Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,913   Posts: 1,584,698   Online: 705
      

View Poll Results: Will Rollei Retro 100 Tonal be the heir of AGFA APX100?

Voters
56. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    7 12.50%
  • No

    25 44.64%
  • I need to see more from it and test it my self

    24 42.86%
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 94
  1. #31
    skahde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    426
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by skahde View Post
    Being an author myself, I hope Harthmuth got Thomas' permission to modify his copyrighted article from the Phototec-Website and use it in his marketing-campaign.
    As of today, the copied and modified section from Thomas' article was deleted and the link now leads to Maco's own publication about PO100c. Good move, if you ask me.

    Though, I still dont't buy the statement about 250% higher resolution than comparable panchromatic films but that is a minor point...

  2. #32
    RobertV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,057

    Some facts

    Some clear explanation about Maco and this new Rollei Retro 100 Tonal film, verified by facts which are valid in the actual film business.

    As we all know Maco is not a film manufacturer but a marketing company that relabels mainly Agfa films.
    If you say that Maco is only a marketing company, then you have to be consequent and must say that all photo companies which are ordering custom coatings and have established their own brand names are only marketing companies.
    Freestyle, Tetenal, Fotospeed, Adox, Bergger and many other firms have all established their own brand name (and they are responsible for the product quality of these own brands) and are distributing products under these brands, which are produced by other specialised companies.
    Developing your own brand and worldwide distribution needs much more than only marketing capabilities. You have to be a competent and reliable partner for the manufacturer. You must have a strong financial power. You must have a good (World wide or at least Europe wide) distribution system. It is very hard work to build all this up.
    Photographers, who know a little bit about the market, would never say that companies like Freestyle, Adox or Maco are only marketing companies.

    If you think it is all about marketing and advertising, then try to order some film or paper from Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, InovisCoat, Foma or Efke and establish your own film brand. If you prefer Kodak film? Then ask Kodak and order some masterrolls, create a brand name and start a business which will make all the things so much better compared to the companies you have criticised. Good luck.

    It will be interesting to find out what is really inside the film cartridge. So, what orthochromatic or similar films on a polyester base around ISO 100 are currently offered by Agfa, probably industrial or surveillance film? I bet it will be one of those.
    You are wrong. This film is a unique product, based on a Maco owned recipe, designed and produced by a cooperation of different manufacturers. And available on the market exclusively as Rollei Retro 100 Tonal.
    A lot of new Research & Development was necessary, because some former raw materials are not available anymore, and intensive research had to be done for suitable replacements. The emulsion was also optimised for modern coating machines. And a lot of money had to be invested. Film R&D is not cheap at all.


    It's quite funny that once again someone tries to warp reality in a way to sell a "legitimate successor" of a totally different product.
    That is also wrong. Maco has made a very clear and precise official statement, that Rollei Retro 100 Tonal is not intended to be a successor for the APX 100 / Rollei Retro 100 film.
    It was clearly said that Rollei Retro 100 Tonal is meant to be in the tradition of the former Maco PO 100C film.
    Here is the official statement: http://www.aphog.de/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=13819.
    Rollei Retro 100 Tonal is designed to have nearly the same characteristics like former Maco PO 100C.

    Concerning the name: The main film line of Rollei-Film’s programme are films with classic cubic crystals: Retro 80S, Retro 100, Retro 400 (meanwhile sold out), Retro 400S. The name “Retro” represents a film type with classic cubic crystals (similar to Kodak or Ilford with their T-Max and Delta lines for T-grain films, the film line shares the same basic name).
    Retro 100 Tonal has a classic cubic crystal emulsion, therefore the name “Retro”. 100, of course, is the film speed. “Tonal” stands for the different tonality of this film compared to the majority of films on the market, which have a standard panchromatic or superpanchromatic sentization. Whereas this film has an orthopanchromatic characteristic.

    It is clearly visible by name that ”Retro 100 Tonal” is different to “Retro 100”.
    You have mentioned the new T-Max 400 film. A nice film, quite different from the first version. You have to do new tests with developers and times to get the best with the new emulsion. Different film, but same name. Was Kodak fooling the customers? I don’t think so. Keeping established names for product lines is quite common in this industry. Look at Ilford: The Delta 400 emulsion was modified two times (1994 and 2000), name Delta 400 stayed, FP4 and HP5 were replaced by FP4+ and HP5+, XP2 by XP2 super.

    But in the end, my personal experiences with my own (Dutch) customers is that photographers are not interested in names of films, but only in quality and price. If they like the film, it doesn’t matter at all whether Kodak, Freestyle, Adox, Ilford, Bergger or Rollei-Film is printed on the box. The pictures counts, not names.

    There will be plenty of discussions this year about original APX vs. Maco's relabeled Agfa films vs. Adox' films made on the used Agfa machines vs. all other films around 100 ASA.
    We have already seen the reactions of the market and some companies long ago: With closing of the AgfaPhoto Leverkusen plant, and the following strong price decrease of the remaining AgfaPhoto film stock (sold as AgfaPhoto APX and Rollei Retro films) a market for very cheap high quality film with classic cubic crystal emulsions was established.
    This now quite cheap old AgfaPhoto film stock attracted lots of users, especially beginners, students and photographers with low budgets, and was very successful on the market.

    Freestyle reacted first and entered the competition in this (new) low price market with his Arista Premium and Legacy Pro films.
    Then Ilford answered with its Kentmere films. All low price, high quality products aiming at photographers who are or have to be price sensitive.
    And now InovisCoat is working on their new APX based emulsions for this market. Main part of the planned production will be sold again as AgfaPhoto APX, the brand name used by Lupus Imaging. They will do worldwide distribution. And later the films should be available as Adox, too.
    We have a free market, everyone has the right to offer products, and several companies are already offering products in this market segment.
    But, Rollei Retro 100 Tonal is not intended for this market segment.

    In the end photographers will make their choice, and manufactureres and distributers will have to accept that.

    But for sure I hope the film will find it's way via the regular sales channels.

    best regards,

    Robert

    (Dutch Rollei-Maco distributor)

  3. #33
    cmo
    cmo is offline
    cmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,457
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertV View Post
    If you say that Maco is only a marketing company, then you have to be consequent and must say that all photo companies which are ordering custom coatings and have established their own brand names are only marketing companies.
    Freestyle, Tetenal, Fotospeed, Adox, Bergger and many other firms have all established their own brand name (and they are responsible for the product quality of these own brands) and are distributing products under these brands, which are produced by other specialised companies.
    Nobody ever doubted that. The only reason why people say that there is a difference between a manufacturer and a marketing company is that sometimes marketing companies are not really clear about the content of the boxes. Freestyle sells rebranded Acros, for example, but they make no secret out of it, and there are other examples. Most companies do not make a secret out of it because it helps to sell. Only very few companies - only one comes to my mind - promise so much greatness in such a high dosis in so many posts in so many forums by so many users that it's quite obvious for everyone that the marketing aspect of their activity is a little too emphasized for many people. A little less would be more. I cannot remember that Freestyle, Tetenal, Fotospeed, Adox, Bergger ever promised the world nor did they praise themselves in such a ridiculous way.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertV View Post
    Photographers, who know a little bit about the market, would never say that companies like Freestyle, Adox or Maco are only marketing companies.
    I am a photographer and know a little bit about the market, and I know many others, and most of them would say they are suppliers, but not manufacturers.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertV View Post
    If you think it is all about marketing and advertising, then try to order some film or paper from Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, InovisCoat, Foma or Efke and establish your own film brand. If you prefer Kodak film? Then ask Kodak and order some masterrolls, create a brand name and start a business which will make all the things so much better compared to the companies you have criticised. Good luck.
    In fact, if I would do what you recommend the first thing I would do is send a legal notice to a certain competitor telling him to stop unfair competition. According to the laws here in Germany I would be able to send a certain competitor a decision given in summary proceedings the next day. So, it's much better for some people if I never offer one single film to one single customer, don't you think?

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertV View Post
    You are wrong. This film is a unique product, based on a Maco owned recipe, designed and produced by a cooperation of different manufacturers. And available on the market exclusively as Rollei Retro 100 Tonal.
    A lot of new Research & Development was necessary, because some former raw materials are not available anymore, and intensive research had to be done for suitable replacements. The emulsion was also optimised for modern coating machines. And a lot of money had to be invested. Film R&D is not cheap at all.
    As a consumer I have all the freedom I like and can tell you that the results I saw so far do not impress me at all. If some people invested a lot of money to create this new version of an old film with a lot of research I can just say it will be difficult to achieve a return on investment. Sorry about that, but there are so many good films on the market at competitive prices with much finder grain at higher ISO I really wonder who will buy a film like that. I wouldn't, not even if it were made by a manufacturer that I really trust.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertV View Post
    That is also wrong. Maco has made a very clear and precise official statement, that Rollei Retro 100 Tonal is not intended to be a successor for the APX 100 / Rollei Retro 100 film.
    It just comes to my mind that the title of this thread is "Test of Rollei Retro 100 Tonal against AGFA APX100". Of course, it was not Maco who made this thread nor an official dealer. But it still confuses people, you know?

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertV View Post
    You have mentioned the new T-Max 400 film. A nice film, quite different from the first version. You have to do new tests with developers and times to get the best with the new emulsion. Different film, but same name. Was Kodak fooling the customers? I don’t think so.
    That's why they call it "Tmax 400 New". And even Tri-X was changed over the years, sure. Nobody ever said that this is wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertV View Post
    We have a free market, everyone has the right to offer products, and several companies are already offering products in this market segment.
    But, Rollei Retro 100 Tonal is not intended for this market segment.
    Now we're talking. What market segment does it target? I have no idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertV View Post
    In the end photographers will make their choice, and manufactureres and distributers will have to accept that.
    I'm pretty sure that well-informed customers will be able to make their choices.
    The future belongs to the few of us still willing to get our hands smell like fixing bath.

  4. #34
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,486
    Images
    20
    Thanks for posting the new tests, kompressor, and confirming my preference for Tri-X.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  5. #35
    kompressor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb View Post
    Thanks for posting the new tests, kompressor, and confirming my preference for Tri-X.
    More tests to come. I will test this film to the bone

  6. #36
    JPD
    JPD is offline
    JPD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    773
    I like orthopanchromatic films like Efke, but stopped using them becuase of the irritating curl. Does the "Retro 100 Tonal" in 120 curl up as a tube as well?

    I don't like the name "Retro". It sounds like the films are meant as nostalgia and not as serious "here-and-now" products.
    J. Patric Dahlén

  7. #37
    cmo
    cmo is offline
    cmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,457
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb View Post
    Thanks for posting the new tests, kompressor, and confirming my preference for Tri-X.
    To be fair, I think this test was not very "comparable" - if you test 4 films in 4 different developers and not at "box speed" it is really hard to compare the results.

    In this case we had:

    - "Tonal" in Neofin Blue, which was made for definition and sharpness, a relatively old developer which was really good with old-fashioned 'thick' films and does not create significantly more or less grain than a film has. It is not recommended for high-speed films, just like Rodinal it's not the first choice for films beyond 100 ASA.

    - Plus-X, a good traditional film; it was exposed at 64 ISO, e.g. 1 stop more than box speed. XTOL is a very good choice for this film, but diluted at 1:1 and developed for 8.5 minutes Kodak says it has 125-250 ASA, so your result is overexposed by 1-2 stops which makes it difficult to compare results.

    - Kodak Tri-x in HC110 in Dilution G for 18 minutes, that is something very special - HC-110 1:119. A few people used this dilution with Tri-X Professional (the 320 version) for sheet film to achieve a compensating effect, it's a method you don't hear about that often. Obviously your ISO 200 setting is not box speed, and the massive dev chart has contradictory information about this, including an entry which would suggest that you reach something like ISO 1600 to 3200 with 18 minutes development. And HC-110 is a very active, very fast developer and not known as the world's finest grain developer.

    - AGFA APX400, one of the grainiest ISO 400 films, not at box speed but overexposed by one f-stop at ISO 200. Development in Rodinal does not make this film a fine-grain film either, not at all.

    May I suggest for your next test that you expose each film at box speed and develop in good old D76 using the time provided by the film manufacturers? D76 is still the reference. Or you might choose some Microdol/Perceptol style developer for all films.

    That will create comparable results that say something about the properties of all films. And for most photographers here it will be interesting to see what you achieve with 35mm or 120 roll film because only a very limited number of people uses only large format.

    Another matter is the choice of films that you compare.

    If you want to make a statement about a film and compare it with others you might try to compare only 50-100 ISO films because this is what people would like to know: how is that film compared to a film with a similar speed or other similarities? Acros 100 would even be similar when it comes to sensitization, I think it is the only popular orthopanchromatic film today and "tonality" will be almost identical. Telling Acros users that there is a similar film is difficult, just to mention that because Acros was a milestone in film production, it is well-known for extremely fine grain, very high sharpness, an unimpeachable quality standard and robustness. As all other films are not orthopanchromatic you could simply put a blue or green filter on the lens for a kind of "orthopanchromatic look", then we could really see comparable results.
    Last edited by cmo; 06-02-2010 at 07:02 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: addon
    The future belongs to the few of us still willing to get our hands smell like fixing bath.

  8. #38
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57

    Test of Rollei Retro 100 Tonal against AGFA APX100

    Very well said cmo - and I couldn't agree more. The past testing has *too many variables*.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  9. #39
    RobertV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,057
    Does the "Retro 100 Tonal" in 120 curl up as a tube as well?

    I don't like the name "Retro".
    Rollei Retro 100 Tonal (in 120 ) will not curl like Efke. It has been made on 100 micron Polyester with an effective non-curling layer. My first (120) negatives are in their sleeves now and they are flat. They were dryed at room temperature in a regular 60% humidity.

    The explanation of the name:
    Retro 100 Tonal has a classic cubic crystal emulsion, therefore the name “Retro”. 100, of course, is the film speed. “Tonal” stands for the different tonality of this film compared to the majority of films on the market, which have a standard panchromatic or superpanchromatic sentization.

  10. #40
    kompressor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by cmo View Post
    If you want to make a statement about a film and compare it with others you might try to compare only 50-100 ISO films because this is what people would like to know: how is that film compared to a film with a similar speed or other similarities? Acros 100 would even be similar when it comes to sensitization, I think it is the only popular orthopanchromatic film today and "tonality" will be almost identical. Telling Acros users that there is a similar film is difficult, just to mention that because Acros was a milestone in film production, it is well-known for extremely fine grain, very high sharpness, an unimpeachable quality standard and robustness. As all other films are not orthopanchromatic you could simply put a blue or green filter on the lens for a kind of "orthopanchromatic look", then we could really see comparable results.
    WTF
    I dont to scientific testing here. And this post in all ways learned me one thing; dont use the word "test" anymore. Not before i use D76 and box speed.

    My point is to show a new fil in use up against other films in the way i use film and developer combos. Nothing else. Period.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin