[rollei_list] Re: Rollei Retro 100/Agfa 100 - problems
- From: Mark Rabiner <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:23:06 -0400
> Hi Mark,
>
> thanks for the reply.
>
> On 29. okt.. 2009, at 23.43, Mark Rabiner wrote:
>>
>> It would seem that Rollei Retro 100 is "equivalent in
>> characteristics to
>> Agfa APX 100 B&W film" according to Freestyle.
>> Which means its the same stuff repackaged.
>
> Rollei Retro is indeed Agfa 100. I specifically searched it out after
> Agfa went bankrupt and bought 100 rolls. I prefer the scale it offers
> over the other films I've tried.
>
>> Agfa black and white films I've always found quite a interesting
>> tangent to
>> take form the mainstream but a major issue being the
>> phantasmagorically long
>> development times. Much longer than Agfa admits on their little data
>> stubs.
>> And longer than Rodinal suggests on theirs.
>
> That's very interesting data. The guy at the lab might be relying too
> hard on his charts, instead of actually seeing what's up with the
> film....
>
> First he told me 5 minutes for Tri-X, and 4:30 for Rollei/Agfa. Later
> (after he went and checked) he said 4 minutes for the Rollei/Agfa (in
> an automated JOBO at 24C). Obviously 4 minutes is too short. But 15-20
> minutes? They're going to charge me for push processing at those
> times! Besides, I've received many rolls that were developed just
> fine. For some reason it's the last few batches I've sent, where the
> Tri-X (I use for 400 ISO) is fine, but the Rollei/Agfa is very thin.
>
> Do you think raising the temperature (but staying at around 5 min)
> would work ok?
>
> I'll have another talk with the guy at the lab in the morning.
>
>> So we have to be able to be in the mood to do this it seems
>> unusual.. Stand
>> there in your darkroom over a development tank for 15 or 20 minutes.
>> Do that and you'll get proper densities and you'll see exposure was
>> not the
>> problem. Don't do it and you get such thin negs you'll not know
>> what's going
>> on.
>
> Sounds like what you're describing. Weird that it just started
> recently, I've been using the same film for years. The guy at the lab
> started there a year ago, I think.
>
>> I suggest sticking with Ilford and Neopan and even Kodak black and
>> white
>> films. I hear Kodak has gotten the pink issue out.
>
> I never cared for Ilford or Fuji B&W films, Kodak Tri-X is beautiful
> and gritty, but that's not always what I'm after. Agfa 100/Rollei
> Retro has a beautiful tonality to it. If need be I might have to set
> up my own processing. Anyone have a Jobo for sale? Needs to be at
> least semi automatic, no time to stand over the sink in a darkened
> room these days....
>
>> Mark William Rabiner
>
> Cheers,
> Thor
>
If your lab guy is talking about 5 minutes development times for anything
you're going to the wrong lab - that's too short.
I see he's talking about 4. Wow!
These times are way short for consistent results for film development.
When for some god forsaken reason a time seems to be that short we dilute
more to make for a more workable time; for better consistency and a smoother
look. Seems to me he's giving your negs not intermittent agitation but
continuous. I'd get a lab in which that's not the case. Better yet do it
yourself.
My last developer of choice was Xtol 1:3
The last years I shot black and white it was Ilford Xp2 which gets run in
C41 a processs which gets done right in non professional labs.
Mark William Rabiner
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
