Rollei RPX 400 Black and White Film Profile – Is It Worth a Shot?

Rollei RPX 400 Black and White Film Profile – Is It Worth a Shot?

2200 1238 Dustin Vaughn-Luma

In a vast sea of similarly-specced black-and-white mid-speed films, finding a stock that speaks the right language can be frustrating. This is especially true for those of us who develop our own film. The seemingly never-ending variables of chemicals, agitation methods, water purity, temperatures, dilution methods, and God forbid, scanning software, pushes us to constant experimentation. But as confounding as that can be, it’s also rewarding. These unending factors and uncertain results are the major forces that continue to drive me in my exploration of film photography.

We’ve written extensively on the most popular films, and those articles can be seen here. But today we’re profiling a film that’s about as far from popular as a film can get; Rollei RPX 400.

Debuting in 2011, RPX 400 is very much a new player in the market. But even so, I wouldn’t describe it as modern. Like most panchromatic films, RPX 400 makes images with a classic look. But it also brings a few surprises.

Okay, I know we’ve been down this road before, but settle in. You’re about to learn everything you need to know.

What is RPX 400

RPX 400 is a triacetate base, panchromatic, high-speed black-and-white negative film available in 35mm canisters, 35mm 100′ bulk rolls120 medium format rolls and 4 x 5 sheets. It’s distributed by Maco (Hans O. Mahn GmbH & Co. KG, Maco Photo Products), a Germany-based supplier of photographic films, and sold under the brand name Rollei (licensed from Rollei GmbH & Co. KG). The company says that Rollei RPX 400 is a new and fresh emulsion based off of the highly adored Agfa APX emulsion, though some commentators claim that it’s old deep-freeze stock (which is probably an internet rumor – I’m far more willing to accept a company’s claims over random forum posts).

Originally introduced as a low cost film, it now costs at least a dollar more per thirty-six exposure roll compared with its more popular counterparts HP5 and Tri-X. If you’re a medium format shooter, be prepared to pay just shy of $9 US dollar per roll – yikes! This certainly will discourage budget-conscious shooters, but those willing to throw extra coin at film may find exactly what they’re looking for.


Unlike some of the other 400 speed black-and-white films I’ve used, RPX 400 seems to be a bit more sensitive to temperature. Despite my best efforts, it’s not uncommon to be off by a couple degrees here and there when developing HP5 and Tri-X, and with these films I never notice an impact on the final image. More experimentation is needed to determine variance with RPX 400, but even when temperatures vary by just two degrees I’ve observed a significant difference in grain structure and tonality across two rolls shot at box speed.

Temperature sensitivity noted, my development process is exactly the same as listed in my earlier Delta 400 review. Here’s the copy/paste.

Safety is Sexy : You don’t want to grow a third ear, right? Wear gloves! Film chemistry is toxic and hands absorb more chemicals than any other part of the body.

Pre-rinse : Do or don’t, it’s personal preference. I find that developer etches more consistently without a pre-rinse.

Developer solution : HC-110 (B – 1:31 — 68 F / 20 C)

I think HC-110 is the best multi-purpose black-and-white developer, and dilution B works for me. If you’re picky about grain, try stand development, but I haven’t bothered with that. If anything, use it for its sharpness. Mix it with de-ionized water, not tap water. My home town of San Jose, California has some of the hardest water in the U.S., and I’ve found my film shows significantly more grain when I use tap water.

I develop in a spiral tank and I get desirable contrast and grain characteristics if I invert the tank gently two times per inversion cycle. I’ve seen tutorials in which the shooter’s flipping the tank over four or five times like a wild animal, and that’s fine if you’ve got some rage you’re working out, but I tend to get a more consistent grain structure when I use finesse. I’d also recommend not spinning the reels like a top during the first minute of agitation. A slow but consistent twist is all you need.

Stop Bath : Room temperature de-ionized water. Gently agitate for 1 minute.

Fixer : Ilford Rapid Fixer mixed with de-ionized water (1:4 — 68 F / 20 C)

Depending on the strength of the mixture (i.e. how many times I’ve used it), I fix for two to five minutes.

Rinse : Now that the film has been fixed, tap water is fine to use (I do my best to keep it the same temp as everything else). I usually fill up and drain the tank three times, then let it sit under the faucet for another four to five minutes.

Final Rinse : Fill the tank up with room temperature de-ionized water and put in a couple drops of Kodak Photo-Flo 200. Agitate for fifteen to twenty seconds, then let sit for another thirty seconds. There’s really no hard and fast rule on this; so long as you coat the film with the mixture, it should be fine.

Dry : Don’t use a squeegee! Squeegees just gather particles of dirt that end up scratching the film. I use a clean microfiber towel  drenched with the Photo Flo mixture from the tank, and rung out tight. I then make two very light passes on the strip, clip it, and hang to dry for two to three hours before scanning.

Scanning : I scan with a Plustek 8200i and adjust tone slightly as needed to compensate for my own errors in shooting.

Note that massive dev chart doesn’t list dev times for HC-110 (Dilution B) at 1600 and 3200. I developed a roll of RPX 400 at 1600 for 11 minutes with solid results, so you may want to use that as a baseline if shooting at that speed. Otherwise, the chart does have times for dilution A for both 1600 and 3200.

In Use

Whenever I pull RPX from the spool I immediately shed a single tear, for the film is quite possibly the flattest I’ve ever seen straight from the tank. Even HP5, which dries flat, has a slight curl when pulled off the reel. For that alone, I’m ready to applaud.

Exposure latitude is quite good, even besting perennial performers HP5 and Tri-X. With those more popular films I’ve had nothing but success when over-exposing between 100 and 320. RPX 400 matched those by producing excellent results anywhere from 200 to 400. But there is a downside; RPX develops a bit flat, even when using a high-contrast developer like HC-110. While midtones are wonderful, things are generally pretty grey, and this lack of contrast is probably RPX’s biggest weakness (for those who want that punch).

Despite my attempt to give this film a fair shot with a sharp developer (HC-110), my results remained a bit soft across all exposure indices. Of course, sharpness doesn’t mean much at all, but if you’re after that bite you’ll want to look elsewhere.

Should you feel the need for speed, RPX 400 becomes a completely different beast. The film’s characteristics immediately begin to appeal to me at 800 and 1600. Contrast comes in like a wrecking ball and the grain is downright lovely. In fact, this film may have one of the most pleasing grain structures of any 400 speed film I’ve tried. I’ve heard that it can be pushed to 3200 with usable results, but I haven’t yet had the opportunity to experiment.

Shadow detail is excellent and highlights don’t blow easily like you’ll find with JCH 400. Of the black-and-white films I’ve used, RPX 400‘s dynamic range puts up a respectable fight.


Most panchromatic black-and-white film shooters typically fall into one of two camps – they’re diehard fans of either HP5 or Tri-X. The few leftovers who don’t join sides with the tall towers of Kodak and Ilford are usually hardcore Kentmere or Foma fanatics. Beyond these allegiances, it seems like many of us are happy to experiment with new films (think JCH 400, Ferrania P30, Kosmofoto) and inevitably return to our beloved classics due to their consistency and price. Fair enough. I certainly can’t blame anyone for that.

Rollei’s RPX 400 is seldom in the conversation with any of these films. And I think I know why. Like its closest competition, it produces a wonderfully classic look even when using modern optics. But with its inconsistency in developing and higher price point, I’m not sure that it’s a film I’d regularly stock in the fridge. It does have a great look when pushed, and it’s a pretty sharp film with notably fine grain, and next to Delta it’s the flattest film I’ve worked with. But I’m not sure that’s enough. It’s not a bad film, quite the opposite, but it’s also not notably superior to its competition.

Shooters who are looking for something just a bit unusual and who don’t mind paying a little extra, and shooters who want to push their film and experiment at higher speeds may find that Rollei’s RPX 400 is worth a look. If that’s not you, stick with the usual suspects. They’re more versatile, more predictable, and more affordable.

Want to shoot Rollei RPX 400?

Get it from B & H Photo

Get it on Amazon

Follow Casual Photophile on Facebook and Instagram

[Some of the links in this article will direct users to our affiliates at B&H Photo, Amazon, and eBay. By purchasing anything using these links, Casual Photophile may receive a small commission at no additional charge to you. This helps Casual Photophile produce the content we produce. Many thanks for your support.]

Dustin Vaughn-Luma

An experience designer, freelance photographer, and competitive cyclist living in San Jose, California with his wife, three sons, and neurotic bernese mountain dog. The majority of his personal work is shot on 35mm and 120 film, and is developed and scanned at home.

All stories by:Dustin Vaughn-Luma
  • Wilson Laidlaw May 18, 2018 at 6:54 am

    I use the quite similar Rollei 400S, which is in effect RPX400 with extended red sensitivity. I use this because it it the only 70mm perf type 2 film in current regular production and Maco sell it at a very reasonable price, less than a third of what Ilford ask for 70mm HP5, when they very occasionally make a small batch. I doubt if I could tell the 400S from HP5, they look pretty much identical to me, with noticeable but quite gentle grain and medium contrast. Certainly compared with the ADOX Silvermax 100 I have been using recently, the 400S could almost be said to be low contrast.

    Has anyone tried the ARS-Imago one bath developer yet. I have bought the two bottle kit (solutions A & B) to give it whirl. It is quite economical for me in my small Rondinax 35U 200ml tank. Someone else mentioned that he felt it needed a touch of extra fixing at the end to clear the film perfectly.


    • I tried the Monobath from Ars-Imago and it’s kind of very easy to use with satisfying results. It tends to give results with a lot of contrast wich is great for some kinds of film (HP5/FP4, Tri-X) but less with others like the Ilford Delta. And I once processed a JCH StreetPan and as the film is already very contrasted, it’s kind of too much…
      The people from Ars-Imago here in Zurich told me that the chemical consists of a very strong developper that really acts for the first 3 minutes (approx.) and then the fixer takes over for the remaining 7 minutes. It’s better to use it quickly as the mixed solutions tends to oxydate quickly (becoming very dark) and doesn’t hold so long over the time. They claim it is ok for 2 weeks and 15 films, but I never kept/used it so long…
      Another intersting chemical from Ars-Imago to use (besides their standard FD developer which does the job well) is the R9 one-shot developer, which is in fact a Rodinal formula…

  • Please note that RPX is much cheaper than tri-x here in europe. (4-5 vs. 7-8 €). It’s even cheaper when you roll your own films.

  • William Sommerwerck May 18, 2018 at 11:12 am

    After my criticism, I’m obliged to praise. The shot of the kid “flying” on the mountain bike is what good B&W photography is about. The image doesn’t need color to “work”. Indeed, color would only detract from it.

  • Interesting read about this film I heard about, but I never tried it. Now I’m interested in shooting some rolls of it! 🙂

  • Great pics and the one of the flying bike is all sorts of sweetness.

  • Bo Belvedere Christensen May 22, 2018 at 12:35 am

    Thanks for the article which gives me a lot to work with on this film that I bought 75 4×5″ sheets of from UK for a very reasonable price. I don’t know the price for 135 or 120 film at this dealer, but the 4×5″ sheets are much less expensive than I can get Ilford HP5 for. I will experiment with pressing this film as that sounds like just the right thing to do with it, but I will also try some stand development for fine grain and see if I can fix the contrast in post.
    Thanks again for a nice article.

  • Luka Bošković June 17, 2018 at 7:10 pm

    Hi there Dustin, when I shoot BW film, I’m using only Rollei BW films already for 5 years and I never looked back. Retro 80s and 400s being my favorite, but I also use the RPX series. The main “outcome” of you review is heavily affected by using a wrong developer for the Rollei films. They are very different from other BW films, and very unique, and on the development side they confuse even the most experienced darkroom geeks who try them for the first time.

    If you want the RPX to be more contrasty, develop it in Rodinal with higher concetrate for shorter development times. The shorter the development time, the more contrasty it will be. With 80s for example, you should do exactly the opposite and go for the 1 hour stand-development with rodinal… amazing results. I see you have some problems with 400s the same ones I had when I started using them, so ditch the HC110 asap since it’s a no-no developer for Rollei films, and go for rodinal (I use adox rodinal), or even better the Rollei developers, the Rollei RHC for the RPX400, and the Rollei RLS for 80s.

    Anyway, I’m glad someone is using Rollei films outside of Europe, and that it made a good impression even with a developer that develops barely 50% of it’s qualities.

    P.S. you really need to try a Retro 80s in 120 roll… do some portraits.

  • Anthony O’Donnell August 11, 2018 at 1:20 am

    I’m excited to try developing RPX 400 in Rollei developer. I’ve been shooting RPX 400 with Carl Zeiss lenses and developing in Kodak X-Tol for about a year now because I like the way it renders textures in images. Best way I can explain this is that fur coats, skin tones, hair, textiles, etc look soft and velvety and take on this glowy or glowing quality that can be quite magical. (not to say you couldn’t achieve this effect with other films.) The low contrast quality of this film to me is a good thing meaning that you have more control over the contrast in digital post production or with contrast filters in the darkroom. Definitely experiment with developing times using X-Tol; times on Massive Dev might be a little too long. Also, RPX 400 negs look different than any other negs i’ve ever seen. Click on the link to see example images:

  • Kowalikfotografia August 24, 2019 at 6:24 am

    Rpx and others Rollei films are better to darkroom work for me. It is similar to HP5or Delta if you scan. But it is much more differences when you make a classic a silver print. For me better than Ilford.

  • Dustin, I don’t even know if you will see this since so much time has passed. It’s been over 5 years since this review and the Rollei film is now several dollars per roll cheaper than the Kodak and Ilford films. I wonder how you would rate it now compared to the competition? Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Dustin Vaughn-Luma

An experience designer, freelance photographer, and competitive cyclist living in San Jose, California with his wife, three sons, and neurotic bernese mountain dog. The majority of his personal work is shot on 35mm and 120 film, and is developed and scanned at home.

All stories by:Dustin Vaughn-Luma