I have a bulk roll of it which I use mostly with a 720 filter. The negs come out contrasty and the highlights tend to have little separation. I found that doing only half of the suggested agitations (1/1min instead of 1/30s) and doing them very gently helps a bit to keep those highlights in check. At least with Rollei's suggested developer - Supergrain. This definitely isn't an all-around every day film, but an interesting one nonetheless.
Thank you Gregory for this awesome comparison series. I have shot with RPX25 last summer. I found it nice for daylight. Will buy another roll to test it with studio lights. I like the details and almost no grain. Cyan color is an issue, I took a photo of wonderful sea that was in cyan color and it turned out weird with transition to dark in shadows and depth.
I've never understood why photographers bang on about Tri X. It's always looked flat and cheap to me. The Rollei RPX range has a better contrast response with better detail and the closest film I've found to the AGFA APX 25. Your video was helpful though. I'll stick to Rollei. 👍
Just shot and developed one roll of this film in 120 format , the negatives came out looking moldy, there were nasty looking spots everywhere in the frame. Not very sure about whether I did something wrong or this stock has some QC issues.(The box indicates that it expires in Nov.2022 so it is not expired)
I purchased some Rollei Superpan 200 based on your results here. I have yet to shoot it but this Rollei 25 looks promising as well. Have you tried any pyro variant for development yet? I have been using W2D2 + pyro/metol with surprisingly good results. It seems to give a certain tonality I have not achieved with other developers.
I think it makes you look younger for sure. Maybe a really good portrait film for older subjects. I wonder what it would look like with 20 somethings and younger people.
@@TheNakedPhotographer no, surprisingly not, I have mistakenly loaded 2x sheets of RPX 400 and ended up with a great primary negative, somehow the second negative was exposed but very thin which is understandable. I do like RPX 400 and 25, but have still to shoot 100.
I like this film, graphic results but not because of grain. Not that there is anything wrong with grain. Contrasty. Proper exposure may be 16, but I guess I would rather slighly underexpose.
I hope you’ll do Rollei RPX 400 next so we can finally put an end to the false hearsay that it is the same stock as Kentmare 400. And just cause I can’t not say anything. The german “ei” like in Leica is pronounced like the english word eye. So it’s not Rollee but Rolleye.
I have a bulk roll of it which I use mostly with a 720 filter. The negs come out contrasty and the highlights tend to have little separation. I found that doing only half of the suggested agitations (1/1min instead of 1/30s) and doing them very gently helps a bit to keep those highlights in check. At least with Rollei's suggested developer - Supergrain. This definitely isn't an all-around every day film, but an interesting one nonetheless.
Thanks for your effort to keep Film alive. Amazing how the community has grown in the last couple of years.
Thank you Gregory for this awesome comparison series. I have shot with RPX25 last summer. I found it nice for daylight. Will buy another roll to test it with studio lights. I like the details and almost no grain. Cyan color is an issue, I took a photo of wonderful sea that was in cyan color and it turned out weird with transition to dark in shadows and depth.
Thanks!
Love this series, hope you can show us another on 120 film. Thanks!
I've never understood why photographers bang on about Tri X. It's always looked flat and cheap to me. The Rollei RPX range has a better contrast response with better detail and the closest film I've found to the AGFA APX 25. Your video was helpful though. I'll stick to Rollei. 👍
Different strokes for different folks
Wow.. thank you very much for this video and for your test.
I love your series! Very objective and helpful to watch. Please keep it up!
I had a similar experience with this film stock as well. Not bad for just trying it out on a whim. Thank you for the analysis!
Just shot and developed one roll of this film in 120 format , the negatives came out looking moldy, there were nasty looking spots everywhere in the frame. Not very sure about whether I did something wrong or this stock has some QC issues.(The box indicates that it expires in Nov.2022 so it is not expired)
I purchased some Rollei Superpan 200 based on your results here. I have yet to shoot it but this Rollei 25 looks promising as well. Have you tried any pyro variant for development yet? I have been using W2D2 + pyro/metol with surprisingly good results. It seems to give a certain tonality I have not achieved with other developers.
I routinely use PMK, but I didn’t with this film.
Does anybody have experience developing this film in ilfotec lc 29?
I think it makes you look younger for sure. Maybe a really good portrait film for older subjects. I wonder what it would look like with 20 somethings and younger people.
It just depends on how much red is in their complexion
I haven’t watched the whole video yet but I love this film. I’ve used it a lot on 35mm
It’s one of the smoothest, sharpest films I’ve seen
I found the 4x5 negative sheets to be very thin and flimsy, same applies to RPX 400.
I’ve heard that before. Does the film sag in the holder?
@@TheNakedPhotographer no, surprisingly not, I have mistakenly loaded 2x sheets of RPX 400 and ended up with a great primary negative, somehow the second negative was exposed but very thin which is understandable. I do like RPX 400 and 25, but have still to shoot 100.
I like this film, graphic results but not because of grain. Not that there is anything wrong with grain. Contrasty. Proper exposure may be 16, but I guess I would rather slighly underexpose.
I hope you’ll do Rollei RPX 400 next so we can finally put an end to the false hearsay that it is the same stock as Kentmare 400.
And just cause I can’t not say anything. The german “ei” like in Leica is pronounced like the english word eye. So it’s not Rollee but Rolleye.
Well, you’re going to be disappointed in my pronunciation for the next 5 Rollei films
@@TheNakedPhotographer ...and we're all gonna roll eyes ;)
@@markuslarjomaa3122 Well played 👍
Since This is repackaged Agfa document repro film... That's exactly how it works best
Agfa 100 and 400 😁 the new film 👍 ow anf foma 200.... 👍👍
They are very different films. They need to be exposed and developed differently.
I am amazed that you don't know this.
Then it wouldn’t be a comparison of films, it would be a comparison of film/developer combinations. That’s not the purpose of this series.
You really believe he doesn't know this? lol