View Poll Results: Will Rollei Retro 100 Tonal be the heir of AGFA APX100?
- 56. You may not vote on this poll
Test of Rollei Retro 100 Tonal against AGFA APX100
The test of Rollei Retro 100 tonal
The tested film is in 120 and 4x5” format. The film is tested against AGFA APX100 in both the formats. The testpictures is not of a resolution chart but a colourchecker. The distance between the camera and testchart is about 3 meters.
The 120 fomat film is tested with a Hasselblad and a 80mm f2,8 Carl Zeiss
The 4x5” Is tested with a Crown Grapic and a Sneider 135mm f 4,7
All of the test films are shot at ISO 50 and developed in Rodinal 1+100 in 18 minutes. Both the 120 film and both the 4x5” sheets are developed with interventions in the same drum. 3 litre of Rodinal 1+100 was used. The camera settings was F11 1/125 s
This test shows only pictures at normal exposure. In a later post i will show pictures of both films in – 1, 2 and 3 stop under exposure and + 1, 2 and 3 over exposure.
The developed negatives are scanned at 6000 dpi on a ICG 365I drum skanner. Later the negs are adjustet to treshold in Photoshop and the colourspace is sRGB. No other adjustments are done. The pictures are on a external server so 100% crops could be done. One un-cropped picture is added here, so you can all se the distance between camera and colourchecker.
Notice from me:
I have now tested a few rolls of Retro Tonal. Devloped in Rodinal and Rollei RLS. In all the 120 films i have tested i get strange white spots all over the picture in all frames. Its not dust. Its there with both tested devlopers. In 4x5" i have not seen this white spots/specs. You can see them in the pictures from this test also. Since both the 120 films and both 4x5" sheets was developed together in the same drum, its the film who causes this spots. But i really dont know what it is. On the 4x5" sheet i got water drying spots a few places on the Retro sheet, not the APX sheet. After washing with a cavitation washer the film was one minute in Kodak Photo Flo 1:200 for a minute. Dried in a cabinet.
Here are the testpictures:
AGFA APX 120: http://www.tmax100.com/photo/apx_ton...a_norm_exp.jpg
Rollei Retro 100 tonal 120: http://www.tmax100.com/photo/apx_ton...l_norm_exp.jpg
AGFA APX 4x5": http://www.tmax100.com/photo/apx_tonal/agfa_lf.jpg
Rollei Retro 100 Tonal 4x5": http://www.tmax100.com/photo/apx_tonal/tonal_lf.jpg
If you want to know more about this test and the film/dev combo, please follow me on Twitter: www.twitter.com/hattipop
Last edited by David A. Goldfarb; 05-30-2010 at 03:04 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: Link fixed.
I fixed the broken link, but the files seem to be corrupt. You might try re-uploading or uploading them here as links (which may entail posting smaller crops).
I don't know that processing and exposing two different films exactly the same way is a good comparison, unless you want to find out if they are in fact the same film sold under two brands. It might be more useful to do the normal Zone System speed and development tests, expose for the same exposure at the tested speed and develop to the same contrast, and then compare the images.
I've also moved the thread to the B&W forum and deleted the duplicate thread. "Feedback and Discussion" is for feedback and discussion of the APUG website.
The links are working fine on my computer. this simple test is more about grain, sharpnes in my standard developing set up for APX100. Rodinal 1+100 in 18 minutes. Film at 50 ISO. This is to se how this film reacts when "used" as APX 100 in my system. I have plenty of this film and can test what ever the audience here ask for.
Thanks a lot for your efforts kompressor, I've been looking forward to comparisons like yours. Some real-world samples like RobertV's would be very welcome too, if you have any.
Pity about the spotting, let's hope it's a minor problem, regardless of source.
Images seem to be loading properly now. It could have been a network problem or maybe a browser cache issue.
I'm not surprised that APX 100 looks sharper and finer grained in these tests, but to be fair, the Tonal 100 looks like it needs longer development time and maybe slightly more exposure to have the same density range as APX 100 under these conditions, though judging from shadow areas in the scans (like the shadow underneath the color chart) it looks like the exposure is pretty close--maybe the Tonal 100 could be rated at 40 instead of 50, and then you would just need to experiment with development time. It's hard to judge sharpness when the contrast is different between the two samples, and it's hard to judge grain when the density of the patches to be compared aren't the same. One way to do this would be to make a few clip tests on the same roll bracketing exposures in 1/3 stop increments, and then bracket development for the clips in increments of 10% development time, and then choose the frames from each film that best match.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Actually it is pointless comparing such different fruit:
- Agfa's APX is a panchromatic apple on a normal triacetate base.
- The relabeled Agfa film is an orthopanchromatic orange on a touchy polyester base.
It's interesting to see in your examples that APX is obviously a lot sharper and has much less grain than the "Tonal". If David is right and the latter is developed too short, what will happen if you develop it longer? Even more grain will be the result. You used Rodinal and Rollei RLS, both are developers that accentuate sharpness, but the "Tonal" still looks pulpy. So, you can't make it look sharper by choosing a developer with even higher acutance, and if you did you would probably get even more grain. So, your examples obviously show all the sharpness you will ever get with that film.
Maybe it's a much more adequate test if you compare this film with something more similar, perhaps Fortepan 200 in Rodinal to achieve a similar amount of grain? It's hard to get that film nowadays, but a film around 100 ASA with similar grain and a similar lack of definition will be hard to get these days. If you compare it with the only popular orthopanchromatic film, Acros 100, the Fuji film will win hands down comparing grain, sharpness and tonality (and price is good, too).
The future belongs to the few of us still willing to get our hands smell like fixing bath.
What is the original film then?
Originally Posted by cmo
There is no original film. This receipt is from the Maco company and made before in 2002 in the Efke plant. In that time mentioned Maco PO100C.
What is the original film then?
Now the production is done by (Agfa) Gevaert and is fitted into the Rollei brand as Retro 100 Tonal.
An orthopan film can have a higher resolution then a panchromatic film, a technique from X-ray, so maybe due to X-ray experience Rollei-Maco is able to specify this kind of film.
In that time there was a (German) article about this film in S/W Magazin.
A comparision between Acros 100 and Retro 100 Tonal/PO100C.
It's still available on the internet:
MACO PO 100c und Fuji Neopan 100 Acros
From the article:
Es war also keine große Überraschung, dass beim MACO PO 100c das Korn eine Spur grober war als beim Fuji Neopan 100 Acros. Darüber hinaus war es beim PO 100c scharf akzentuiert und beim Acros leicht verwaschen. Im Gesamteindruck wirkten daher bei feinem bis sehr feinem Korn bei beiden Filmen die Aufnahmen auf dem PO 100c schärfer, die auf dem Acros etwas weniger körnig.
But in this new (Gevaert) production there could be some differences with the former (Efke) production.
Anyhow this film has on many points different specifications so that you have to try yourself it's worthwhile to use it or not.
I'd like to see the results as a side-by-side comparison. Looking at one scan then closing to open another does nothing for me, I want to see them and compare at the same time to make a judgement.
Well, then you download the images and set the side by side in picture viewer program
Originally Posted by ralnphot