Rollei R3 processing

[ricard_stanisz]

Hello. It seems as though the "Rollei R3 flatness" thread was

increasingly headed in this direction and so I thought the best move

would be to start a dedicated processing thread.

 

I welcome all of you to share your processing experiences, hits and

misses, etc., commented on, in as much detail as possible, in order

to help all of us achieve the best possible experience with Rollei

R3 films.

 

For starters, my experiment of HC-110 dilution B at 22 degrees for

20 minutes with agitation at 30 sec. intervals produced very thin

and somewhat greyish (?) negatives. I am at a loss why this greyish

hue affects the negative.

 

Best.

 

Ricard.

[ronald_moravec1]

I would stay with standard EI and D76. I don`t even know where to find the exotics for speed increase and decrease.

[Fotohuis RoVo]

Yes, the R3 is more or less in the same characteristics as the Cube 400C film.

Now, the base is clear, which is very nice and Maco added the non curling layer which is also very nice with a polyester film.

 

The standard ID11/D76 is disappointing, not only with me but also some other experienced German users.

This film is OK on the higher range and on the lower range but to work on all 3 cubic layers it will need long developing times.

 

In Europe it's no problem to get the right developers for this film. Specially not in the Netherlands and Germany.

 

Best fit on high speed is AM74 1+7 (20 degrees C.) 18 Minutes on iso 800.

Best fit on low speed is CG512 1+4 (24 degrees C.) 23 Minutes on iso 50.

 

These are really good combinations we can recommend.

On iso 50 the R3 will be better than the Pan F. (the reference film we compared with)

R3 to push over iso 1600, I also can not recommend.

 

Around iso 400 and with standard developers R3 is in my view a bit disappointing.

If in your area the recommended developers is a problem you can choose the simmular Maco LP supergrain or the Cube XS or the high and low speed developers of Rollei.

 

I am sure there will be some other combinations with good results and we are also interested to hear other experiences with this interesting film.

 

For any feed back we are glad to hear more of it.

 

Regards,

 

Robert

 

http://www.FotohuisRoVo.nl

[ricard_stanisz]

I know there was a recent film test done in a German magazine and what I could understand, the film was also effective at 6400 ISO.

 

I am assuming the "best" results are to be achieved with the Rollei R3 dedicated developers. The recommended time for 400 ISO is with the High Speed developer at 20?, between 11 and 15 minutes. Has anyone tried this combination? Mustn't there be an ideal time between this 11-15 minute interval? I assume once one has more results to go by then one can become more intuitive about it, depending on how the film was metered.

 

What about film shot at 400 ISO using the low speed developer?

[Fotohuis RoVo]

CG512 (Rollei low speed) is a fine grain developer, partial metol based and will cost effective iso rate about 2f stops.

iso 200 is already over its optimum. Best results are around iso 50 - iso 100 with this developer.

 

Robert

[ricard_stanisz]

A friend of a friend just sent me an interesting link:

 

http://www.lfi-online.com/

 

It is the Leica International Magazine, which ran a test on several films, with Rollei R3 among them, to determine grain and scan performance.

 

I quote the test specs for Rollei R3:

"Sensitivity: variable; here ISO 400

Developer Time: (ID-11/1+0/20? C): 14:00 min

The film?s three-layer technology possesses a variable sensitivity from ISO 25 to ISO 6400, depending on development. The grain distribution is extremely homogenous due to the different crystal sizes, and the vast exposure flexibility is reflected in the scan. It tends to curl up slightly; its film base is clear."

 

In comparing the scans, it seems to me that Rollei R3 gives purer whites than the T-Maxs. I also detected good shadow detail. Again, this may address the issue of Rollei R3 not performing well at ISO 400. I'd be curious to hear others' impressions of the scan test. I was a little surprised to see the word "curl" mentioned, because this simply hasn't been an issue for me (yet).

[ricard_stanisz]

Well, it seems as if the scan test was not as inspirational as I had thought!

 

On another note, the people over at www.foto-r3.com are starting up an image gallery with images taken with Rollei R3 films. If you have achieved something you'd like to share, please post it here or mail it to me, with the details (ISO, f/stop, speed, developer, title of the photo, your name). Thanks.

[jukka_vatanen]

I had posted the original question on the forum and now, after extensive testing the RolleiR3 film, also against Acros 100 and neopan 400 with the recommended Rollei Hi tech developers, my summary is: The rollei R3 is a tremendous tool for a reportage photographer because of the exposure latitude. The low speed 50-100 asa results are not as grain free as Acros 100 with the same developer, but the high speed end is perfectly comparable with Neopan 400 for contrast, density and graininess. I believe this is only possible to achieve with the high tech Rollei developers.

[ricard_stanisz]

Wide latitude, yes, but : effective lattitude?

 

Also the time factor: development times for 50, 100, 200 ISO are never under 20 minutes. Compare that to 7 minutes with TMAX.

 

Can we compare Rollei R3 to TMAX 100 or can we only compare it against other "-pan" films?

 

Should Rollei R3 negatives LOOK like other negatives we are used to?

 

I am hearing complaints of consistently thin negatives. How to deal with this?

[jukka_vatanen]

In my test the look was at first on thin side on the low speed end, but when scanned they were perfectly ok, results were practically same as Acros 100 ( is Acros to be taken as "new" emulsion technology??) I did now a test on Diafine... Terrible! grains as globs, low overall contrast. the original rollei developers strongly recommended.

[ricard_stanisz]

This is an important issue: how is the R3 negative supposed to look? Can someone who has a properly developed negative please upload it?

 

With traditional films (T-MAX, TRI-X), you know when you have a good negative because the negative will be "well-lit".

 

But with R3, this may not be the case -- is this what I am hearing?

 

The "problem" with this film is when you develop following the indications, you get what LOOK to be thin (and greyish) negatives, containing little information.

 

Would someone please elaborate on this?

[john_finch]

I have never used Rollei R3 film but must make a comment about the look of the negatives.

 

No matter what film you use, the negatives should look similar. Yes, the grain may be bigger or smaller, the base colour may be different and the fog values may be different, but these are all _slight_ differences and the basic neg should look the same. If a neg is thin there is a reason for it, be it development or exposure or both but it's wrong - it should not be thin.

 

Scanning B&W silver negatives has always been easier with thin negs. Thin negs means less collimation, less light bouncing around to spoil the quality of the scan. But thin negs for scanning are usually deliberately made by underdevelopment - maybe Rollei specifies times to make negs thin for scanning (they think the darkroom is dead and gone?).

 

So, my point?.... Do a proper test to find your personal development time for the film and developer instead of believing the packaging - and Yes, Acros is probably the most advanced film we have for B&W and probably better than R3 I'm afraid. Fuji know how to make fine film.

 

P.S. I use good ol' FP4+

[ricard_stanisz]

Dear John,

 

Thanks for your commonsensical answer and approach. I have used TRI-X with great success and have gotten excellent results. With the Rollei R3 film this has not been the case.

 

Your suggestion of forgetting the recommended developing times and doing one's own testing may be the route I'll have to take. But when you say "proper testing" -- what does this mean? If it involves the Zone System, then I'm lost...If not, perhaps you can explain a method to arrive at good development times.

[john_finch]

I give a full detailed technique for film/developer testing in my book but the simplest way, and staying away from the zone system, is to develop to get printable negatives with a full range of tones from deep black to white on grade 3 (35mm) or 2(120. If your negs are thin then develop 10% longer and see if they print on the right grade nicely... if they are too thick, reduce the development time by 10% and try again.

 

You will probbaly be best finding a nice average scene with fair contrast, sun behind you etc etc. Measure the shadows with your meter and close down two stops from that measurement. Now run the whole film off on this scene. Tripod, and no changes to anything.

 

Next, in the darkroon pull the first 6 inches off and develop... check negs, try print on correct grade... decide if they are too flat or two contrasty.. Now pull off next 6 inches and develop again with the appropriate change in dev time.. check which grade they print on.. and so on. You will find a good development time this way.. not the best.. but a good one.

 

Hope this helps :)

[jukka_vatanen]

Jukka again: I suggest you get accustomed to Rollei R3 special features: there are three very thin emulsions based on traditional cubic chrystals, but with three diffrent sensitivity and also the three layers reacting differently to the specified developers. If you use R3 like "normal" film with traditional developers like D-76 you will lose all the special features of the film and also get very flat and grainy results Pls visit the MACO website: www.mahn.net or Rollei website to learn the special features. It will help you get past that frustration of most first time users experience: Funny look of the special film base together with seemingly underexposed results.

[ricard_stanisz]

Dear Jukka,

 

Beyond the "technical specs", there is no information either on MACO or ROLLEI websites. That is the problem. We need more information. Clear information.

 

The technical specs are a very matter-of-fact, to-the-point description -- and there is nothing more. We are using the dedicated Rollei chemistry and following suggested development times and therefore expect good results. But our questions remain. To say this film has "special features" is NOT enough. It must perform. And perform very well as it is marketed as a high-end film. Development times should be given to bring out the film's "special features".

 

Sounds like you are getting good results : I assume you are following the technical specs and nothing but the technical specs?

[jukka_vatanen]

Dear Rickhard: I have "technical specs" , a 22 page full documentation on Rollei R3 film, its design philosophy, characteristics, usage recommendations about prewet, development in different developers, further info on stop bath, fix, washing, wetting agent , even on how to make test exposure strips. I guess the link was from MACO site. I also have a wonderful book " Schroeders Negativ Praxis, a 140 page book on the new developments in BW technology (including the Rollei R3). Reading this book finally put me on the new path on exploring the new technologies available.

It is NOT on "finding a new developer" or"coming up with new dvelopment times", but a completely new fresh look on BW imaging.

I guess you can order the book from MACO. ISBN number is 3-00-010072-5

[john_finch]

I would not believe Rollei's development times any more than I would believe Kodak's or Ilford's. We all know that these times vary from person to person, water source to water source, agitation foible to agitation foible, thermometer to thermometer. It does not matter which developer you choose to use, Rollei's own, generic D-76, or any other for that matter, development time testing is an absolute must for _any_ film developer combination if you wish to get optimum results. Rollei have released some dev times for their film and their developer but they are guide lines to get you started. They know that we are all different and that we use their times to start and go from there. So I stand by my answer that you must find your own times, to match your own technique and equipment, to get the best from the film.

[jukka_vatanen]

Hi everybody: I am a bit further on the road to "new stuff". I hope to load soon samples of my experiments with Rollei R3: I shot some 6x9 rollei with my Mamiya Press. A few nature scenes with 64-100 asa foreground and without moving the camera on tripod high speed skies on the same scene at 800 asa and red filter. The dark grainy sky is great with super sharp nature foreground full of details. I combined these images in photoshop. I will include this stuff in my forthcoming expo "GRAINY DAYS". Pls check my present work on: www.jukkavatanen.com

[ricard_stanisz]

Jukka -- "Grainy Days", I like the title a lot. Good stuff. I look forward to seeing your samples.

 

Some very good results were had with Rollei LS at 25 minutes and 200 ISO (24?). (I remember R. Vonk saying 200 is already beyond the threshold of the LS developer, but it certainly seems to be effective at that speed in this case.) Good looking negatives and sharp. We are finally getting there!

[jukka_vatanen]

Hello to anybody reading this old thread: Three years has passed, It`s now 2008 ! In the meantime the orginal MACO importer for Finland quit, and I took the MACO/ROLLEI business over, formed professional lab for B&W work: www.123Prolab.com I am fully occupied doing work with Maco / Rollei products either to clients or my own projects. If I were raving about the R3 , I should "rip my pants" about the Rollei Retro baryta papers and the new ATP 1.1 Art film. BW photos are really into NEW HORIZONS ! Jukka

[sasho1]

<p>Hi everyone!<br>

I have red all R3 related posts here and I think I'm in a greater mess now :-)<br>

My question is: I have one 120mm roll of Rollei R3, shot at iso 100. I have limited accesses to developers here in Macedonia. I can use Rodinal, Perceptol, Microphen or ID 11, I also have some old pack of Orwo a49. Which one (or none?) to use ? and how (developing and agitation time)?<br>

thank you<br>

ps.pls be specific :_)</p>

[jukka_vatanen]

<p>hello<br>

A couple years has again passed, and the Rollei R3 is discontinued. The best bet for asa 100 development using RODINAL would be to do the "stand development" 1:100 dilution ( 10cc rodinal to one litre water)<br>

Agitate for a minute and then LET THE DEVELOPER AND FILM STAND UNTOUCHED for an hour. normal rinse & fix and you will have the best negatives with a very nice tonal values. Pls comment on your results !</p>

[Fotohuis RoVo]

<p>Yes, discontinued while some parts of this film were made at Forte who also went out of business.<br>

R3 shot at 100 will be perfect for a CG-512/RLS development however you have an Ilford fine grain developer available (Perceptol) so I should use this one.<br>

Alternative maybe the Rodinal stand development however I was never impressed of R3 and Rodinal.</p>

 

[sasho1]

<p>Thank you both.<br>

Robert, please, can you tell me do you recommend standard high speed process with (Perceptol) or ..?<br>

THANK YOU. sure I'll comment the results</p>