CPD
Good morning!
€
€
I’ve been looking for a replacement for the APX 25 for a very long time, which is why I’m interested in the Retro 80s.
€
I’ve now ordered 10 rolls of 120. Which developer? I still have D-76, Perceptol, Microphen and some leftover Rodinal lying around.
€
One of the things I find interesting about this film is its extended red sensitivity.€
€
I’m already familiar with Uwe Pilz’s review.
€
Best regards!
€
CP
€
ThomasPauly
After the first development in D-76/ID-11, the Rollei 80S also struck me as rather hard at first glance when I examined the negatives. However, the negatives could be enlarged (using a cold-light enlarger, with a gradient of 2) and scanned without any problems. At most, the shadow detail could, in my opinion, be improved. To achieve this, I would set the speed one or two DIN lower next time. The development time could then be shortened compared to the instructions, which would naturally flatten the gradient and improve suitability for condenser enlargers.
€
Of the other developers mentioned, I have also tried Perceptol, which, in addition to harmonious tonal reproduction, naturally offers excellent enlargement performance, even if a medium- to low-speed roll film does not necessarily call for a fine-grain developer. €
€
I would conduct further trials with developers that improve highlight detail by flattening the characteristic curve in the upper range. This includes CG512/RLS. The development times for this can be found in the data sheet. The Silvermax developer could also be a good choice, although I haven’t yet found any development times for it, so these would need to be determined through experimentation.
€
Incidentally, if you’re looking for a low-speed film and extended red sensitisation isn’t important, I also think the new RPX 25 is excellent. Exposed at nominal sensitivity and developed in D-76 1+1 for 8 minutes at 20 °C following the instructions (Ilford agitation method), it was a complete success on the very first attempt. Top quality, no problems whatsoever.
€
Best regards
€
tepe
CPD
Hello Tepe!
?
Thank you very much for your comments!
?
I often take photographs in the Mediterranean region, where the contrast is correspondingly high: the Ilford Pan F I use is then exposed at ISO 12/12 during development in Perceptol, although the low speed is certainly not just down to my method of measurement.?
?
Isn’t the RPX largely equivalent to the Pan F? I’ve given up searching through threads for rumours! However, I’m only moderately pleased about the RPX, as in my opinion it threatens the ADOX film project! I also need sheet film, and Rollei RPX doesn’t offer that.
?
With the 80s, I’d be particularly tempted by the extended red sensitivity.
?
Best regards!
ThomasPauly
In my opinion, the 80S also visibly outperforms the Pan-F in terms of fine grain. As a film originally designed for aerial photography, it is naturally ideal for landscape photography. The atmospheric haze, which scatters light particularly in the blue spectrum, is less of a factor with the super-panchromatic Agfa S films, which have their maximum sensitivity in the red. In portraits, (predominantly reddish) skin tones are lightened and thus visually suppressed. There is no loss of sensitivity under incandescent light, but one must expose considerably at very high colour temperatures. In this respect, the Agfa/Rollei emulsions are the exact opposite of the Adox/ex-Efke materials.
?
As a 35mm and medium-format user, resolving power and fine grain are certainly important to me. My experiments with Efke date back many years; at the time, however, the Efke (which, like the original ADOX, was still rated at 14 DIN) lagged significantly behind the APX 25 in these two criteria. The charm of the 1950s is expressed not only in the distinctive tonal range, but also in the more mundane technical performance parameters. In that respect, I am certainly pleased that the RPX 25 now once again occupies the 15 DIN class with a high-quality, modern film.
?
A revived ADOX Single-Layer 25, which is, after all, a cult film and thus above petty technocratic considerations, will probably retain a sufficiently large niche market simply because of the GF clientele – provided it actually comes to market.
?
Best regards
?
tepe
CPD
My main concern is that I won’t be able to get the 80s under control when there are high levels of contrast in the image. I’ll be photographing historic architecture and sites within the context of the landscape, sometimes using a longer focal length from opposite hills. The 80s’ ability to cut through haze would therefore be most welcome. The only question is what filter I’ll need. I’m not particularly keen on surreal images. With Pan F, I usually use a medium yellow filter, and often a yellow-green filter, which makes the local vegetation appear slightly brighter.
?
Normally, I would undertake such a project in 4x5-inch large format, using FP4+, which I prefer to TMX 100 or Delta 100. Large format isn’t an option this time, as I’ll have to cover long distances on foot. There’s no other way I can reach some of the locations. My 6x9 Technika will be a heavy enough load. I’m aiming for very large enlargements (60x90 cm) this time, hence the question about the 80s. I also need adjustment options, which is why I’m using the Technika. Otherwise, there would be lighter options!
?
Thanks again for your advice!
?
Ciao!
?
CP
grommi
6x9, high-quality lenses and the 80s – you can enlarge images to square-metre size, provided you take sensible viewing distances into account. In my opinion, you don’t need to use filters at all; the sensitisation ensures excellent differentiation of plant greens without filters, so it never ends up as a grey, monotonous mess like with normal films. You’ll have to decide for yourself, based on test shots, whether you can live with the limited shadow detail under a blue sky. The same goes for which developer suits you best. Rodinal stand development, for example, might be a good option; the standard 30-second Agfa agitation process will quickly blow out the highlights.
ThomasPauly
On the subject of ‘softening highlights’: The old Paterson’s FX-39 instruction manual mentions the option of using the developer at a higher dilution of 1+19 for this purpose. In this case, the development time should be doubled. See the appendix.
€
Best regards
€
tepe
€
CPD
Thanks for the information. Isn't FX-39 a type of Neofin?
CPD
You’ll have to decide for yourself, based on test shots, whether you can live with the limited shadow detail under a blue sky.
?
?
?
?
?
?
But isn’t that a question of exposure? I expose for the shadows anyway using the spot meter. With the appropriate dynamic range, I’ll probably end up with a further reduction in speed and a shorter development time. Around ISO 25/15 should do the trick, but I still need to experiment with that.
?
I’ll be taking two roll film magazines with me anyway (though it makes me shudder to think of the weight! These Linhof Rollex magazines weigh 1400 g each!)
?
However, I’ll have to get a move on, as the expedition starts at the end of July.
?
Best regards!
grommi
€
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="grommi" data-cid="17450" data-time="1401890889">
<div>
You’ll have to decide for yourself, based on test shots, whether you can live with the limited shadow detail under a blue sky.
€
€
€
€
</DIV>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Not only that. The film is simply 1–2 stops less sensitive in the blue spectral range. And outdoors in fine weather, shadows are inevitably illuminated by the blue sky. No matter what type of exposure metering you use, you can’t change that. The only way you could counteract this would be with a blue filter, which is of course nonsensical, because then you might as well just use a ‘normal’ film. A glance at the spectral sensitivity diagram in the datasheet reveals this immediately and clearly ;-)
€
PS: as I said, you’ll only find out whether you like this film with its special characteristics or not once you’ve taken some test shots. I find these Agfa aerial films highly interesting. They are the ‘macho’ types among black-and-white films. The exact opposite are the ortho(pan)chromatic films, which can be incredibly subtle and really emphasise the ‘aerial perspective’.
piu58
RR80 tends to blow out in the highlights when developed in many developers, which is exactly the opposite of what one would expect in this area (shoulder). This makes it difficult to reproduce highlights. This is the film’s main drawback for pictorial photography. It can be managed, but it is a problem.
€
The fine grain is outstanding, as is the sharpness in most developers.
CPD
Thanks for your suggestions! I’ve decided to go with the Pan F+, which I’m familiar with, and use Perceptol 1+3 after all! Everything else seems a bit too complicated to me right now, especially given the limited time I have left for testing.
?
?
Best regards!
