RPX 400 old and new vs Kentmere
I don't want to pollute furthermore the Silvermax thread with discussions of the RPX films, so I start a new thread here.
I have to state that the actual 35 mm RPX400 and the first batch are different films. The first version of RPX400 was a great film, very good for pushing up to 1600, reasonably fine grained. Best film flatness I have ever seen with a bw-film, better than the prime film HP5+! Then we all could read that the RPX films were discontinued as 35 mm film. But the RPX 400 is still available from fresh production, but it's a different film now! Worse pushing behaviour, uglier grain, worse film flatness. I compared the recent RPX 400 with the Kentmere 400 and now they seem to be identical or very similar. The great first RPX 400 is gone, definately. Probably it was much too good and much too successful. I used a lot of the first RPX 400 and the differences to the new one are obvious. Needless to say that I'm not amused.
Best - Reinhold
Rollei tends to the vice to change films of their own label without to inform the users. Other example: Retro 400s was formerly Aviphot 400 and ist now Aviapan 200, as I metioned in an other thread.
May be that Harmann doesn't sell Kentmere films for other labes but RPX 400 sold well and was worth to keep in an way.
I have some dozens of RPX400 which are identical to Kentmere 400.
Originally Posted by piu58
As per Agfa.com website there's no Aviapan 200.
There are several Aviphot 200 films:
"Aviphot Pan 200 PE1 is a panchromatic negative film, coated onto a transparent polyester base providing excellent. Thickness of the polyester base: 0.10 mm (.004”).
Aviphot Pan 200 PE0 is a similar film coated onto a 0.06 mm (.0025”) polyester base.
Aviphot Pan 200 PE0 AR, coated on a 0.06 mm (.0025”) polyester base is designed for LED exposure through the back.
Aviphot Pan 200 is suitable for technical, industrial and aerial photography."
Rollei RPX400 is coated in 135 size on a 0.120 mm acetate base. So it can't be Agfa Aviphot 200.
Plus the sensitization of Rollei RPX400 and the Afra Aviphot 200 don't match.
Last edited by Alessandro Serrao; 10-18-2012 at 03:49 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Nobody here said that RPX films are Avipan films. It's obvious that the emulsion is/was made by Harman/Kentmere and nobody doubts it. I'm adressing to the different qualities of the first production run and the following. The first RPX400 was a precious gem, the recent RPX400 = Kentmere400 is not my cup of tea (or coffee, hahaha) anymore.
I wondered how quite a lot of people (e.g. Grommi) were so excited about RPX 400... and was also surprised about the quality of some of the pictures... as Maco said, it would be the same as Kentmere 400, and the results of Kentmere 400 I have seen were ... nice, but different.
@Reinhold + Uwe: Ihr zwei (bzw. Eure im Macoshop abrufbaren Artikel) seid ja irgendwo auch Teil des Marketings für diesen Film... fühlt Ihr EUch wohl damit? Immerhin habt Ihr (zumindest Reinhold) von Euren Erfahrungen mit einem ganz anderen Film berichtet...
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Hi Bernhard, thank you for the hint. Didn't know that my article is online again after it was taken down some time ago.
I got good resut from Kentmere 400. I works well with Rollei RHS developer (with or without DC), which is similar to Amaloco 74.
> Teil des Marketings (Namir sais I am part of the marketing strategy of Maco)
I delivered some results which are described correctly. I hope this is of some help for the users of that film.
I didn't mean that Reinhold or Uwe were personally involved in Maco Marketing. Maco just added their reports/reviews of the film as custumer review (or something like that). I personally regard both of these texts as trustworthy reports of the authors' experiences. Nevertheless I do not think Maco added these two reviews without ulterior motive... as positive reviews, especially positive reviews of experienced users, are a quite effective way of convincing consumers of the quality of a product... in this sense I see the texts as part of Maco's Marketing strategy.
For me it is not a bad thing to contribute to the succes of a product I like to use...everyone does it in some way or another. I personally would just feel kind of uncomfortable, if my review still would be used in a product presentation while the product is not the same anymore. (which seems to be the case with Grommi's review...)
Maco indeed seems to change products without informing costumers a lot... no one can tell me, that Rollei Retro 400s is named Retro 400s, because they thought with adding a "s" to the name, it would be clear to everyone, that Retro 400s is an absolutely different film than was Retro 400 (without the "s") The technical datasheet uses the same sample picture as did Retro 400...
As Uwe says, they changed this film again... without informing the costumers at all. (Maybe they think it would startle the consuments if they told them, that they have two names (or are it three... what is Rollei IR400)) for the same film, and that the 400ASA FIlm should at best be rated at 100...
Yeah that's correct.
Originally Posted by grommi
It's my fault: I should have written Retro 400s.
Don't worry, be happy
Originally Posted by Alessandro Serrao
Last edited by grommi; 10-19-2012 at 02:09 AM. Click to view previous post history.