Foma Retropan 320 & Adox FX39...

[Dcanalogue]

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

 

[mfogiel]

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]

6x9cm neg from Plaubel Makiflex. Retro 320 in Microdol-X

Makiflex Retro 320 - 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr

 

[kossi008]

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]

6x9cm neg from Plaubel Makiflex. Retro 320 in Microdol-X

Makiflex Retro 320 - 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Very nice!
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 Flickr

 

[Dcanalogue]

Very nice!
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 Flickr

Which format is this? 35mm or MF?

 

[ChrisLivsey]

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.

 

[Jockos]

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!

 

[ravilamir]

Which format is this? 35mm or MF?

35mm. There is no 120 format for Retropan 320 Soft.
Well, not yet.

 

[Nokton48]

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]

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?

 

[ChrisLivsey]

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).

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]

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.

Thank you!

 

[Fotohuis]

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.

has anyone printed it yet?

See above example.

 

[Fotohuis]

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.