127 film

by **R-BUFF** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:45 pm

ROLLEI-Film (made by MACO/AGFA) has new 127 type films.

Name and link to the producer:

http://www.macodirect.de/rollei-crossbird-p-1784.html

http://www.macodirect.de/rollei-nightbird-p-1957.html

In February 2011, Rollei-Film will launch an new 127 type color negative film with ISO 640.

Cheers

by **JanBoettcher** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:24 am

Oh Lord!
I just wish they'd offer a plain "non-creative" good old fashioned regular slide film with ISO 100 at a reasonable price - to make full use of the Baby's capabilities (to take stunning 4x4cm superslides) and not degrade the Baby-Rollei to Lomo/Holga/Diana level (something like Astia would be perfect!).

by **R-BUFF** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:48 pm

The ROLLEI CROSSBIRD 127 is an old-fashioned, well-known film! It can be processed completely and normally in the E-6 process! Each 127 photographer is free to use this film as traditional reversal film, or to process him in the cross-process! :wink:

by **R-BUFF** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:19 pm

UPS, I forget, the ROLLEI CROSSBIRD 127 has ISO 200! Thanks

by **JanBoettcher** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:27 pm

The Rollei Crossbird is "Nennempfindlichkeit ISO 200/24°" and for some funny reason or the other the distributor chose to promote it as a "Crossbird" ("Verarbeitung im Prozess C-41") in the first place, not as a slide film!

My educated guess: It would not be up to normal standards for a modern slide film, not to mention comparison with a modern ISO 100/21° slide film.

Maybe it is just the old outclassed Agfa 200 slide film (which totally sucked compared to rather modern Astia or Ektachrome), who knows?

Besides that 8,95 Euro per roll is way more than the regular price for a 120 roll of Fuji or Kodak film (not to metion the price per square cm/inch of film ;-). My goal: A "reasonable" price, not a rip-off price for the Holga-Lunatics going for some "creative" film.

Compare:
http://www.macodirect.de/fuji-astia-100 ... -1432.html
http://www.macodirect.de/fuji-velvia-12 ... -1265.html
http://www.macodirect.de/fuji-velvia-12 ... -1261.html
http://www.macodirect.de/kodak-ektachro ... -1934.html
http://www.macodirect.de/kodak-ektachro ... -1316.html

Before you ask "Why not try ...": I'm not going to burn the minimum order of 39,50 (plus postage) for this kind of experiment (I'm stocked well with 120 film, so filling up my 127 trial order with other 120 film wouldn't make sense).

When it comes to the announced ISO 640 film, I'll wait a few months until the early adopters will have reported the true film speed, truely needed developement etc. (remember the old maco digibase 200 vs. 400 and "regular C41" vs. "professional C41 developement" thing?).

by **sniedermair** » Fri May 27, 2011 4:48 am

Interesting that Jan mentions the Digibase 200 here. I exposed a few rolls and had them developed in E6 chemistry. The slides came back very grainy and with a strong brown colour cast. I thought the lab screwed up, so I exposed a couple more rolls and went to another lab. Same result. Needless to say, the other 20 or so rolls live in my fridge. The next stop may be the garbage can.
What is your experience?

by **JanBoettcher** » Fri May 27, 2011 8:20 am

Some time ago I fell for the "Rollei"-digibase or whatever it was called film in 135 cartridge, when it was still advertised having ISO 400 - opposed to the real 200. Guess what! The results sucked. Go to some forum and complain about sucking results with your "Rollei"-film (or "Rollei"-chemistry), in 98% of all cases the user and/or his lab will get the blame.

It will usually take some more complaints and a few weeks until somebody will admit there was some qualtity problem with the merchandise ...

Go deeper, read up some reviews
http://medienfrech.wordpress.com/2008/0 ... cn200-pro/
sorry, German, but look at the pics.

One of the readers, a certain Wolf-Rainer Schmalfuß (maybe the R-BLUFF can enlighten us, who that guy may be!) complains the test is unfair, comparing ISO 100 and 200 films ... so the author added a shoutout of the 6,95 Euro per roll digibase versus the ElCheapo drugstore brand "Rossmann" (2 rolls for 1,95 Euro)
http://medienfrech.wordpress.com/2008/0 ... ere-tests/

Now this test was really unfair, the cheapish drugstore brand ISO 200 film beat the sh#t out of the digibase ...

It remained the claim digibase allows you to get "tonally correct" B&W prints ... well, without the orange masking it is easier to print B&W, but how to get "tonally correct" B&W prints from color negatives with orthocromatic paper ... beats me!
http://medienfrech.wordpress.com/2008/0 ... n-200-pro/

Anyway, I'm not a gambler, I just like straight things and to me the best surprise with any product is no surprise whatsoever.

Why should I shoot 4x4 superslides? To gain quality!
So, load Astia not some grainy outlived ISO 200 material.

Why the Luftwaffe is (supposedly) still using it? Beats me, but did anybody here ever get the impression the armed services of his country use the "best" equipment/material? Try the Luftwaffe's shoe polish ... it sucks that much, no soldier will steal it (or at least nobody will steal a second one).

by **sniedermair** » Sat May 28, 2011 6:33 am

Hello Jan,
sorry that I did not mention that I used Digibase CR 200, not CN. But it looks like the results are going parallel anyways.
The references in your answer are quite interesting.
Currently I use Kodak Elite Chrome for slides, which I bought from a photo dealer here in Toronto for a very gooooooood price: $ 1.00 per roll. Expiry date is sometime next year. I got 50 rolls.
Any good results with the new Adox films?
Best regards,
Siegi
btw, I do speak German, well, say Bavarian.

by **JanBoettcher** » Mon May 30, 2011 6:10 am

Hi Siegi,
CR, CN, Redbird, Crossbird, R³, Superpan, RHS-developer, ... whatever, the pattern always is the same.
Best
Jan

127 film

Rollei Crossbird 127

ROLLEI CROSSBIRD 127

Who is online