Rollei Retro 80s mottled texture. Backing paper?

[Helge]

Just a quick snap of a frame straight from the tank where the effect is quite evident in the sky above the house.

There is very visible countdown print from the backing paper, and then there is the mottled texture, which seems to be of the same kind and nature as the print-through.

I'm using Adostab for final wash and D-76 1:1. But I can't fathom how that would result in what I'm seeing

It's a red window folder, but the effect seems to be about the same overall on all the frames, only masked by the image structure.
And it's not more intense in the middle of the frame, which would be the case if it was light contamination from the red window.

Is this something other people have noticed?
What could be the cause?
The particular roll had a couple of months back to expiration, but I didn't want to make a fuss about it in then store. Could age be the cause?

Non of my 135 Rollei or Adox seems to be affected.

Could it be the confectioner? Retro 80s I'm told is rolled by Foma and some of the other "Rollei" Aviphot film is rolled by Ilford.
Could that be the cause?

 

[relistan]

Just a quick snap of a frame straight from the tank where the effect is quite evident.
There is very visible countdown print from the backing paper, and then there is the mottled texture, which seems to be of the same kind and nature as the print-through.

I'm using Adostab for final wash and D-76 1:1. But I can't fathom how that would result in what I'm seeing
It's a red window folder, but the effect seems to be about the same overall on all the frames, only masked by the image structure.
And it's not more intense in the middle of the frame, which would be the case, if its was light contamination from the red window.

Is this something. other people have noticed?
What could be the cause?
The particular roll had a couple of months back to expiration, but I didn't want to make a fuss about it in then store. Could age be the cause.

Non of my 135 Rollei or Adox seems to be affected.

Could it be the confectioner? Retro 80s I'm told is rolled by Foma and some of the others "Rollei" film is rolled by Ilford.
Could that be the cause?

Looks like you forgot the upload

 

[Helge]

Looks like you forgot the upload

Wow! thirty seconds? ;-)
iCloud was kind of slow so I posted and went to get it straight from the phone in edit.

 

[laingsoft]

Your film got wet before it was shot. I've had it happen twice now, first time with a roll of svema and again with a roll of holga 400.

 

[Helge]

Your film got wet before it was shot. I've had it happen twice now, first time with a roll of svema and again with a roll of holga 400.

Then it happened at the factory or by condensation during transport.

Storage in the fridge can’t possibly result in that kind of pervasive and homogenous humidity.

The film is rather well packed, so it’s hard to imagine how it would happen.

 

[Helge]

Any idea of how to prevent or avoid it?

 

[koraks]

Retro 80s is notorious for this. Back when I tried it, the film was packed in a plastic box but no sealed wrapper, which likely contributes to moisture problems. In any case, you're not the first to run into this and probably not the last either.

 

[laingsoft]

Any idea of how to prevent or avoid it?

I suppose you could physically go to the factory and grab the rolls hot off the confectioning machine
In my case, I started putting my rolls in ziplock bags, then putting the bags in the fridge. In my case it was caused from condensation on the inside of my fridge though. You could probably throw a few silica gel packs in there for good measure.

 

[Tel]

The dots are the telltale signs of print-through from the paper. If you look closely you might also be able to make out the frame numbers. I've only encountered this with Shanghai GP3 (years ago); my solution was to stop using it. I think this happened to Kodak a few years back, and they solved it by using a different ink to print the backing. In any case, a little humidity should not be enough to cause this kind of print-through. At the very least ask for your money back or an exchange.

 

[Helge]

Yeah, it’s most definitely print-through from the paper. The texture is probably the paper structure too.

Problem is, I really, really like the film.
It’s absolutely superb for a lot of things. And it appears to be the only game in town in 120.
The 200 - 400 varieties are good too, but not as extremely fine grained and high resolution.

Is there any other confectioning of it?

Does age and or production badge have any bearing on it?

Is the condensation theory tested/verified? I find it hard to believe.

 

[Helge]

Are the 200 - 400 less prone to this malaise, in anyone’s experience?

 

[fs999]

It seems to be a problem at Foma factory. The 135 films are converted and packaged by Harman and the 120 films by Foma.
I have twenty of those films. The seller don't want to take them back (Retro Camera Belgium).

You could try RPX 25, it's the same film (Agfa-Gevaert Aviphot 80 PE1) and both formats are packaged by Harman.

 

[Helge]

It seems to be a problem at Foma factory. The 135 films are converted and packaged by Harman and the 120 films by Foma.
I have twenty of those films. The seller don't want to take them back (Retro Camera Belgium).

You could try RPX 25, it's the same film (Agfa-Gevaert Aviphot 80 PE1) and both formats are packaged by Harman.

Excellent, thanks!

I was duped by the datasheet which’s is smoothed/coarser quantized than the real datasheet.
RPX looks to be the same thing from the few IR shots I’ve found.

I’m curious how do you know it’s cut and rolled by Harman?

I take it the same goes for Infrared 400?
Strange when it’s a direct competitor to their own similar, but IMO inferior SFX.

Do we know what the other two RPX films really are?

 

[Agulliver]

I concur it is a backing paper issue....or at least the backing paper interacting with the film. You can see the dots leading up to the frame numbers. I wouldn't discount the fridge theory depending on how well the films were sealed at the factory. Roll films are usually sealed in a metallic wrapper with inert gas inside to prevent condensation. If the process isn't perfect or if the seal is broken then condensation *will* happen in a fridge, which is a very humid environment.

Either way it's bad luck. I've seen this with Retro 80 reported a lot in here. I haven't used that film but I've shot a fair amount of Retro 400 without any issues other than one single frame had spots missing in the emulsion. I don't believe this was user error but it's possible.

 

[Mr Flibble]

Had similar results with a couple of expired rolls of Rollei Retro 80s as well, though not as bad as Helge's

Mottled 80s in a Weltax.

 

[Helge]

I concur it is a backing paper issue....or at least the backing paper interacting with the film. You can see the dots leading up to the frame numbers. I wouldn't discount the fridge theory depending on how well the films were sealed at the factory. Roll films are usually sealed in a metallic wrapper with inert gas inside to prevent condensation. If the process isn't perfect or if the seal is broken then condensation *will* happen in a fridge, which is a very humid environment.

Either way it's bad luck. I've seen this with Retro 80 reported a lot in here. I haven't used that film but I've shot a fair amount of Retro 400 without any issues other than one single frame had spots missing in the emulsion. I don't believe this was user error but it's possible.

It’s a pity that they can’t just find one good confectioner and one brand for both films and be done with it.

Aviphot 80 has quickly grown to become one of my all time favorites. Next only to TMX and TMY.

It’s just lovely in all senses and very open for experimentation.
Temperamental contrast, but that is somewhat controllable with the usual old tricks.

As an IR film, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s probably one of the best ever, after doing some research on the actual speed and capabilities of past films.
It’s actually comparatively not that slow at all. Even speed master HIE was only around EV 25 - 50 on a good day, pretty grainy and forced the charming but far from always fitting halation look.

In my book Aviphot 80 with 720 filtering is an honest EV 12 and 200 an honest EV 25 measured with a blue cell Gossen.
Any lower rating and I’m blowing out vegetation.
Both speeds fast enough to shoot handheld in the sun.

It’s daylight loadable (shade prefered of course) too, and you I can use just about any filtering you can think up.

I’d really hate to not be able to use it in 120.
Adox has 135 well covered with HR-50.
Perhaps they should think about doing a 120 version too?

 

[Helge]

Had similar results with a couple of expired rolls of Rollei Retro 80s as well, though not as bad as Helge's

Mottled 80s in a Weltax.

Perhaps it’s accentuated by IR selective exposure?

 

[AgX]

I've seen this with Retro 80 reported a lot in here. I haven't used that film but I've shot a fair amount of Retro 400 without any issues other than one single frame had spots missing in the emulsion.

So you mean that different films from same manufacturer may react differently on same backing paper under same circumstances?
Actually Harman's statement on their mottling issue gives a hint in this direction.

 

[fs999]

I’m curious how do you know it’s cut and rolled by Harman?

Wikipedia List of photographic films

I take it the same goes for Infrared 400?

Aviphot Pan 400 same as Retro 400S.

Strange when it’s a direct competitor to their own similar, but IMO inferior SFX.

It is a work for Maco, they provide the Agfa rolls and Harman cuts and packages them.

Do we know what the other two RPX films really are?

Kentmere 100 and 400.

 

[Helge]

Wikipedia List of photographic films

Aviphot Pan 400 same as Retro 400S.

It is a work for Maco, they provide the Agfa rolls and Harman cuts and packages them.

Kentmere 100 and 400.

The Aviphot Pan 400 is not listed on the Agfa site (it did exist at some point). Isn’t it just 200 optimistically rated?

Anyhow Harman is in essence helping a competitor. I know this is not unusual, but there is more often than not some mitigating factors.
Is SFX really still HP5ish minus some sensitizers and plus others?

 

[destroya]

I had this same issue with all the rollei retro/ superpan films in 120. 35mm and sheet film had no problems. maco told me to get lost and learn how to properly develop film, so I gave up shooting them. too bad as they are nice emulsions with a different look because of the extended red capabilities. shoot the 35mm and develop a lot as slides. the clear base makes for nice projection.

 

[AgX]

35mm and sheet film had no problems. maco told me to get lost and learn how to properly develop film, so I gave up shooting them. too bad as they are nice emulsions with a different look because of the extended red capabilities.

Yes, a good offer but, but really weird people. I made even worse experiences back when they started their web shop and never ever was served by them. But I kept on hinting at their products (and their faulty descriptions) nonetheless, just because their unique range of films. And as seemingly others did not make such bad experience wth them as we did.

 

[Helge]

I had this same issue with all the rollei retro/ superpan films in 120. 35mm and sheet film had no problems. maco told me to get lost and learn how to properly develop film, so I gave up shooting them. too bad as they are nice emulsions with a different look because of the extended red capabilities. shoot the 35mm and develop a lot as slides. the clear base makes for nice projection.

You should have had them explain to you how development can get backing paper texture and symbols onto the film.
It very visibly the naked emulsion touching the next layer in the roll, and not anything like exposure from the back.
The numbers and dots don’t line up.

It is so clearly a manufacturing, and/or storage problem, that they not only should be embarrassed to say such nonsense as a company selling film, but should be called out on it to a far larger degree, than seems to be the case.

Feel free to post the email correspondence here.

 

[fs999]

Yes, a good offer but, but really weird people.

That's true.
They had a list of all old Agfa and Maco film description and test pdfs in German and English on their maco-photo.de site but there is an error since over a year.
I sent a mail at macodirect to warn them that the site don't work, they answered me asking what file I would need, but they don't repair the site...

Edit : Ok I found a way to see the page with the files : https://web.archive.org/web/20170604125537/http://www.maco-photo.de/main.php?kat=323

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello Helge,

I’m curious how do you know it’s cut and rolled by Harman?

that is the easiest thing to recognize: Each 120 manufacturer has his own, very specific/individual 120 confectioning/converting. Spools, backing paper, lettering, end seals, additional features (especially Fujifilms superior easy loading system, easy end seal and unique barcode system) are all very different.
Therefore you can easily see whether a 120 film is converted by Kodak, Ilford, Fujifilm, Foma, ADOX or Shanghai.

Adox has 135 well covered with HR-50.
Perhaps they should think about doing a 120 version too?

ADOX is working on generally bringing 120 format back, and then in improved quality. I've talked to their engineers at my last factory visit there.
When they will have finished their work (which will still take some time), also HR-50 and SCALA 50 will be available in 120.

The Aviphot Pan 400 is not listed on the Agfa site (it did exist at some point). Isn’t it just 200 optimistically rated?

1) The Wikipedia list has some mistakes: Aviphot Pan 400 is long gone. Last coating run was in 2008. In 2013 the last film of it left Agfa and Agfa listed it on their homepage as discontinued. And some time later also this discontinuation notice vanished.
2) Yes ISO 200/24° is too optimistic if you want real shadow detail and refer to the ISO norm. Agfa's aerial films are measured at Zone III instead of Zone I for light sensitivity/speed. So if you want sufficient shadow detail, you have to give them about two stops more light.

Best regards,
Henning