[Leica] Rollei introduces their own brand B&W film

[deveney.marty at saugov.sa.gov.au (Deveney, Marty (PIRSA))]

>traffic like in traffic cameras?

Like when you run a red light and "FLASH" you're caught.


>Tri x has three layers does it not hence that's how they came up with the
>name?
>Plus x having one more which to me means two?

Correct.  It's relatively easy, given the right equipment, to embed some
film in resin or wax, slice it and look at those thin slices with a
microscope side-on.  The layers really are physical, visible layers.

>Pan means one right?  I may have thought that at one time.
>Or clear high tones like played with a flute?

Pan means 'panchromatic'.  8-)  Kodak's 'pan' films have/had varying numbers
of layers Verichrome Pan had two, both thick, Royal-X Pan three, I can't
remember all the others but some have one.

>The films which have worked the best for me when I am in what I call "Ansel
>Adams mode" are the slow single layer films. Thin.
>Which is when I'm using my Hasselblad with the mirror locked up with a
>tripod and a cable release and the slowest film I can find with the high
rez
>developer dilution combination I can find.

The physical thickness of the emulsion plays a role in resolution; the
difficulty is in getting enough silver into such a thin single layer to
reproduce the tonal variations that you need to show.

>When using even medium speed films many of which I'd assume had 2 layers it
>was never quite the same. Good old Panatomic x or Ilford Pan F.

I actually think these have a single layer, but the cubic grain structure
(as opposed to tabular like T-Max or epitaxial like Delta) and/or absence of
developer accelerants (like in Acros and Fomapan 200) in the emulsion make
them suffer in comparison to new technologies.

>But tab grain films and Xtol leveled the playing field on that account
>pretty much. Like ACROS and delta 100. And Tmax 100 if you are not using
>Xtol. Or Rodinal.

Xtol has many, many advantages.

>I've printed out their whole 22 page thing but so far it looks like a
slower
>speed Tri x to me. I'd bet the fast larger grained emulsion was really a
>finer grained one but they added some chemical.

I'm not against thick emulsions, or dual layer emulsions (Verichrome Pan was
one of my favourite films) or development accelerants in films.  I am averse
to hype marketing and strange spectral response.  Rollei are guilty of both.
At 400 Tri-X is better, let alone Delta 400 if you want painful transfer of
resolution and contrast and at the 3200 end, TMZ or Neopan will work better.
Why market something as 'universal'?  Usually it means that it doesn't do
anything very well.

>And as I say I don't do well with thick skinned multiple emulsions.

I like them, but I dislike this film for the reasons I've outlined above.

Oh and it's expensive, which I don't like either.  The Maco stuff is much
cheaper.  But then, there is the box.

Marty