bndctcvl
Hello,
What exactly are the downsides of the R3?
I had a look at the description in the FOTOIMPEX catalogue, and
the specifications sound promising:
- exposure 25–6400 ISO
- the option of slide processing (I found this out on the forum)
Is this an all-purpose film or is the performance too poor?
Where can I find the development specifications?
Thanks,
Bene
Gast
Well,
the downsides are easy to list: the film doesn’t quite match the results of the specialist materials, it costs two to three times as much as a standard film, or you could just buy five of Mirko’s cheapest films instead.
And very importantly, each speed has its own developer and development time, so you can’t say after ten shots, ‘No, I need 33 DIN after all, not 15’, unless you cut the film up.
Why buy it, if at all, just because it’s a GERMAN (???) film that also says ROLLEI (!!!) on it, but otherwise?
Roland
PS: The last sentence was meant to be a bit of humour, nothing more and nothing less.
Gast
Hi Bene
"What exactly are the downsides of the R3?"
The downsides are at 25, 50, 100, 400, 800, 1600, 3200 and 6400 ISO.
What I mean is: in my opinion, there’s a better alternative for every sensitivity range.
It’s quite usable between 320 and 800 ISO, but any 400-series film can manage that too.
Regards,
Elmar
mau
It’s a bit of a tricky business with the developer specifications; as the film is expensive, it’s usually bought by people who aren’t too fussy about the price and simply buy the right chemistry at the same time.
‘Suitable’ here simply means that the development times have already been tested. All other developers work as well, but you just have to experiment a bit until you get it right.
I still think this film is brilliant, as it’s sensitive right into the IR range as well as being suitable for slides. I’ve given it a go – if you start with an IR sensitivity of around 7–10 DIN, it works well. Better than the Ilford SFX.
It would, of course, be nice if the manufacturer could offer a substantial discount. But other (speciality) films, such as Skala or Kodak HSIR, aren’t exactly cheap either. Furthermore, this film is coated on archival-quality polyester, whereas other, equally expensive films are still coated on acetate base.
rherz
Hi Bene,
So I had the Cube 400 C (= Rollei R3) as 4x5" sheet film. At ISO 400, it was significantly grainier than an HP5+. I couldn’t elicit any IR speed from it using a 715 nm filter, neither at ISO 12 nor at ISO 6 (and that was during the best time for IR photography in spring, with fresh green foliage and in the late afternoon). The base is quite a pain; in other words, it wouldn’t fit into the Jobo flat film spool and was difficult to load into the cassettes – it was probably cut a bit too short.
As long as I can get the HP5+ in 4x5", I’ll probably stick with that.
Best regards,
Robert
Gast
Hi Bene,
The R3 has only one real drawback: it’s more expensive than other films. However, the advantages outweigh this. I’ve been using the R3 ever since it first came out as the Cube 400c – back when it still had a blue backing that tended to curl, etc. I mainly process the R3 in the 50 to 3200 ASA range and use my standard developers R09 and Promicrol, as well as the LP Partner Cube SX developer for the very low ASA values.
In other words, the R3 is flexible in every respect, is durable and has beautiful tonal values, but is somewhat more demanding to handle than other films, i.e. you may need to do a bit more ‘testing’ until everything is just right. The effort is well worth it, though. Incidentally, I develop the R3, like all my films, using the rotary method at 24 degrees.
Size
Lothar
Gast
Hello,
Just a quick note/addendum regarding Robert and the Königkeit. If the Cube 400c really was coarser-grained than the HP5+ (the same applies to the R3), then you’ve most likely made one of the typical “Cube 400/R3” mistakes: the ratio of development time to exposure time wasn’t correct. In other words, you certainly exposed it for too short a time. Incidentally, this point is made very clear in the technical instructions for the R3. Here, by the way, lies another disadvantage of the R3: if you expose or develop it incorrectly, the results are much more drastic and worse than those seen with other films that have been exposed or developed incorrectly.
You really should take the R3 technical instructions seriously and follow them to the letter; otherwise, you’ll be sorely disappointed. However, this has nothing to do with the film’s capabilities, but solely with the mistakes you’ve made yourself!
Incidentally, only the blue Cube 400c rolls (roll film) and is bumpy; the clear R3 (roll film) lies flat as a board and causes no problems whatsoever.
The clear 4 x 5 sheet films were and are (Cube 400c = R3) identical in terms of their backing. Incidentally, I have no more or fewer problems loading the cassettes than with any other sheet film. The same applies to loading the Jobo spiral, and I’ve already used up quite a few packs of sheet film.
Regards
Lothar
cfb_de
Hello Lothar,
Please allow me to express some scepticism regarding certain suppliers.
When I find *this* here:
> We currently still have around 48,000 metres of original Ilford HP5+, which
> MACO – for whatever reason – can process.
in my inbox on 1 September 2004, shortly after Ilford’s insolvency, along with
> If the Ilford HP5+ is truly identical to the Maco UP400plus, then
> I would be interested in your price for 40 sheets of 13x18 sheet film. That
> would mean, given current stock levels, a further
> of this material for the next two years.
> Please note that I am not a commercial customer and please
> quote me a price including VAT.
On 2 September 2004, I replied as written above and then, shortly afterwards on 2 September 2004, received the following reply:
> I cannot expect you to be familiar with the MACO product range.
> MACO sourced the HP5plus exclusively as 35mm and then processed it themselves.
> For sheet films, we offer a great alternative with the new Rollei R3.
... Then I have absolutely no confidence in this company. Promising the moon (“packaged however you like”) and then, when asked for specific “however you like” measures, at least giving in to KB... Nice. But not exactly confidence-inspiring.
Well, well. All that may well have changed since the Rollei R is now manufactured entirely in Germany... er... packaged in Europe... I’m curious to see where the KB films will be assembled in future. Tura is, after all, out of the picture. And the fact that Leverkusen is now outside Germany in a new EU member state should be clear to everyone since the last Fine Art Forum and the subsequent nationwide press coverage. Unfortunately, the L6 doesn’t know about this yet.
Apparently, the motto for the future is: “Roll through the EU”. Nice idea. But pay German prices for it? Of course. Most of it stays here, after all. But in Samobor, they don’t see much of it.
Hurrah for Germany, greetings to Belgium and Stapelfeld,
Franz
Gast
Hello Franz,
I don’t know what issues you’re having with Mahn, Maco, Schröer and others, but these communication problems have nothing to do with the film stock: either the stock is good and suitable—or even ideal—for my purposes, or it isn’t. In the latter case, I simply won’t buy it. A lot is said in this and other countries, including by other manufacturers and distributors. And quite a few producers and distributors interpret their information very liberally and even contradictorily. Just take a look at the electronics or automotive industries – who has what produced where, and which parts are shipped where and where they are assembled!
You see, as complex as that previous convoluted, confusing sentence is, that’s just how it is with goods these days. There are no longer any ‘national’ (Made in ?) products, if you leave out genuine small-scale manufacturers or businesses! One may regret or welcome this; for me, the only things that count are the quality and the conditions under which the product is manufactured. But that would be a different topic and not “photo-specific”.
But to come back to your apparent “main friend”: Maco also has its products “manufactured” by Agfa. As far as I know, Maco will soon be “manufacturing”/distributing Agfa’s APX 100 and 400 films, albeit under a special Maco label.
Yes, that’s just how it is. And by the way, perhaps Maco will indeed, in perhaps not too long a time, be the last “manufacturer” of black-and-white films (wherever Maco gets its films from and/or has them manufactured), and then perhaps some people who enjoy shooting in black and white will be glad that they can still get black-and-white films at all, even if it is “multi-cultural”.
Oh, and by the way, I’m not a Maco PR man; I use other films as well.
Best regards,
Lothar
fotohuisrovo
Some information about MACO:
In Croatia, too, MACO has had special films manufactured since 1995 at a former Fotokemika/Du Pont film factory in Samobor (not Zagreb), which were produced exclusively for MACO. These included, amongst others, orthochromatic and (from 1998) infrared films.
The MACO UP 100plus was ‘identical in construction’ to the Efkepan 100, but extremely selective, meaning it was specially controlled, tested and selected for MACO. Only top-grade quality was used for MACO. Later, the Efkepan 25 was added, which was also specially selected and manufactured for MACO.
The MACO UP 400 is produced by ILFORD. It is not simply another HP5plus, but is based on a special, more transparent base material.
This was never a secret; at least, MACO never made a secret of it.
For many years, however, research and development – and above all quality control – have been carried out in collaboration with laboratories in Germany. This work has focused primarily on
extremely high-quality, primarily scientific applications, such as astrophotography, electron microscopy, aerial photography, and traffic and bank surveillance. In addition, there are other specialist areas which I do not wish to elaborate on further here. It is also public knowledge on the internet that MACO was involved with X-rays even before it dealt with photography. This involves special films for non-destructive material testing, amongst other things.
For some time now, MACO has been working more closely with AGFA. This was made public in February 2005 through advertisements in the German photographic trade press. AGFA is a group that is primarily capable of large-scale production, but its capabilities in further processing, e.g. into roll films, are lacking. Nor can retail distribution be the domain of a ‘giant’.
Consequently, both companies have agreed a strategic alliance in which MACO commissions AGFA with the large-scale production of specialised products and then has them processed, e.g. into roll films, by other photographic manufacturers.
This was never kept a secret; further details can be found in the technical instructions for Rollei R Film www.rollei.com
German companies and several major partners in Europe (including Forte) are working together.
MACO organises, finances and is responsible for, amongst other things, distribution.
ROLLEI oversees and provides the global business relationships that have been tried and tested over decades.
AGFA produces and oversees.
FORTE and other suitable specialists are responsible for final packaging.
ALL new ROLLEI films are produced in Germany; no film bearing the ROLLEI label comes from a production facility outside Germany.
I think for further questions you would be better off contacting Maco in Stapelfeld directly.
R3: We have achieved good results with the R3 film in the ISO 50 to ISO 1000 range. Whether the price is worth it for a multispec film is another matter. Similar results can also be achieved with Pan F, FP4+ and HP5+, but not across the full range from ISO 50 to ISO 1000. Processing in the black-and-white range is, of course, a matter of personal preference.
Best regards,
Robert
cfb_de
Hello Lothar,
I just have a bit of a problem with suppliers who make misleading claims.
For instance, they claimed that the Rü could handle everything in the 25–3200 ISO range and was made entirely in Germany.
Having tested this material, I can only say that this film is in no way superior to comparable products. I won’t put a film in my camera that I like less at 50 ISO, clearly like less at 400 ISO, and clearly like less at 1600 ISO. Based on my experience with 1600 ISO exposure, I didn’t dare try 3200. (And the celebratory images in ‘Photographie’ were, after all, rather borderline.)
There’s an awful lot of marketing hype surrounding this film, which unfortunately isn’t reflected in the product itself. For 50 ISO, an Efke is better; for 400, a TMax is far superior; for 1600 ISO push, an old HP5+ is the way to go. Since you can’t freely choose between exposure sensitivities on the Rü either, and this Rü therefore offers nothing better at almost triple the price, I don’t think much of this film. Incidentally, in each of these individual disciplines, even when developed as recommended, it is clearly inferior to any of the films mentioned above when developed as recommended.
That is why I am annoyed by this political babble from the marketing brigades in Stapelfeld. The first campaign leaflet had already made this clear: ‘Entirely manufactured in Germany’ (a claim from the ‘specifications’) was effectively scrapped under pressure from users (who, surprisingly enough, know exactly who assembles the film in Germany) and reworded as ‘nevertheless, they rightly bear the “Made in Germany” label’. The roll films are assembled somewhere in Europe in a town that formerly belonged to the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. Now that Tura has closed its doors, the location of the 35mm assembly would be interesting. The production of black-and-white film in Germany at Agfaphoto is another very interesting story.
It may well be that Agfaphoto, in their desperation, are repackaging APX and selling it under a different brand. It may well be that Agfaphoto, in their desperation, are replacing Tura with another supplier so they can still sell the paper (which, incidentally, hasn’t come from Germany for a long time; as for the films, with casting every six months, the situation is borderline before insolvency).
I simply don’t like film repackagers who also try to take me for a fool. That’s why I’d rather buy Mirko Efke/ADOX-50 and not pay more money in Stapelfeld for another – identical – film. Even though, as a dutiful Beetle, I’ve unfortunately fallen victim to Stapelfeld’s pipe dreams and now have to make do with PET.
But taking part in the rip-off of name-obsessed customers? Not me. I’d rather buy quality from Efke/Ilford/Kodak. And get more quality there for less money. Efke in particular is a lovely example of this: all the talk about “who will still be supplying in the future?”, and the supposedly all-healing “manufacturer” has its films cut from the green roll there too.
Naturally, “subject to special quality control”. Without a doubt.
It took four people and two weeks before we knew where the film is made, how it’s packaged, and where the roll films come from. Once we knew the origin of the roll films, it was also clear why the plastic tins (justifiably, from personal experience) are provided to go with them.
Nowadays, it takes a proper bit of internet research to find out which company has their film repackaged or commissioned where. Life is getting easier, advertising increasingly harder :-) Keywords: Croatia, China, Europe, Berlin (? That’s supposedly where the Rü caster is from).
Best regards,
Franz
Gast
Franz,
In principle, I agree with you, but I think it’s good that Maco exists, because they’re the only ones whose products you can occasionally find in a well-stocked camera shop.
Otherwise, it looks like this: if Agfa, Kodak, Fuji and Ilford were to disappear because their ‘giant’ machines don’t produce small batches, then I doubt that ‘Foto Kunze’ at the station would go to Foma, Efke, Svema, Lucky, Forte or Tasma on its own to order the 50 black-and-white films that are still sold each year.
Firstly, I sometimes forget to pack film; secondly, curious little Fritz might discover his grandad’s camera and want to grab a black-and-white film quickly – if that’s only possible online, he might not buy the film.
Roland
Gast
Hi everyone,
I always find it interesting how emotional the discussions about individual manufacturers’ marketing strategies can get.
The fact that Maco takes a more ‘professional’ or ‘industrial’ approach to marketing than, say, Mirko, whose concept relies more on family/insiders and word-of-mouth, is purely a matter of taste for me and has absolutely no bearing on my assessment of the products.
Maco’s approach, for example, whilst similar in concept, doesn’t come anywhere near (and is probably also inappropriate) the strategic impact of Kodak (see BW CN, which was also supposed to be the jack-of-all-trades).
I still recall with amusement how, about three years ago, people in almost every forum were looking for alternatives to the ‘Yellow Giant’ products tainted by the Iraq War.
And likewise, forum posts keep cropping up where people feel the need (probably to themselves) to explain that, at that price, effkes or Fortes can only be rubbish.
Apparently, the only way to get off relatively scot-free is by playing the sympathy card over long periods of decline, as with Ilford or Agfa.
On the specific issue (if indeed there is one):
The R3 is not only (or not primarily?) marketed by Maco, but also by Rollei. That in itself makes a difference to its market presence.
The isolated attempts by Maco employees posing as forum users to pass off Maco advertising copy as the experiences of neutral users in forums have, to my knowledge, not occurred again due to the extremely negative reaction. (Though there were isolated instances of this back in the day with Gigabitfilm).
All in all, it’s certainly nice to be able to ring product management directly (if not the emulsion supervisor) when there are issues with the product and receive reasonably competent advice. (This is in no way meant to detract from Mirko’s commitment). (I know I’m still awaiting a result regarding my 820IR issues, for which I was immediately!! a test pack of 4x5!! was sent to me).
A film that ‘can do everything’ doesn’t even make it into my testing anyway, as I, like some of you, have a tailored solution for (almost) every problem.
In the hope of keeping this now completely irrelevant thread alive for a while longer,
Regards
Martin
Gast
My experience with the R3 was similar to that of the previous speakers. Having been intrigued by the effusive press reviews, I tested it at various speeds using the developers specified for each, and whilst I wasn’t disappointed afterwards, I wasn’t exactly thrilled either:
At 50 ISO, for example, I prefer the Efke; at 100 ISO, the Acros; at 400, the Neopan 400; and at 1600, the Neopan 1600. And when developed as black-and-white slides, the R3 can’t beat the Scala either.
So why spend a lot of money on an R3? Because it’s an all-rounder and I wouldn’t have to lug around different types of film anymore? But let’s be honest, in most cases the all-round qualities of a 400 film are already enough. Because its base is supposed to be so archival that it will preserve my photographic work for posterity for centuries? Oh, come on...
Regards
Fred
FrankJBeckmann
Hi Robert,
How come someone else has posted a message on a different topic in the neighbouring forum that’s identical to yours here (apart from the greetings)? Has someone stolen your text from here? You read that forum too, so I’d suggest you complain there.
Bye
Frank
RomanJRohleder
Frank,
Given the circumstances: *whistles* ;-)
Roman
cfb_de
Guys,
buy this stuff from those door-to-door salespeople *now*. Prices are set to change from September.
The nice thing, though, is that from September there’ll be a disposable camera with black-and-white ‘retro’ film. 24 shots for just over €10.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t say which major distributor will be handling it. And people who develop their own film are unlikely to be a big enough target market.
I’m curious to see when the disposable camera will also feature the “Rollei” logo; that’s set to happen with other films soon.
Somehow, today’s Brunsviga can hardly live up to its former glory. I really must save up for a brand-new Flex to help avoid future missteps.
Best regards,
Franz
fotohuisrovo
I think it would be best to contact Maco in Stapelfeld directly if you have any further questions.
That’s right, our information was provided by Maco at the time to clarify the packaging of Maco products.
It is no secret that Maco in Stapelfeld does not manufacture the products itself, but has them manufactured across Europe, including in Germany.
Ultimately, you end up with a final result that you may or may not like.
How a product is positioned in the market is, of course, another matter. There are several manufacturers and suppliers who offer OEM services.
We stock two Maco products for the Dutch market: R3 and I.R. Film, both specialist films for which there is really no alternative here.
Best regards,
Robert
http://www.FotohuisRoVo.nl
