Blinking Eye 2

I prefer this image over the other one.

The pano format works really well for this subject.

Me too.
Re: Foma 400 - I've had a go with this film and developed it in X-tol. I find it to be a good deal grainer than my usual HP5+ so I would think that it would be well gritty in Rodinal.

My best results with this film has been with staining developers. I use Pyrocat-MC currently, and it masks the grain a little bit. I get very nice prints from medium format, and I think the width of your negative approaches that quality. Give it a go. I think you can get Moersch Tanol in Europe, or possibly Precycol (which I think is a clone of Pyrocat).
What I get is very sharp negative with pronounced grain that looks fantastic on both skin tones and architecture. If you can get it, try it. It prints better than it scans.
- Thomas

I prefer this view to the first one. Still no filter but plenty of clouds - explain. I use Delta 400 in my xpan all the time and dev. in stock ID11.

Cheers
TEX

Yes this is a much better image. Better composition and much less distortion in background buildings.

Thanks for the comments. I've been away for a few days which has delayed my getting back to you all. Thomas - I am intrigued by the suggestions of using staining developer. I know that others really praise them, especially for their compensating effects, but I've yet to give them a try myself. I suspect that I was so disappointed with the Foma, having seen it as a possible cheaper replacement for Tri X (and a deliberate move away from Kodak) that I was seeing the film too narrowly. Your suggestion may just get me thinking again with the four roles of film I still have left.
TEX - this was just a straight shot - the clouds/quality of light were as seen - I just bracketed and then chose the best neg to print from. I was shooting hand held and using filters is such a pain with the rangefinder, especially when the f5.6 30mm lens losses 1.5 stops when using the centre spot filter anyway!
ROB, Jack and Geoff - Not so sure - I think a prefer the first, more askew image but the distortion from the lens is certainly more noticeable.

Thanks all

Graham