Problems developing Rollei retro 400s

<p>Hello. I am trying the Rollei retro 400s film. I am a professional photographer and I have more than 20 years developing my own bw rolls. But I found this film completely unpredictable. I developed my first roll with Microphen 1+1 and I get a translucent negative. None marks or number at the side of the film. I cut a piece of exposed to light film and tried again to see if was one roll. This appear dark grey but not the full black common to a piece of direct exposed to light negative of 400 asa. Then I prepared some Ethol UFG and developed some shots I did to test. Since my experience with Microphen was too thin or none image I give a developing time of 7 minutes, 30 seconds more that the recommended in the Massive developing chart using stock solution. Surprise, I got an overdeveloped negative with a lot of fog. I was using this developers with Adox 50 and TriX without problems. The only thing I found in the web about that topic was someone that have despair results in a flickr post <br>

http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157611380001537/<br>

By the way, the camera works perfectly, the light meter too. Any idea about this indomitable film?</p>

<p>The Rollei Retro 400S is a superpanchromatic film. You can even use it for IR pictures. Maybe the film is fogged because it was near an IR source.<br>

However the film speed is a bit lower then iso 400.<br>

I had good results with the film on iso 200-250.<br>

<img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7165/6823649507_309d9b759f.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="388" /></p>

<p>It's a very sharp film and fine grain too. Developer D74 1+15 for 5:15 minutes at 20C. Split Grade print on MGIV from a 6x7cm negative.</p>

<p>Hi Robert. I suppose that the developer you used is the same as AM 74 (amaloco) or RHS 74 (rollei). This developer have similar characteristics of Rodinal. I can't get this developers here. I have a few Rodinal but I reserve this for my Adox 50. Do you have experience developing Rollei retro with common developers as d-76 or Xtol? At less I know now that this film need a very active soup. So I will try with less time in Ethol UFG. But I am still curious why don't work with Microphen since is a common push developer. Thanks</p>

<p>D74 is the succesor of AM74/RHS. It's a semi-compensating developer and it gives much less grain then Rodinal. So very suitable for the higher speed films.<br>

Like you suggested keep your Rodinal for the slower speed films: Efke/Adox 50.<br>

Rollei Retro 400S should work with all type of developers. In the past I used AM74/RHS with good results. Rodinal, too grainy. So far not tried D76/ID11/Fomadon P W37 or Xtol/Fomadon Excel W27.</p>

<p>This is the regular data:<br>

<a href="http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/TA_Rollei_RETRO400S_dt.pdf">http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/TA_Rollei_RETRO400S_dt.pdf</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well. After some proofs I found that is not a good film to use with some diluted solutions (from stock power developers). Works nice with Ethol UFG stock rating the film to 320 Asa, if one search more contrast 400 will be ok. The acutance is excellent with this combination. Anyone there have made proofs with this film and Xtol? I have few UFG here and have a lot of Xtol. The diluted versions of Microphen and UFG given by Digital Truth chart don´t work for me. I post my experience in case anyone are trying this film & developers combination. Cheers</p>

<blockquote>"The diluted versions of Microphen and UFG given by Digital Truth chart don´t work for me."</blockquote><p>

 

The Massive Dev Chart doesn't appear to show any times for <i>diluted</i> Microphen with Rollei Retro 400s. The only suggested data I see is for undiluted Microphen stock solution, at 9 minutes for that film at EI 400. But even the 1+1 dilution of Microphen you specified, at the recommended 9 minutes for undiluted stock solution, should have produced a reasonable image.<p>

 

So far I haven't experienced any failures with any films using Microphen. If I encountered the results you described - "...translucent negative. None marks or number at the side of the film..." - I'd suspect that I'd made a mistake somewhere along the way, possibly in the dilution or other link in the processing chain. A fairly common mistake, one which many of us have made but would be embarrassed to admit, is fixing the film before developing, due to mixing up the containers. I'd test the developer with another known film to establish a baseline.

<p>Hi Lex. I used as start time the table for Rollei Retro 400 1+1 supposing is similar to 400s. But I tried the 11 minutes and don't work. The solution was good since I used to develop from the same bottle of stock developer a roll of Adox 50 rate at 100 asa and all was fine. I tried then microphen 1+1 for 15 minutes but was too thin. Maybe that is the reason why there are no times for diluted microphen for 400s as was for retro 400. I don't like pure microphen cause i found it too solvent and don't like the type of grain. There was not mistake on the develop roll, there are very tenuous images if one put the negative in some angle, but the developer can't get include the mark and numbers at the side of the negative. This was very strange for me since I used for years diluted microphen for almost any negative. But this is a very strange one. <br>

So, anyone tried Rollei retro 400S with Xtol? I am going short of UFG and want to know how good is with diluted Xtol experiences.</p>

Thanks for the clarification, Hernan. First time I've ever heard of that sort of failure with Microphen. Also, I wasn't aware that Rollei Retro 400s could record into the IR spectrum. That might be interesting if Ilford SFX was unavailable.

<p>Yes, Rollei Retro 400S (and also Rollei Superpan 200) you can record into the IR spectrum.<br>

But the Retro 400<strong>S</strong> is complete different compared with the Retro 400 (= APX 400). Superpan 200 and Retro 400S are Agfa Gevaert aviation films hence the difference in sensitivity of the wavelenght.</p>

<p>Why this film has a strange behavior with Microphen, i don't know. Here another (fiber/baryta) print from this Rollei Retro 400S film. This time printed on Fomabrom Variant 111.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7040/6880258239_2a305de119_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="466" /></p>

<p>It's sharp film, fine grain, high resolution but a bit lack in speed. Best way to use it within iso 200-400. For pushing it's not very suitable maybe one of the reasons Microphen (push type developer) is not working well.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>yes, is notorious some red filter effect with this film. One need to take it in account specially doing portraits. During my tests I shot a few frames to my wife, who have green eyes. Instead of the light gray she turned having deep dark eyes changing completely her look. Her lips ended the same gray more ore less than the face. I think that this film would be very good for landscapes and I will try it for street photography for some special effect. Is good to scan, that was one the reasons I wanted to try this film, remains flat from one side of the 35 mm holes to the other in opposite experience with TriX that sometimes is a nightmare to scan after developed. Here my last test at home, I only lifted a bit the curve on the middle greys. None burn and dodge. </p>

<p><a href="http://zenteno.photoshelter.com/image/I0000Tmma2LSHJA0" target="_blank"> <img src="http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000Tmma2LSHJA0/s/500/I0000Tmma2LSHJA0.jpg" alt="" /> </a></p>

<p>Hernan,<br>

I had a similar,unsatisfactory result from 400s in replenished (stock) Xtol.. I think this film is over-rated at 400iso (8 minutes @ 20C).<br>

M.D.C suggests 17m at 1:2,compared to 12m for the non-S version. Which is 40% more,approx.</p>

<p>Hi Ian, did you tried the 17 m 1:2 dilution with xtol? many thanks</p>

<p>Hernan,<br>

No, I haven't. I don't like this film enough to persevere with it. Give me Fuji Neopan 400 any day..</p>

<p>Update. I was experimenting this film for a while and as supposed is very good for landscapes. This film have two tricks, you must prewash first the film otherwise you can end with an underdeveloped film. And you must load your tanks in absolute darkness and load your camera without too much light, is very sensitive to infrared light.<br>

I finally developed Rollei Retro 400S with Xtol 1:1 at 20 centigrades grades for 14,5 minutes but I think would be better 14 to avoid block the highlights. The Ethol UFG is better for this kind of film but I am running short of this developer so I was searching some replacement. Hope this can help to others that started experiment with this excellent but tricky film.</p>

<p>Rollei Retro 400s is Agfa Aviphot ASP 400S, in fact a TSF emulsion. And yes, it's IR sensitive. That's one of the reasons it's a very sharp film too.<br>

About the pre-wash I can't agree. You can do it or not but with a regular developer their is hardly any difference. With some deep layer type developers like CG-512/RLS (Rollei Low Speed, an Udo Raffay reference type developer) it can have some advantage because these type of developers are going deeper inside the emulsion. It's an Ultra Fine Grain developer like Perceptol, W665 etc.<br>

From the same manufacturer:<br>

Rollei Retro 80s is Agfa Avipan 80, aviation film. Tack sharp, neglectible grain but in most developer iso 50 only. Also IR sensitive.<br>

Both films are made on clear Polyester layer so in that way you have to load and unload in subdue light.</p>

<p>I had the same problem as Hernan. My development also ended with almost translucent poorly developed film. It was very disappointing. I used D76 1:1, 11 minutes as recommended, 20°C... Besides, the handling with the film in the dark room was also somewhat difficult. I think I give up to shoot this film.</p>

<p>Hi Stepan. As I commented before I found thru the web that some people attribute the translucent developed film to the layer that use this film. I pre wash the Rollei Retro 400s and since then I had no problems. Is tricky, as I mentioned before, but I think is excellent for some kind of photos. I can't find here all the developers that mentioned Robert Vonk but I suppose the high acutance are all ok. D-76 usually is a good all purpose developer. Did you tried to develop a little strip doing the prewash step? If you have any news please share them. All the best</p>

<p>Thank you Hernan, maybe I will give the film one more chance in Rodinal. Anyway I have learned that I should not shoot important photos on such film without having previous experience with it:-).</p>

<p>Hi all, just experienced the same problem as Hernan: I developed 2 rolls of Rollei 400s rated at 400 ISO in Xtol 1+2 at 17 minutes, the film leader was barely grey, and you can hardly see anything on the film, and no frame markings either. The same day I developed Ilford Delta 3200 films before the Rollei 400s disaster, and Kodak Plus X films afterwards, each time with Xtol 1+2 from the same stock solution, without any problems. A few weeks ago developed two rolls of Rollei 400s rated at 200 ISO in Rollei's own RLS developer, and the films came out absolutely spot-on, which is why I did not see this problem coming.<br>

Of course, I can't exclude some kind of contamination, but it is very strange. Like Hernan I have been developing films for over 20 years, I have developed thousands, and very rarely got things wrong.<br>

Experience from other users of this film would be welcome!</p>

<p>I realise that this is quite an old thread now but as there is relatively little information on this film I thought I'd add my 2p worth as I've been gaining a little experience with it although only with RLS developer. After a number of trials and errors I find that with the RLS combo I need to rate the film at 100. With a more standard speed developer I'd guess that 200 was about right for this film.<br>

As far as the comments relating to pre-wash, I now wash for 2 mins with a constant agitation. The water which washes out is almost black. I've reported this to Maco who are adding this to their data sheets. Incidentally this is the same for Rollei 80s.<br>

I've found that the fog base of the 400s is rather denser than the 80s (but much lighter than HP5) but this seems to have no effect with scanning. The literature says that the base is chrystal clear but I have not found this and would welcome to hear from other users.<br>

Despite the little niggles I have persevered with this film because when right I love the tonality.</p><div></div>

<p>The clear Polyester layer seems to be the same type of Retro 80S. And indeed the Retro 400S is in any regular type developer around iso 200-250 so when using RLS/CG-512, which is an Ultra Fine Grain type, deep layer developer you will loose 1F stop. E.I. 100 is right in this way.</p>

<p>Hi Robert. Interesting that it is the same Polyester base because the density seems a shade darker on the 400. Of course there is a development time difference (10.5 mins for the 80 and 14.5 for the 400) but I wouldn't have thought that would be the reason for a denser fog base?</p>

<p>Hello Vincent. The fog is not important, as you said is a lot less than most known films. If you really want a clear base you need to shoot Adox CHS 50. Is the most transparent film I know. I started to show interest in the Retro searching this and to avoid the curvature of the negatives from holes to holes. Retro is still very curled along but very well controlled at width. I use the film at 320 and 400 asa with the developers I mentioned. I have not my notes here. I suppose you will gain less contrast working at the low ASA Robert mentioned. But part of the game I am playing with Retro is using this particular contrast cause the inherent qualities, low fog or color film and very sensitive to the red. And yes, for some subjects and light this film proved to be excellent and with a particular character. I don't recommend Retro for portraits cause the kind of light lips and darks eyes (if the person have brown or green eyes). </p>

<p>Hi Hernan. Unfortunately the response of this film not only darkens brown and green eyes to almost black but it lightens the lips as well. I've also noticed that if the subject has a slightly open mouth there is a rather ugly contrast between the light lips and the very dark inside. Presumably this is because it has extended red sensitivity but I had not expected as much when used without filters. I'm seeing this also with the Retro 80s. Nonetheless it is a film with much potential in my opinion. I've been less successful with landscapes with the 400s than with the 80s but I shall persevere for a bit. Do you have any experience with another film on the market with similar characteristics as the 400s but without the IR sensitivity?</p>

<p>Vincent, Adox CHS 50 is better for my taste than Rollei Retro. But is only 50 ASA, you can push a little with some developers without too much lost of shadows. Scan like a charm, very flat and very translucent base. Instead of red, Adox have green sensitivity that works very nice with portraits and landscapes. The only down side is that you need to be careful cause is an old kind of film and is easy to scratch the emulsion. And you need equilibrate temperatures for chemicals, otherwise you can have some fragmented emulsion. <br>

http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX%20Films/Art/ADOX_Films/page8/page8.html</p>