Patrick
Unfortunately, I had a bit of a disaster a few weeks ago: I wanted to develop two rolls of Rollei 400s film
@400ISO using Xtol 1:2, followed the published times (17 mins
@20gradC), and the films came out of the tank virtually blank: the start of the film was light grey, no numbers or film markings on the edge, and the images are only just visible if you look at the film at an angle – so probably beyond saving...
I can’t explain what went wrong, so I wanted to ask if anything similar has ever happened to you, and how one can avoid such a thing. Of course, I can’t rule out the possibility that stop bath or fixer somehow came into contact with the developer – but that’s never happened to me in over 20 years of photography and thousands of films developed, so I’d be surprised... It shouldn’t be down to the developer: on the same day, I developed Adox CHS100 before the Rolleis without any problems, and Ilford Delta3200 films after the Rolleis, and everything went very well (Xtol ‘sudden death’ etc., if such a thing even exists, seems to be ruled out). I would also rule out problems with the camera, as the image is very faint, the markings are not visible, and the start of the film is just light grey.
The day before, I developed Rollei 400s
@200ISO in Rollei RLS developer, and the films came out perfectly. I just wanted to try this film at 400 ISO as well...
I’ve noticed from other forums that similar things have happened to other photographers (e.g. here:
http://www.nikon-fotografie.de/vbulletin/technik-und-tipps-im-labor/119241-rollei-retro-400s-in-xtol.html, or here with D76
http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157623871989793/?search=rollei+400s+development)
Could it be that this film reacts less well with some developers and works better with others? For example, I’ve noticed that during development, the solution turns a strong yellow colour due to the dissolution of the anti-halation layer – should I pre-rinse this film, for instance?
I’d appreciate hearing about your experiences and any tips you might have!
All the best, Patrick.
ThomasPauly
(1) How old was the solution? Ascorbic acid-based developers are generally prone to sudden death syndrome; however, a practical shelf life can be achieved by using suitable preservatives. Kodak states a shelf life of six months for the Xtol solution in its data sheet. However, the product description for Foma’s Xtol clone, Excel, in the FOTOIMPEX shop states only four weeks. Although both developers are interchangeable in terms of their development parameters, there are apparently significant differences in terms of shelf life.
(2) I have no evidence to support the assumption that Rollei 400S cannot be used with certain developers. My experience relates to D-76 and Perceptol (as a single-use developer in a 1+1 dilution) as well as Diafine. In all cases, the results were flawless. In my experience, the dissolved AHU emulsion had no effect on the result, even after around 20 films had been developed in the same batch of Diafine.
(3) I once observed a total failure with a positive developer (Fomatol PW). However, I had stored the packet, which was nearing its printed expiry date, in the freezer for several months. After thawing (note: the powder in its original sachets) and preparing the solution, the developer was completely ineffective. I have no explanation for this, but I have learnt from it that even powder is not infinitely robust and that storage conditions can be critical. This influencing factor should therefore also be considered as a possible cause of damage in the Xtol case described above.
Regards
tepe
Patrick
Hello Tepe, Thank you very much for your detailed reply. The solution was only a week old, and after the Rollei 400s films failed to develop, it worked perfectly with the Ilford Delta 3200 – I developed those in exactly the same way, at a 1:2 dilution from the same stock solution... So it can hardly be down to the Xtol solution.
bernhardmangelsgmxde
Have a look here:
http://www.aphog.de/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15752
http://www.hobbyphoto-forum.de/t8458f2-Rollei-Superpan-gt-kein-Bild.html
The Superpan and RR400s seem to be quite similar. (In any case, they seem to share this special effect ;-))
piu58
> Superpan and RR400s are probably quite similar
That’s an understatement. They’re identical. The 400 sells better than the 200. Its actual speed is 100 ISO, yet it’s a good film, with quite fine grain, and highly sensitive to red.
It’s an aerial photography film that’s been adapted for general use. Films like this need to be developed with a steeper curve; aerial shots are always flat: developed with high contrast, it can even achieve 200 ISO.
For standard photographic applications, you have to be careful that the film doesn’t steepen too much and the highlights get blown out. The film works well with A49, as does Retro 80 (actual sensitivity around 40 ISO), incidentally.
bernhardmangelsgmxde
> Superpan and RR400s are probably quite similar
That’s an understatement. They’re identical. The 400 sells better than the 200. Actual speed is 100 ISO, but it’s still a good film: with quite fine grain and highly sensitive to red.
Actually, the RR 400s is supposed to be identical to the Rollei IR 400s (both use the Agfa Avipan 400s spec sheet), whilst the Superpan 200 is, as far as I know, supposed to correspond to the Avipan 200. To sell a 100 film, which you can barely push to 250, as a 400 film (which you should also be able to push by one stop), would be rather cheeky... no matter how good the film might be during exposure at 100...
piu58
> To sell it as a 400... would be a bit cheeky...
But that’s how it is. I’m sure something different used to be produced under that label years ago. Now the films are identical. I’ve got both versions here.
Strictly speaking, it ‘only’ says 400 in the name; there’s no claim that it ‘has’ 400 ASA. To make that claim, the film would have to be tested against the standard, which I’m sure no one has done for a film that has a completely different primary purpose.
> which you can barely manage to get down to 250
250 isn’t possible. Speed is always about shadow detail. With low-contrast subjects and pushed development, I can underexpose any film and still get decent results. But that doesn’t mean it actually has that speed. What matters is what’s still there at 3 stops of underexposure and what’s there at 4 stops (as a practical test, not a formal test à la DIN).
bernhardmangelsgmxde
I was just having a browse, and a certain Mr Schröder mentioned in the aphog that Rollei IR400 and Superpan 200 have identical development times... so three names for one film. I’m sure they have their reasons. (I don’t even want to know what they are.)
piu58
Superpan=Universal 200 – or whatever else it’s called – has excellent IR speed. With a 720 filter, you can achieve overexposure by 3–4 stops and get good results: deep sky colours, a Wood effect (though not extreme, i.e. not snow-white), and water that appears almost black. The same applies to the Retro 80s, by the way.
Wolf_XL
...the never-ending story...
I suspect that the developing water plays a part in these effects.
In any case, my experience with Superpan 200 is that, when following the instructions on the package, you get perfect results with some developers but not with others. In any case, I have not yet managed to obtain anything even remotely usable from Superpan using Rollei RHS – despite Mr Schröder’s efforts, the problem could not be resolved. With SLD, D-76, A49 and Märsch Tanol Speed, on the other hand, I achieved flawless results straight away. With the parameters determined by Uwe in Rodinal and at 16°C, however, the results were almost unprintable...
Conclusion:
If the film causes major difficulties with a particular developer right from the start, you should switch to a different developer straight away... Or – to rule out all eventualities – prepare the developer solution using demineralised water...
piu58
> getting anything even remotely usable from Superpan with the Rollei RHS
You have to be careful with the RHS. There are two versions: one with ‘DC’ and one without. DC stands for double concentrate. All the development times circulating online must be used for the double dilution.
Wolf_XL
,,,that can’t be it – because then I would have ended up with negatives that were too dense. In any case, my negatives were far too light. The developer wasn’t off either, as other films were developed perfectly. The only explanation I can think of is that my tap water is affecting a component in the developer which has no effect on one film but causes another film to develop incorrectly...
In any case, I no longer have any problems with A49 or D-76.
I don’t use Spur SLD because of the lower sensitivity utilisation, and with Tanol Speed, the stain is too pronounced for my liking.
ChristianKolinski
Since the OP isn’t the only one with this problem, it’s quite possible that the time stated in the data sheet is incorrect. There could be various reasons for this – errors in the test series (dilution, time, temperature), or simply a mistake when transcribing the data into the sheet. A slip-up in the notes in the column, a typo, etc.
It happens even to the big names like Kodak from time to time. That’s why you should never carry out your first development tests with a new film or developer on important shots.
Best regards,
Christian
Olivinyl
Hello everyone
I also use this film as AGFA ASP 400S. I haven’t had any problems with the development.
My development times:
Developed in Xtol 1+1 at 20°C for 14 minutes (400 ASA)
Developed in Xtol 1+2 at 20°C for 15 minutes 30 seconds (400 ASA)
Xtol 1+2 at 20°C, developed for 12 minutes 30 seconds (200 ISO)
Adonal/Rodinal used for stand development only.
Adonal 1+150 (500ml+3ml) 120 minutes at 18°C, film exposed at 800-1600 ASA. Film exposed at 200-400 ASA for 60 minutes.
Personally, I prefer the results in Adonal.
In Xtol, the film looks very flat.
Best regards, Oliver
