Foma Retropan - First roll

[kiteboy]

This week I took delivery of 17m of Retropan 320 and had my first attempt at bulk loading.

I shot a roll using an OM2 with the 50mm1.8 in automatic mode.
Processed in Foma Retro Special developer - following the manufacturer's instructions faithfully. Dev 4' 30" at 20C. 30 second agitation to start then 10 seconds per minute.

The images below are scans with minimal adjustment in Lightroom.







I hope this helps anyone considering trying this film. Shame it is not available in 120🙄

Good luck

Andrew

 

[adresaba]

Thanks.
Which scanner is this?

 

[kiteboy]

Thanks.
Which scanner is this?

Scanned with Epson V700 at 2400dpi using Epson Scan software.

 

[whitecat]

I like it!

 

[presspass]

Thanks for the images. This film seems to do just what it is supposed to - handle extreme contrast well. Again, thanks for posting. Any additional would be appreciated.

 

[kiteboy]

Foma Retropan - Roll 2

Foma Retropan - Roll 2

Second week with this film. These were shot in late morning full sunlight. Leica M6 with 40mm Summicron C.

Same processing as roll 1.

If anyone has experience with developers giving finer grain I would be interested. i like the tonality but not the grain!

Thanks

Andrew

 

[sebastel]

very nice.
as for developer recommendations: i mostly use rodinal, which is not really known for fine grain. sorry.

cheers,
sebastian

 

[Filzkoeter]

From my tests with the Retropan film, I must say: the tonality is quite nice but the grain is WAY too much for 35mm (and I like grain). It's by far the grainiest film I've ever shot and I don't believe it can be tamed in 35mm.
I think Retropan could be really nice in large format.

 

[pirx70]

Hello Filzkoeter,

Have you - or anyone - made any prints under enlarger so far? Or perhaps are you conclusions on grain from loupe inspection of the negative? I have no clue about scanning, but for aught I've read about others' experience, scanners do do strange things with grain, disfiguring it awfully compared to what it's like when projected on the enlarger board. I am really curious as I'm about to buy 135 film in bulk, and as I'm a bit tight on the budget, thought the Foma might be interesting. What I am after, before I invest in the 17 m spool, is what a 24x30 cm enlarger print from Retropan negative looks like, compared to e.g. HP5 (also resolution-wise).
Cheers,
pirx70

From my tests with the Retropan film, I must say: the tonality is quite nice but the grain is WAY too much for 35mm (and I like grain). It's by far the grainiest film I've ever shot and I don't believe it can be tamed in 35mm.
I think Retropan could be really nice in large format.

 

[Nokton48]

From my tests with the Retropan film, I must say: the tonality is quite nice but the grain is WAY too much for 35mm (and I like grain). It's by far the grainiest film I've ever shot and I don't believe it can be tamed in 35mm.
I think Retropan could be really nice in large format.

Well this is good to know as I intend to get some sheets in the 9x12cm size.
Tonality and response characteristics are more important to me than grain, in the larger format.

 

[shadowfox]

Wow, that is grainy (and like you, I like grainy).

And I agree that this will kick-butt in larger format, I'd say even in 120 this could be a nice one for nature still-life shots with a lot of textures.

 

[Filzkoeter]

pirx70: I've done no prints from the Retropan negatives, but even projected on the enlarger-board or inspected with a loupe you can see that the grain is as big and coarse as it is on the scans. I wouldn't rate Retropan high in the resolution departement.

 

[DominikDUK]

Am I the only who remembers the how to get more grain or how can I grain of tri-x circa 1950's threads.

Foma has give those who want loads of grain a choice. Looking at a neg trough a loupe or only project it on the baseboard without actually printing the neg only tells half the story mat paper for instance swallows a lot of grain, some glossy surfaces are good at hiding grain as well. I am also sure that prints will kick ass on Ilford Multigrade art paper which will reduce the appearance of grain and the art texture paired with grain will make the photo look like a lithograph or etching.

I would also be interested knowing how well protected the emulsion is against reticulation as the results look very grainy for a 400 ISO past (since 1970's) or present emulsion

 

[kiteboy]

Then I tried D76

Then I tried D76

I shot another roll today and tried D76 stock at 20 degrees for 7 minutes. Agitate for first 30 seconds then 5 seconds per minute. Here are some of the results - negs a bit thin - see what you think.

 

[kossi008]

I've shot a first test roll end developed it in Emofin. Negs came out way too thin (Zone VIII at logD = 0.6), so I would have to do it again with a longer dev time to know more. But I'll probably go for Xtol stock in my next attempt to tame this film.

Grain is large, but OK'ish; doesn't look reticulated, just large, compact grain aggregations. I attached a 2000 ppi raw scan snippet.

 

[pirx70]

Hi Kossi,

And what EI speed did you actually use for the exposure?

I am quite impatient to try the film, if the grain is there it's not a problem to me, it seems like a nice offering for portraits and sentimental quasi-pictorialist landscapes.

What is your impression of the manufacturing quality? Are there any holes in the emulsion, scratches etc.?

Cheers,
pirx70

 

[kossi008]

Hi Kossi,

And what EI speed did you actually use for the exposure?

I am quite impatient to try the film, if the grain is there it's not a problem to me, it seems like a nice offering for portraits and sentimental quasi-pictorialist landscapes.

What is your impression of the manufacturing quality? Are there any holes in the emulsion, scratches etc.?

Cheers,
pirx70

Shot at 320, which I could not verify given the overall too short development time (Zone I exposure came out at logD = 0.03 but then, like I said, Zone VIII was at 0.60!).

No quality problems so far, but keep in mind that I've only shot one 12 exposure test roll... More to come this weekend.

 

[ravilamir]

I'll continue my testing of Retropan 320 that started in this thread: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148885

Just an observation: Foma published a small set of developing times in some developers.
I'll say if you deviate from the manufacturer recommendations, then you are on your own. If you like the results, then it is great. If you don't, then please don't blame the film or the manufacturer.

Someone observed this film dries flatter.
All Foma films dry very flat indeed.

These were shot at EI640 and developed in the Retropan 320 developer for the time and agitation prescribed.

7-24-2015_002 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

7-24-2015_048 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

7-24-2015_007 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

7-24-2015_012 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

7-24-2015_021 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

I am very pleased with this film.

 

[Muju79]

Seems a tad overly grainy with the dev conditions you used. There's also some halo around highlight areas, is it the film or perhaps your lens has some haze inside?

 

[europanorama]

Promicrol?

Promicrol?

Why not trying out promicrol? Am i wrong?