ll send a lot of more pictures.</p>

<p>RPX100 in moersch efd:<br>

<img src="http://www.joerg-bergs.de/moerschefd01_ff.jpg" alt="" /><br>

RPX100 in XTOL1+1:<br>

<img src="http://www.joerg-bergs.de/xtol1+1-02_ff_ff.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>RPX is not a APX</strong><br>

While Harman materials are involved it will be not an APX film.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is Efke (or whomever) still going to reproduce the APX line? I've lost track of what's going on, but last I remember, they were waiting for the APX films already out they to deplete more and then bring out the new APX.</p>

<p>Nobody can reproduce the APX line because the line in Leverkusen was closed in 2005. You can only try to make a film close to it.<br>

APX 100/Retro 100 is still on the market as 135-36 for very low prices. These (new) RPX films are also not very expensive and looking at the new TMY-2 (400) which is very good who is waiting for another iso 400 film (APX 400) which had inferior specifications.</p>

<p>Maco has a long record as a repackaging and marketing company: they buy material and sell it with their own labels. There is no research and development department, but marketing, sales and logistics, and there is no production of film. If these films are not FP4 or HP5 but made in a kind of cooperation between Harman, Efke and Maco, then it will be Kentmere 100 and 400 films with a new label, even if they will deny that because it might look ugly if Harman sells remnants under a new brand. I expect Kentmeres, e.g. average black and white films, nothing special, just normal b/w film - hamburgers and cheeseburgers with fries and coke, not better, not worse, and definitely not APX which was a different taste of average black and white films. That's okay, just do not expect a quantum leap in image quality, tones, finer grain, a panacea for all the world's ills or French cuisine in a posh restaurant.<br>

Damn! This made me hungry, I need to talk to my local drive-in customer service representative...</p>

<p>It was Adox who has reintroduced APX 400. <br /><a href="http://www.apug.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-78063.html">http://www.apug.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-78063.html</a><br>

<a href="http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/61322-update-new-apx-100-manufacture.html">http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/61322-update-new-apx-100-manufacture.html</a><br />What other names it has from other companies, I don't know, but the links are worth a read.</p>

In one forum I read this:

 

"The news we have is these 2 films are NOT happening."

 

Does someone know what is happening? I thought it could be a cheap way to buy Kentmere films but I am too lazy to test a new film if it vanishes soon.

<p>RPX 100/400 (Rollei) are since this week available in Europe in both versions: 135-36 and 120 roll film.</p>

<p>Just got 10 rolls of this in post. At £2 per roll, cheapest film around! Also got some Diafine and Acufine dev. Not shot traditional black and white for almost 15 years, convinced my editor to run picture stories the old fashioned way. Am going to need to push to 1600 regularly as have to cover a few union meetings in dingy rooms, these days theres no smoking allowed to add to the ambience though. :-(<br />If anyone has any experience using this combination please let me know?<br />Will be mainly using an M6 and M7, 35mm Summilux (the old one) and 21mm pre asph Elmarit then scanning the negs on a Minolta 5400 or a Minolta Dimage Multi II depending which works better.</p>

<p>There will be a new push developer for these RPX films, made by SPUR and able to push the RPX400 over iso 3200.</p>

<p>Data for the new RPX-D developer (push developer for RPX films):</p>

<p>Rollei RPX 400:<br /><br />ISO 400/27°, Dilution 1 + 11, Temperature 20 ° C, Dev. time 11 Minutes,<br /><br />ISO 800/30°, Dilution 1 + 7, Temperature 22 ° C, Dev. time 13 Minutes,<br /><br />ISO 1600/33°, Dilution 1 + 5, Temperature 24 ° C, Dev. time 14 Minutes,<br /><br /><br /><br />Rollei RPX 100:<br /><br />ISO 100/21°, Dilution 1 + 15, Temperature 20 ° C, Dev. time 6 Minutes,<br /><br />ISO 200/21°, Dilution 1 + 11, Temperature 22 ° C, Dev. time 8 Minutes</p>

<p><img src="../v3graphics/cover.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" />I really like the Rollei RPX 100.<br>

Similar to Agfa APX 100, cheap and it givesconsistent results.</p>

<p>Ludovic</p>