Rollei RPX 25 In 5X4

[steveo]

I've not tried this in LF yet and I mucked up the roll of 120 I put through the RB67 but a new 25 iso in 5x4 looks interesting.

Any one shot any yet?

http://www.macodirect.de/films-blackwhite-films-sheet-films-127cm-rollei-rollei-sheet-film-102x127cm-4x525-sheet-p-3103.html

[Regular Rod]

Ooh thanks for drawing this to my attention...

If only shipping wasn't so expensive from MACO.

RR

[steveo]

Yeah I know, though if you stick some other stuff it's not so bad. I bought a box of FP4 and it came to the same price as local shops once you include the postage but the other stuff I got was effectively free post and quite cheap.

[Arne Croell]

This is interesting, thanks for bringing it up. I have tested the roll film and 35mm versions. RPX 25 is supposedly made by Ilford for MACO, and the roll film and 35mm packagings corroborate that, but it is not a clone or even remotely similar to Pan F plus. I would consider it a specialty film. My tests showed that it is important to not overexpose the film even by a little, since the shoulder is very short and clips abruptly, so highlights will have practically no separation above Zone VIII*. It actually reaches nominal speed or higher quite easily, so the usual approach of reducing the nominal speed by 30-50% for a negative with good separation does not apply here. One should treat this film with caution, similar to a slide film when it comes to exposure and latitude.

I tried it in three developers, Tetenal Neofin blue (higher dilution than normal, 1+32, because that was/is my standard for APX 25 and similar films), XTOL 1+1, and Pyrocat MC. Neofin blue was essentially unusable since the highlights already "clipped" at zone VII. Strange, because the other low speed films I have used, such as APX 25, Rolleipan/Adox Pan 25, and Efke 25/Adox CHS25/Rolleipan 25 (v.2) never did that. XTOL 1+1 (24°C/75F; 30s continuous agitation, then 4 inversions/30s))gave the following results for me, for a Zone I density between 0.1 and 0.15. N-1: EI 32, 6:00min; N: EI40, 6:30min; N+2: EI 50, 8:00min. As one can see, timing is very critical, as is agitation (and temperature, too). Pyrocat MC 1+1+100 (24°C/75F, 30s continuous agitation, then 2 inversions/2min) gave 10:00 min at EI32 for a contrast between N and N+1 - the b/w density measurements are just below N, the blue channel is about N+1.

*that is a curve type I last saw in Tech Pan with special developers like Technidol or Neofin doku

[steveo]

Thanks for the info Arne, that will probably explain how I ended up with 9 black blocks and 1 salvageable image. The light was pretty low when I was testing so probably gave it a little too much "for luck" based on my experience with Pan 25. I think I'll stick with FP4's wide latitude safety blanket for the time being. How did you find the grain compared to older slow emulsions?

[Christopher Barrett]

I've been shooting a fair amount of this in the Hasselblad VERY unscientifically. Walking around Chicago, metering with an app on my iPhone and dropping it at the lab (who develop in Xtol). I haven't missed an exposure yet. An image from another thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?109274-MF-(6x6-6x7-6x9-6x12)-B-amp-W-film-images-sharing&p=1162239&viewfull=1#post1162239

[Arne Croell]

. How did you find the grain compared to older slow emulsions?
Grain is not really my concern in using these films, since in 4x5 or 6x7cm, there is more than enough film real estate. I am interested in using these films mainly because of their different H&D curve (a rather steep density increase in zones II-V, then leveling off) compared to Kodak TMX or TMY-2, which are my main films. And I can't make a direct grain comparison, since for all the other films in this category that I have used (APX 25, Orwopan 25, Adox Pan 25, Efke 25, Pan F+) I used Neofin blue as developer. That being said, as a purely subjective impression, it appears a tad finer than Adox Pan 25, Efke 25, Pan F+, maybe on par with or larger than the sorely missed APX 25 (I still have a few rolls of that in the freezer). Document films with special developers like the old Tech Pan or Adox CMS II have finer grain.

[steveo]

I've been shooting a fair amount of this in the Hasselblad VERY unscientifically. Walking around Chicago, metering with an app on my iPhone and dropping it at the lab (who develop in Xtol). I haven't missed an exposure yet. An image from another thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?109274-MF-(6x6-6x7-6x9-6x12)-B-amp-W-film-images-sharing&p=1162239&viewfull=1#post1162239

You're not the first person to tell me they had no problems with it, I'm not sure how I blew an entire roll tbh it was clearly over exposed I just don't know how I managed it.


Grain is not really my concern in using these films, since in 4x5 or 6x7cm, there is more than enough film real estate. I am interested in using these films mainly because of their different H&D curve (a rather steep density increase in zones II-V, then leveling off) compared to Kodak TMX or TMY-2, which are my main films. And I can't make a direct grain comparison, since for all the other films in this category that I have used (APX 25, Orwopan 25, Adox Pan 25, Efke 25, Pan F+) I used Neofin blue as developer. That being said, as a purely subjective impression, it appears a tad finer than Adox Pan 25, Efke 25, Pan F+, maybe on par with or larger than the sorely missed APX 25 (I still have a few rolls of that in the freezer). Document films with special developers like the old Tech Pan or Adox CMS II have finer grain.

I'm happy with subjective when it comes to how grainy a film is, I love the detail I can resolve from the RB with Pan f and Pan 25. I can't say I'm overly concerned in LF but its nice to know.

I'm going to have to shoot the other roll and prove to myself I can manage to get a decent exposure before I buy a box.

[Arne Croell]

I've been shooting a fair amount of this in the Hasselblad VERY unscientifically. Walking around Chicago, metering with an app on my iPhone and dropping it at the lab (who develop in Xtol). I haven't missed an exposure yet. An image from another thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?109274-MF-(6x6-6x7-6x9-6x12)-B-amp-W-film-images-sharing&p=1162239&viewfull=1#post1162239
Nice! What EI did you use? I assume the app is the "Pocket Light Meter"? I have that, too, as a backup and when I compared it to my regular meter, it was at max 1/3rd EV off, which is pretty good. Also, the developer might be quite important - in my tests, the XTOL 1+1 combination was, relatively speaking, the most forgiving one. I assume the lab uses a full strength replenished version of XTOL, which might tame it even more. It appears that the traditional approach for low speed films, using highly dilute developers, may not be the right approach for RPX 25. On the other hand, in some threads on APUG people reported good success with Rodinal 1+50, but I have not tried that combination.

[steveo]

It was Rodinal 1+50 that aided and abetted my nuked film. I was considering 1+200 (?) as I did with ATP next time but perhaps not such a great idea either.

[Arne Croell]

It was Rodinal 1+50 that aided and abetted my nuked film. I was considering 1+200 (?) as I did with ATP next time but perhaps not such a great idea either.
Yes, I would guess it is not likely to get more latitude. I am going out on a limb here, but I guess this may not be a relative of regular slow emulsions like APX 25 or Adox Pan 25. Maco says in the description it is a "thin-section document-emulsion". Normally, the contrast and highlights in document films are "tamed" by special developers, often in high dilution; that was and is the approach with Tech Pan, the old Agfaortho, ATP, Adox CMS. Maybe in this case the emulsion started out as document type, but was then tweaked in some way to tame it to a comparatively normal gradation with standard developers. When we use really dilute developers, we might be doubling up on that, leading to the blocked/suppressed highlights.

PS: I forgot to mention the temperature in the above development times in post #4. It was 24°C/75F.

[Regular Rod]

I use a compensating developer with RPX25 and seem to get quite reasonable highlights. I don't recognise the problem at all. I also use the box speed of 25 ISO.

http://u1.ipernity.com/44/45/73/34124573.3d948cec.1600.jpg

RR

[Arne Croell]

I use a compensating developer with RPX25 and seem to get quite reasonable highlights. I don't recognise the problem at all. I also use the box speed of 25 ISO.

RR
Would you care to tell us the developer? ;-)

[Arne Croell]

To clarify, blocked highlights in this case does not mean that the density is way too high, it means that there is no density difference for more exposure. Here is an example, RPX 25 in XTOL 1+1 at 6:30 min, 24°C/75F, 1st minute continuous agitation, then 4x inversions every minute. The numbers are the densities over fb+f, and are 1 stop apart: 0.01-0.08-0.20-0.38-0.59-0.83-1.04-1.17-1.29-1.37-1.42-1.43-1.45. The 0.08 exposure is about 1/3rd stop below Zone I, so then the 1.29 value is equivalent to Zone VII 2/3 and the 1.37 value Zone VIII 2/3. Above that, there is no more separation. In the end all films do that, and slow speed emulsions do it earlier due to the thinner layers, but usually not that early. With APX 25, there was still some separation in Zone X.

[steveo]

I use a compensating developer with RPX25 and seem to get quite reasonable highlights. I don't recognise the problem at all. I also use the box speed of 25 ISO.

http://u1.ipernity.com/44/45/73/34124573.3d948cec.1600.jpg

RR

Like I said I probably just made a mistake somewhere and massively over exposed it, though I have been saved during similar stupidity by other films with more latitude.

[Arne Croell]

One other tidbit of information: If you go to a minus development, the film reacts only with a further compression of the highlights. Here are the densities for a reduced development, but only by 30s, compared to the previous example, everything else is the same: 0.01-0.08-0.19-0.37-0.63-0.84-1.03-1.15-1.22-1.27-1.32-1.33-1.36. Nominally this would be an N-1 development, since the former Zone VIII 2/3 is now a VII 2/3. However, anything up to Zone VI 2/3 is, within the margin of error, unchanged.

[Arne Croell]

Here is a pictorial example of what happens with some overexposure of RPX 25: The right image was given normal exposure (EI 32) and shows good separation in the grass and elsewhere. However, the shadow area in the alcove behind the statue is essentially an fb+f density, i.e. blank. An exposure of two stops more, the left image, lifts that area to zone II, but now the grass separation is greatly reduced, and this is not even the highest value, which is in the leaves in the upper left. The negative on the left is not by any means overly dark, just flat. So for me, RPX 25 is not a bad film, far from it, but it is a specialty film for low contrast scenes in my book.

(The examples shown were from the scanned negatives, inverted and adjusted in levels, but the negatives themselves tell the same story)

[Regular Rod]

Would you care to tell us the developer? ;-)

For roll film, which I confess the river scene is made on 120 so might not be acceptable on this forum, I use OBSIDIAN AQUA. For sheet film I use 510-PYRO but with belt and braces Zone System so compensation is not that important, (although 510-PYRO makes a very good compensating developer if stand and semi-stand agitation regimes are used).

RR

[Milonian]

It was Rodinal 1+50 that aided and abetted my nuked film. I was considering 1+200 (?) as I did with ATP next time but perhaps not such a great idea either.

I'm new to this site and live in Bonnyrigg so not too far away! Also new to 5x4 and have had terrible problems with HP5 all totally overexposed. But yesterday I got my first 5x4 negative - it's just the back garden so it's not going to go viral - but it feels like the best photo I ever took!
I was thinking about Rollei film and that's how I came by this thread. Haven't got to the end of it but I hope your problems are resolved.

[cuypers1807]

I have some of the 4x5 RPX25. It has to be the thinnest sheet film I have ever used. I doubt it would work in a MOD54. It is so thin, I loaded more than one sheet more than a few times. I am about to develop some I shot recently and I will post results if they are worthy. I use 35 and 120 RPX25 for the DR5 reversal process and it looks incredible through that process.

[Milonian]

I have some of the 4x5 RPX25. It has to be the thinnest sheet film I have ever used. I doubt it would work in a MOD54. It is so thin, I loaded more than one sheet more than a few times. I am about to develop some I shot recently and I will post results if they are worthy. I use 35 and 120 RPX25 for the DR5 reversal process and it looks incredible through that process.
I recently put 4 sheets of HP5 film in my Fidelity Elite double film holder so I would have no chance with even thinner film!

[macolive]

Like I said I probably just made a mistake somewhere and massively over exposed it, though I have been saved during similar stupidity by other films with more latitude.

Steveo, This was RPX25? It looks like Infrared to me so it maybe IR400? Great image by the way.

[AuditorOne]

I rarely get too far afield from using plain old vanilla D76. All my examples are from my Ikoflex Favorit at box speed, but I have had excellent results using Kodak D76.

I will have to contact Maco and have them send me a box in 4x5 (5x4) so I can give it a try. Thanks for the heads up on the large format.

[macolive]

I use a compensating developer with RPX25 and seem to get quite reasonable highlights. I don't recognise the problem at all. I also use the box speed of 25 ISO.

http://u1.ipernity.com/44/45/73/34124573.3d948cec.1600.jpg

RR

Oops. Just realised my post above quoted the wrong person.

Regular Rod, This was RPX25? It looks like Infrared to me so it maybe IR400? Great image by the way

[Regular Rod]

Oops. Just realised my post above quoted the wrong person.

Regular Rod, This was RPX25? It looks like Infrared to me so it maybe IR400? Great image by the way

It is RPX25 exposed at box speed of 25 ISO and developed semi-stand in OBSIDIAN AQUA.

RR

[macolive]

It is RPX25 exposed at box speed of 25 ISO and developed semi-stand in OBSIDIAN AQUA.

RR
Looks good! Thanks for the info!

[David Aimone]

Just tried a second development of RPX 25 and it's pretty awful. Hoping to replace Efke PL25M but not a go for me. It's so thin it's hard to handle, and development was basically a failure for me in both Caffenol and Pyrocat. :(

Funny, the ISO 100 and 400 in 120 rolls work nice... Oh well, was worth a shot...

[massimodec]

I've been shooting a fair amount of this in the Hasselblad VERY unscientifically. Walking around Chicago, metering with an app on my iPhone and dropping it at the lab (who develop in Xtol). I haven't missed an exposure yet. An image from another thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?109274-MF-(6x6-6x7-6x9-6x12)-B-amp-W-film-images-sharing&p=1162239&viewfull=1#post1162239

I am very interested to have a kind of "full tone range" from 25 ISO film, but I do not see any image at that link...

[massimodec]

I used to develop the famous Agfapan 25 of 1970 in normal Microphen and that was full tone range, perfect...
Now it seems almost impossible to reach those results with present developers if not ultra-diluted.
Now, question is : developers producers say that there is a minimum needed quantity of concentrate,, that usually is far over the high diluition we usually do, like 1+25 or 1+50 etc.

Any hints ?
Thank you