Dcanalogue
Established
Hi folks!
I tested a roll of the recently released Foma film i.e. the Retropan 320.
It promises to be a "retrò" look film, with low grain and large tonal scale.
Frankly (at least rated @ 200 and developed in FX39 1+9) I can agree with first and third statement... but not with the second one. Grain is big and obtrusive, expecially in more lighted zones. Moreover, these zones seems a bit overexposed, despite the negative appears generally well developed and a of good density.
Any thought about?
(Btw. for this test I used the Voigtlander Vito B with Color Skopar lens).
Read (and see) more on my FILM BLOG
I tested a roll of the recently released Foma film i.e. the Retropan 320.
It promises to be a "retrò" look film, with low grain and large tonal scale.
Frankly (at least rated @ 200 and developed in FX39 1+9) I can agree with first and third statement... but not with the second one. Grain is big and obtrusive, expecially in more lighted zones. Moreover, these zones seems a bit overexposed, despite the negative appears generally well developed and a of good density.
Any thought about?
(Btw. for this test I used the Voigtlander Vito B with Color Skopar lens).
Read (and see) more on my FILM BLOG
mfogiel
Veteran
FX39 works well with slow films and some T grain modern films as well (great with Foma 200), but from my experience was really horrible with a film like Tri X. I would suggest to try the old good D76 1+1 to see what happens, and if it's not a winner just get a film you can rely on.
Nokton48
Veteran
6x9cm neg from Plaubel Makiflex. Retro 320 in Microdol-X
Makiflex Retro 320 - 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr
Makiflex Retro 320 - 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr
kossi008
Photon Counter
Whoever said that Retro 320 would be low in grain is bending the truth too far. It is one of the grainiest films yet. I have tried it in 35 mm in 4 different developers and just sold it on..
ravilamir
Well-known
Very nice!6x9cm neg from Plaubel Makiflex. Retro 320 in Microdol-X
A question: did you cut 5x4 to 6x9?
I like Retropan 320 with its retro special developer:
Model doll in Retropan 320 by Ricardo Miranda, on FlickrDcanalogue
Established
Very nice!
A question: did you cut 5x4 to 6x9?
I like Retropan 320 with its retro special developer:
Which format is this? 35mm or MF?
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
If you want to see this film look grainless check out some recent posts to the Flickr Group:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/2835476@N25/
There is some 4x5 work using Rodinal stand, not by me so I am linking, as Mod on the Group I was all for kicking them out no way is that Retropan I thought, but it is.
There are a range of developers there from TomA and self as well as others, 40 others actually.
https://www.flickr.com/groups/2835476@N25/
There is some 4x5 work using Rodinal stand, not by me so I am linking, as Mod on the Group I was all for kicking them out no way is that Retropan I thought, but it is.
There are a range of developers there from TomA and self as well as others, 40 others actually.
Jockos
Well-known
I don't get it, it's a grainy film, you don't like grain, why not use XTOL or Microdol-X?
FX-39 is not a fine grain developer.
I've shot some in 5x7 and it's fine, but I wouldn't consider the 35mm - way to grainy!
FX-39 is not a fine grain developer.
I've shot some in 5x7 and it's fine, but I wouldn't consider the 35mm - way to grainy!
ravilamir
Well-known
35mm. There is no 120 format for Retropan 320 Soft.
Well, not yet.
Nokton48
Veteran
Very nice!
A question: did you cut 5x4 to 6x9?
002 by Nokton48, on Flickr
^^ I bought 300 sheets of 9x12cm Retro in Germany. My Makiflexes take this size in several different film backs. In this case I enlarged the central portion of the 82mmx90 image area, which is roughly 6x9cm. I used my Epson 4490 Scanner.
Dcanalogue
Established
Thanks guys for your comments and suggestions!
It was the first time I used the retropan and I had to test it (and it's not me that produce it in 35mm format
) I bought a couple of rolls and loaded my Vito B 2 or 3 months ago... but ended it only recently.
I'm testing it with the developer I have and (I was wrong) thrusted what manufacturer said (low grain). Next time I'll check it with Ars-mago Fd (which usualy is fine grained).
What surprised me negatively has been the "quality" of grain not much the quantity. I checked the Flickr group and I have to say that all developers used gave, more or less, similar results (the special Foma developer too).
I think large format is not a right comparative test (first because grain seems always smaller in these cases) thinking that the best results seems given in a portrait developed in..... Rodinal! Also better than the previous one developed in Xtol.
Of course, a definiteve judgment can be done (as always) only when printing.... has anyone printed it yet?
It was the first time I used the retropan and I had to test it (and it's not me that produce it in 35mm format
) I bought a couple of rolls and loaded my Vito B 2 or 3 months ago... but ended it only recently.I'm testing it with the developer I have and (I was wrong) thrusted what manufacturer said (low grain). Next time I'll check it with Ars-mago Fd (which usualy is fine grained).
What surprised me negatively has been the "quality" of grain not much the quantity. I checked the Flickr group and I have to say that all developers used gave, more or less, similar results (the special Foma developer too).
I think large format is not a right comparative test (first because grain seems always smaller in these cases) thinking that the best results seems given in a portrait developed in..... Rodinal!
Also better than the previous one developed in Xtol.Of course, a definiteve judgment can be done (as always) only when printing.... has anyone printed it yet?
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
You are correct the grain seems independent of the developer, purely subjectively XTOL 1:1 was perhaps marginally (how much can you qualify an impression?) less grainy but no better comparison of what happens when you increase format size exists.
I would try it in 120 if and when they pack it it could just be enough grain.
I think the low contrast with grain is unsettling, in high contrast, as we usually see it it is "normal", interesting film but not an everyday shooter for me.
ravilamir
Well-known
Thank you!Very nice!
A question: did you cut 5x4 to 6x9?
^^ I bought 300 sheets of 9x12cm Retro in Germany. My Makiflexes take this size in several different film backs. In this case I enlarged the central portion of the 82mmx90 image area, which is roughly 6x9cm. I used my Epson 4490 Scanner.
Fotohuis
Well-known
Retropan 320 Soft is available in 35mm and in different sheet film formats only. It won't be available in 120 roll film.
It is a low contrast type film comparing with FP400 which is iso 200-250 only in most developers.
For some subjects the grain is even huge ......
Retropan 320 Soft (35mm) E.I. 320 in Rollei Supergrain 1+9, 8:00 minutes, 20C.
Zorki-6 + I-50.
See above example.
It is a low contrast type film comparing with FP400 which is iso 200-250 only in most developers.
For some subjects the grain is even huge ......
Retropan 320 Soft (35mm) E.I. 320 in Rollei Supergrain 1+9, 8:00 minutes, 20C.
Zorki-6 + I-50.
See above example.
Last edited:
Fotohuis
Well-known
FX-39 (or FX-37) from Geoffrey Crawley has been especially made for Tgrain type films. It fits very good with TMY-2, Tmax 100, Delta 100/400 or a slow speed classical film, iso 25.
I think the choice of FX-39 and this Retropan 320 Soft is one of the worst combinations you can make.
Apart from Supergrain the HC-110 (B) is also a good combination for this film. HC-110 is a fast contrastly working type developer which is fitting good for a lower contrast type film.
Or use the special Retropan developer from Foma for it.
I think the choice of FX-39 and this Retropan 320 Soft is one of the worst combinations you can make.
Apart from Supergrain the HC-110 (B) is also a good combination for this film. HC-110 is a fast contrastly working type developer which is fitting good for a lower contrast type film.
Or use the special Retropan developer from Foma for it.