Foma introduces Retropan 320 in 120 format

[aleckurgan]

Already available through their web shop:
https://fomaobchod.cz/blackwhitenegativefilms/rollfilms/fomapanroll/retropan320120-6x9cmroll[11761]

 

[Pioneer]

So why use it?

What look does this bring to the table and how is that impacted by the increased negative size possible with 120?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Other than a snappy film case for 120 film, what does it offer? Old photographs? Does it make people look older? Interested readers want to know.

 

[NB23]

I absolutely love foma 100 for its great color response, which reminds me of the good old tri-x/plus-x/agfapan look.

The 200 and 400 especially have this sensitivity to red that’s apaling to my eyes. I just can’t cope with that look when people are involved. This fomapan 320 seems even worse than foma400.

 

[NB23]

As far as those people of the old days on the box, unfortunately that’s false representation in the sense that it’s clear that this film won’t give such results.

They showcase an orthochromatic(ish) look but they actually sell you a panchromatic wilm with extra red sensitivity that make people look effing ugly.

Fomapan 100 is the real deal.

 

[Svenedin]

If it is very cheap I might buy it for the film canisters

 

[pentaxuser]

So why use it?

As this forum is the "Product Availability" one, the OP is simply telling us that Retropan 320 is now available in 120. The print is one Foma have used. It is not the responsibility of the OP.

We normally applaud when a film maker realises a film in a second format but not this time apparently. What I can conclude fairly safely is that so far the messenger has been well and truly shot with a Saturday Night Special.

pentaxuser

 

[trendland]

Well "Retropan 320" has a very grainy characteristic. Special with Fomas recomanded developer. But some might love this real grainy look in 35mm.
And they might be not amused about smaler grain due to 120 format. ...
With regards

 

[Sirius Glass]

Other than a snappy film case for 120 film, what does it offer? Old photographs? Does it make people look older? Interested readers want to know.

If it is very cheap I might buy it for the film canisters

+1

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

So why use it?

In 35mm
7-24-2015_021 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

 

[Nokton48]

Makiflex Retro 320 - 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Should be something very close to -this-. ^^^ This is a 9x9cm image, shot on a 9x12cm sheet of Retro cropped to 6x9cm for scanning. I processed this film with Legacy Mic-X from Freestyle. Shot with a 9x9cm Plaubel Makiflex, 360mm F11 Kern Apo-Repro lens at f16. A cold overcast dreary day at the local Victorian park. Shooting large format film and cropping to medium format is not economical at all. But it works for me.

I LIKE this film and I will definitely be buying some for this upcoming shooting season.

 

[Pioneer]

I was just curious. I enjoy trying different films but when I went to their website I didn't really get any feedback on what the film brought to the table or even what type of film it is. I thought perhaps someone else had some insight.

Usually going to the larger negative will improve a film's tonality but if this films reason for being is grain then you may not want to smooth that out.

Is anyone aware of any 3rd party reviews that do a good job of describing this films character?

 

[Pioneer]

Makiflex Retro 320 - 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Should be something very close to -this-. This is a 9x9cm image, shot on a 9x12cm sheet of Retro cropped to 6x9cm for scanning. I processed this film with Legacy Mic-X from Freestyle. Shot with a 9x9cm Plaubel Makiflex, 360mm F11 Kern Apo-Repro lens at f16. A cold overcast day at the local Victorian park.

I LIKE this film and I will definitely be buying some for this upcoming shooting season.

Thanks Nokton48. I may have to pick up a couple of rolls and try them out in the Pentacon 6.

 

[Nokton48]

I read people badmouthing this film on various forums but I strongly suspect most of them have never actually tried using it.
As I have posted previously I was hoping they would introduce it in 120. This will be truly useful to me.

 

[pentaxuser]

In 135 format there was a very long thread when it was introduced. I'd imagine the 120 version is very similar. The Foma "old days" photo might be just to draw potential consumers attention to the word retro in retropan 320 i.e. a marketing ploy to get consumers interested in it in 120 format.

Maybe this kind of marketing is not acceptable in anything other than U.S. products. Admittedly the Czech Republic and Prague in particular is more famous for Franz Kafka than Don Draper. In the league of who has advanced the human race's examination of itself more I know who rates higher in my book but we have maybe left such self-examination behind in our new era of "sound bites" and tweets

pentaxuser

 

[Svenedin]

I'm not bad mouthing the film but having researched it and having looked at quite a lot of photos taken on this film it does not appear to meet my needs. For me it is too soft and too grainy but these are actually selling points apparently. The grain should be less of an issue with 120 and I'd be interested to hear how people get on with it. I like the canisters for the film though. Would be handy for my hiking trips to save film getting wet (I use plastic bags).

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

In 135 format there was a very long thread when it was introduced. I'd imagine the 120 version is very similar. The Foma "old days" photo might be just to draw potential consumers attention to the word retro in retropan 320 i.e. a marketing ploy to get consumers interested in it in 120 format.

Maybe this kind of marketing is not acceptable in anything other than U.S. products. Admittedly the Czech Republic and Prague in particular is more famous for Franz Kafka than Don Draper. In the league of who has advanced the human race's examination of itself more I know who rates higher in my book but we have maybe left such self-examination behind in our new era of "sound bites" and tweets

pentaxuser

Jesus H on a popsicle stick, could you not introject geopolitics into a discussion of film and its characteristics? Have you tried the film to see if it is indeed a marketing failure, or do you just have an axe to grind?

 

[Nokton48]

Makiflex Retro 320 - 3 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Nothing too artistic here, simply testing how the film reacts in terms of highlight and deep shade on a "key" cloudless day. The apple tree off my back deck in full sun. Also focus testing the Makiflex at the same time. 360mm F11 Kern-Arau process lens at F16, Legacy Mic-X developer. 9x9cm image on 9x12 Foma Retro, cropped to 6x9cm for film scanning.
Focused on the leaf group in the center and the Makiflex nailed it.

These results should also be very similar to what I would expect shooting a roll of 120.

 

[Peter Schrager]

Makiflex Retro 320 - 3 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Nothing too artistic here, simply testing how the film reacts in terms of highlight and deep shade on a "key" cloudless day. The apple tree off my back deck in full sun. Also focus testing the Makiflex at the same time. 360mm F11 Kern-Arau process lens at F16, Legacy Mic-X developer. 9x9cm image on 9x12 Foma Retro, cropped to 6x9cm for film scanning.
Focused on the leaf group in the center and the Makiflex nailed it.

These results should also be very similar to what I would expect shooting a roll of 120.

Try pointing the camera slightly upwards
The posted photo doesn't help much

 

[AgX]

This film was introduced in 2015 in 35mm, so there are reports on it already.

 

[lantau]

I'm not bad mouthing the film but having researched it and having looked at quite a lot of photos taken on this film it does not appear to meet my needs. For me it is too soft and too grainy but these are actually selling points apparently. The grain should be less of an issue with 120 and I'd be interested to hear how people get on with it. I like the canisters for the film though. Would be handy for my hiking trips to save film getting wet (I use plastic bags).

You can buy the canisters without film. I have lots of them for traveling and storing exposed film in the fridge until I get to develop them. I have the Adox branded ones. If you buy at least ten, they will cost €0.79 each. On the bottom it says 'lavials.com'. When you go there you will find that it is Made in USA. Hence it should be easy to order for our stateside friends, as well.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I read people badmouthing this film on various forums but I strongly suspect most of them have never actually tried using it.

That's increasingly been my feeling too, along with a general sense that none of them had actually tested a roll or a few sheets to find out a real-world exposure index or developing times. Or that they had scanned it on a consumer flatbed creating an aberrated, aliased mess. There seems to be a mentality that would rather hold a strong, ill-informed opinion rather than carrying out the testing necessary to find out what the film can actually do.

 

[Nokton48]

Try pointing the camera slightly upwards
The posted photo doesn't help much

Amazing. It's my own test of rendering of highlight and deep shadow detail. And a camera focus test as well. That's all. And it shows a 6x9 section of Retro film processed in Mic-X. Go out and make your own tests.

 

[Svenedin]

You can buy the canisters without film. I have lots of them for traveling and storing exposed film in the fridge until I get to develop them. I have the Adox branded ones. If you buy at least ten, they will cost €0.79 each. On the bottom it says 'lavials.com'. When you go there you will find that it is Made in USA. Hence it should be easy to order for our stateside friends, as well.

Thanks. That’s useful. I might get a couple of rolls of this Retropan at the same time and try it out.

 

[R.Gould]

I will reserve any judgement until I have tried the film, which, as far as I can see from the posts here, most of the knockers of the film have not done, Personally I find it very encourgeing that Foma have not only introudeced a new film, but are so confident that they are making it available in all formats, It may not suit everybody, but surely it should be given a fair trial, shame that neither Kodak or Ilford do not seem to have the confidence to follow Foma.'s lead, if they did then I would try their completely new films out before I comdemned them, and I am not a fan of either Kodak or Ilford film's, but I would always give anything new by any maker a fair chance,,Try a couple of rolls, you never know, you ,ay just like it