Kodak Technical Pan vs. Rollei ATP 1.1

Again, this text will come across as being dated simply because it is. This has been written about one and a half year ago. This experiment was meant to be taken to a further level but many things have gotten in between, so this outline is meant to show me where I left off exactly. I might be picking this up again in the future but I hardly ever work on 35mm anymore and on mid-format this Rollei ATP 1.1 is far more trickier than it already was on 35mm.

I have received the Rollei RLC developer and the ATP V1 films which gave me the opportunity to compare the 2 TP films.

Also this film is quite remarkable. Very little grain, nice contrasty, even with the RLC, and again no mask.
As you can see there’s something “wrong” with the images. They look solarized / posterized and it’s definitely a flaw in the negative itself and not caused by the scan. The Kodak as well as the Rollei suffer from this effect so it’s something that’s most likely caused by the developer or the way I treated it.

Been doing some research and it appeared to be a so called “Phenidone-effect” which might be a substance in the developer. When agitated too little it’s able to cause such flaws. But with the second batch I agitated more to eliminate this problem but it still was present, so that’s not what where the problem’s at.

Here’s a summary of what I did the first and the second time:

Batch 1:
Shot with the Nikon F100 with a Sigma 24-70 f2.8. Treated as a 40 ASA film.
Developed in RLC for 6 minutes, dillution 1+4. Developer mixed with normal water.
Agitated 5 every 30 seconds.
No stopbath used.
Normal fixing dillution, Amaloco X89.
Rinsed for more than half an hour.
Agepon normal dillution.
Temperature 20 degrees for all baths.

Batch 2 (of which I didn’t put any examples on here):
Shot with Nikon F100 with a Sigma 24-70 f2.8. Treated as 32 ASA film.
Treated in low-light conditions.
Developed in RLC for 6 minutes, dillution 1+4. Developer mixed with demi-water.
Agitated continuously the entire first minute, after that 5 every 30 seconds.
No stopbath used.
Fixer 2 times more dilluted as recommended on datasheet, Amaloco X89.
Rinsed for more than half an hour.
Agepon 3 times more dilluted as recommended on datasheet.
Temperature 20 degrees for all baths.

After doing some more research it was mentioned that the developer is very sensitive to silver residue which inevitably is left behind in the tank and on the reels when having developed plenty of films.
To eliminate this variable I will buy a new tank and use it with this developer only.

In the meanwhile I contacted Rollei to ask if they have ever encountered such a problem and they asked me to send them some sample negatives which I did.About a week later I got an envelop back home with my negatives, a testkit containing 4 Rollei ATP’s and the matching developer, the Rollei DC, which is a different one than I used. I also received an email explaining their findings.
They mentioned that the film was overexposed and that that causes the effect. The second film I developed was actually underexposed but since the contrast was too high when shot I had some real white parts in them and that’s where the effect occured, so in that case they could be right.

I’m gonna try another batch which I’ll develop with the Rollei DC developer and just go bracketing the exposure to see what happens next.
It’s being mentioned that the RLC is a real delicate developer so I would like to get it right. But the DC should provide me with more room to screw around. Have to see where that’ll get me.

The bracketing test will follow soon. These results have never been published before.