Author Topic: Rollei Retro 400S in Ifosol 3 - Aaaaaarggghhhh!!!! (Read 8577 times)

Verian · « **on:** November 20, 2013, 09:07:45 AM »

I achieved loads yesterday, only to have it ruined by bad information.

Massive Dev Chart Search Results

Developer
Ilfosol 3
Dilution
1+14
ASA/ISO
400
120
15
Temp
20C

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=Rollei+Retro+400S&Developer=Ilfosol+3&mdc=Search&TempUnits=C

This is the dilution/time to turn your roll of film into a transparent length of plastic.

I had spent a couple of hours walking. Taken what I thought were going to be some pretty good shots with my Rolleiflex and was planning to take, develop and print on the same day for the first time. I was soooooooooooo annoyed!! It included my images for the Change collaboration as well

Does anybody have any idea what the correct method is for this film as I still have several rolls left?

SLVR · « **Reply #1 on:** November 20, 2013, 01:28:06 PM »

Sounds eerily like the time I shot some rollei nightbird. Though its c41 and a redscaled film i had the same result. Heres the kicker, it says expose at 800. Knowing its redscale i shot it much slower because its nearly impossible to overexpose redscale. 2 weeks of shooting, going places, great shots ruined. Film was pretty much transparent with the exception of 2 feint frames at the beginning of the roll.

My conclusion, rollei films are not to be trusted.

Do you have any rodinal around or anything you can stand develop with? You should be able to get a result with that, then determine if rollei is shit or massive dev chart is wrong.

Verian · « **Reply #2 on:** November 20, 2013, 01:46:37 PM »

I've had this film developed at a lab with no problem, didn't even issue any special instructions, just sent it off and it came back great. A search of the interweb suggests massive dev chart is wrong. I might shoot a film of nothing special and try it for 7 minutes and see where that gets me. Maybe increase or decrease the times depending on the results.

I was soooooooooooo disappointed.

SLVR · « **Reply #3 on:** November 20, 2013, 02:44:51 PM »

I also use ilfosol 3 sometimes and find information on it to be not as plentiful as other developers. Likewise I found the same with Rollei films. Maybe I am just bitter about losing my roll of nightbird.

It seems though mixing that high of a dilution isn't even recommended by ilford. On my ilfosol bottle it says mix 1:4 or 1:9. I did a roll of Acros over the weekend at 1:4 and it was straight from massive dev and worked flawlessly for me. Maybe try those dilutions and try again? Is there any specific reason why you want to dilute so much?

Maybe Leon can pipe in but from my understanding Ilfosol 3 is sort of like the ilford D76 but in a concentrate. I thought D76 has some sort of grain solvent property or something that smooths grain at certain dilutions, but at higher dilutions the grain smoothing gets diminished. Does Ilfosol 3 have the same solvent properties?

Verian · « **Reply #4 on:** November 20, 2013, 03:13:13 PM »

The 1:14 is from the list, I normally do 1:9 so I'll most likely experiment around that and much shorter dev time.

I suspect it does have similar solvent properties, for medium and slow speed films (maybe)

Francois · « **Reply #5 on:** November 20, 2013, 03:20:53 PM »

IMHO, 1:14 is a typo and should probably read 1:4.
On the numeric keypad, 4 is just on top of 1. If the person who entered the values didn't check before submitting, the bad data just ends-up in the list.

I always try to stay away from the odd dilutions that are not mentioned anywhere.

SLVR · « **Reply #6 on:** November 20, 2013, 03:22:54 PM »

1:4 sounds closer I think too. I think my acros was around 9 minutes at 1:4

The only thing tripping me up on it is that 1:14 follows the same linear pattern that actual dilutions follow

1+4 = 5
1+9 = 10
1+14 = 15
etc.

if the typo was 1:13 or 1:12 it would be WAY more obvious.

Verian · « **Reply #7 on:** November 20, 2013, 03:38:57 PM »

this is the full list:
http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=Rollei+Retro+400S&Developer=&mdc=Search]
[url]http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=Rollei+Retro+400S&Developer=&mdc=Search[/url]

all of them are longish times regardless of the developer. This chap has his own for this film: http://martinzimelka.com/Documents/film%20developer%20combinations.pdf

It is said that the film is actually Agfa Gevaert Aviphot 200.

Gah! Why does it have to be so complicated!?

SLVR · « **Reply #8 on:** November 20, 2013, 03:54:44 PM »

looking at the MDC I see there are no times for ilfosol 3 at 1:4 or 1:9 which are common/recommended dilutions. Very much this is a typo. it should be 1:4.

Do you ever use this site? It's helpful because it gives you images with the specified dev info.

http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/8151

mikec · « **Reply #9 on:** November 20, 2013, 04:00:48 PM »

I started using Ilfosol 3 when hc-110 became unavailable. I have used it at 1:14 with Tmax 100 and 400 at 20 deg. for 10 minutes. The one roll of Tri-X I used the developer for was rated at 200 and developed for 8.5 minutes at 20 deg. All times were from the Massive Dev Chart. The results can be seen in the last half dozen posts on my blog.

Verian · « **Reply #10 on:** November 20, 2013, 04:04:47 PM »

Quote from: mikec on November 20, 2013, 04:00:48 PM

I started using Ilfosol 3 when hc-110 became unavailable. I have used it at 1:14 with Tmax 100 and 400 at 20 deg. for 10 minutes. The one roll of Tri-X I used the developer for was rated at 200 and developed for 8.5 minutes at 20 deg. All times were from the Massive Dev Chart. The results can be seen in the last half dozen posts on my blog.

I've had pretty good results with Ifosol 3 up to this point.

Verian · « **Reply #11 on:** November 20, 2013, 04:06:32 PM »

Quote from: TinTin on November 20, 2013, 03:54:44 PM

looking at the MDC I see there are no times for ilfosol 3 at 1:4 or 1:9 which are common/recommended dilutions. Very much this is a typo. it should be 1:4.

Do you ever use this site? It's helpful because it gives you images with the specified dev info.

http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/8151

Wouldn't 1:4 for 15 minutes just be worse? or the same as there's not much that can be worse than ending up with a transparent piece of plastic. Even 1:9 for 12 minutes seems a on the lengthy side.

mikec · « **Reply #12 on:** November 20, 2013, 04:17:30 PM »

One good way to get a transparent piece of plastic rather than images on the film is to first poor in the fixer, and then the developer. I've done that twice.

Verian · « **Reply #13 on:** November 20, 2013, 04:25:39 PM »

Quote from: mikec on November 20, 2013, 04:17:30 PM

One good way to get a transparent piece of plastic rather than images on the film is to first poor in the fixer, and then the developer. I've done that twice.

I'll give that a go, couldn't be any worse!!!

SLVR · « **Reply #14 on:** November 20, 2013, 04:27:06 PM »

Transparent would mean severely underdeveloped, or underexposed. Or as Mikec mentions, Fixer before developer.

Overdeveloped, the negatives would be very thick and contrasty.

I honestly feel like you should have something very feint. I find it hard to believe that you developed for 15 minutes and got literally nothing. Do you have frame numbers? or literally the whole film has not a speck of information.

I'm getting confused here. I just checked my times for neopan acros. I could have sworn it was a lenghty time, but it appears I must be mistaken. I use the MDC app and it has a time for acros at 1:4 but their site doesn't have the time. However it does list a time for 1:14!

I'm starting to think that you did add fixer before the developer. I have heard of this before and was thinking about it but the dilution ratio seemed odd to me because i've never seen 1:14 for ilfosol 3

Verian · « **Reply #15 on:** November 20, 2013, 04:58:20 PM »

Frame numbers - Yes, and that is all.
Fixer before developer - Didn't happen
Camera - Reliable, has never gone wrong.

It was transparent plastic. I haven't put the recycling out yet so I'll see if I can dig it out tonight and post a photo of it.

gsgary · « **Reply #16 on:** November 20, 2013, 05:19:00 PM »

I would try one film Rodinal 1+100 for 1 hour because it never fails that will tell you if there is anything on the films

SLVR · « **Reply #17 on:** November 20, 2013, 05:20:55 PM »

interesting... If you have frame numbers then Id say something went wrong with your camera. Could it be possible you loaded the film backwards? Like in my Bronica it is possible to load the film backwards so the backing paper is actually covering the film.

How was the density of the frame numbers?

Lens cap on your camera?

LT · « **Reply #18 on:** November 20, 2013, 05:24:20 PM »

Quote from: TinTin on November 20, 2013, 05:20:55 PM

interesting... If you have frame numbers then Id say something went wrong with your camera. Could it be possible you loaded the film backwards? Like in my Bronica it is possible to load the film backwards so the backing paper is actually covering the film.

How was the density of the frame numbers?

Lens cap on your camera?

yes - what I am thinking too. If you have frame numbers etc, then the film has developed okay. Sounds like the frames are not exposed, or massively underexposed. You would see some feint image in the highlights, even if it is 4 or 5 stops or more under exposed. Either your meter is Kapput, your shutter isnt firing or your lens cap was on.

gsgary · « **Reply #19 on:** November 20, 2013, 05:33:12 PM »

Quote from: TinTin on November 20, 2013, 05:20:55 PM

interesting... If you have frame numbers then Id say something went wrong with your camera. Could it be possible you loaded the film backwards? Like in my Bronica it is possible to load the film backwards so the backing paper is actually covering the film.

How was the density of the frame numbers?

Lens cap on your camera?

I forgot my lens cap when i got my first Leica

Verian · « **Reply #20 on:** November 20, 2013, 07:11:43 PM »

Well, it's a sad day for me, the shutter on my Rolleiflex isn't firing. It's been perfect until now which is why I didn't look to check it first.

Apologies if I wasted anybodies time and thanks for trying to help.

I'm going for a little cry now.

SLVR · « **Reply #21 on:** November 20, 2013, 08:16:34 PM »

sorry to inadvertently be the bearer of bad news!

DonkeyDave · « **Reply #22 on:** November 20, 2013, 08:53:48 PM »

my Rollei shutter packed up last winter when I was shooting in -10 deg C, it got a bit better when warmed up, but a local guy fixed it for a tenner - don't get too disheartened, these things fix easily

imagesfrugales · « **Reply #23 on:** November 20, 2013, 09:33:44 PM »

Bad luck with the shutter, that's a pity.

Besides that: when I read about bad developments with the 400s, Superpan200, Universal200 or under whitch name ever the film is/was sold by Maco, all alarmbells start ringing in my head. The Superpan 200 so far was the one and only film giving unusable results in Caffenol, from completely blank to completely black. The film also gave bad results in Xtol sometimes. People discussed about sudden death of Xtol, but that was not the cause. Some developers work fine with this film, others don't. Rodinal always works. I have no clue why this film doesn't work in Caffenol, but I'm not the only one who had extremely bad results. See also here:
http://caffenol.blogspot.de/2010/09/rollei-universal-200-first-film-to-fail.html

If the development works fine, this is a great film. Real speed is NOT 400 but 100 - 200 ASA depending on the developer.

Best - Reinhold

Verian · « **Reply #24 on:** November 21, 2013, 03:41:13 PM »

Thanks folks. Looks like I will be sending it away to get repaired, I did think about having a go myself but was reminded that, unlike many men who might have a few screws left over from building an Ikea shelving unit, I usually end up with that and a spare shelf!

Francois · « **Reply #25 on:** November 21, 2013, 09:18:33 PM »

Good decision. It's a good camera, I wouldn't risk wrecking it either.

Verian · « **Reply #26 on:** November 21, 2013, 11:42:16 PM »

I just tried the 1:14 on another roll and the negatives actually look ok. I'll be printing them either tomorrow or the weekend so will have a better view.

Used a bronica etrs this time.