Foma Retropan 320 soft what is it real ?

Hello everybody.
I have got a new roll of this stuff at home.
As I know some of you has made experience with this film I should ask.

I perhaps need no recomandation how
to it. I should handle this stuff as well
as other bw emulsion.

And of cause sometimes it may be better to work with it - just without prejudice.

But it could be of highest interest where the film is from.

From Foma of cause ?

But is a new emulsion? I doubt a little.
ISO 320 ????
If a new created retro emulsion would
be have ISO rates of 64/19`DIN I could imagine "Smart/Clever Marketing "

Because ISO 64 - may I say 64ASA ,
thats sounds real vintage and that would be "vintage reality "

But ISO320 - do you remember any
ISO320 film from outside of Rochester?

So the question is to me : "Is this a new
product or from what is it ?"

Because if I like this film (don't know this at the time - first have to shoot)
AND it is realy new produced - I would like to order some 100ft boxes.

But I would not do this if it is old stuff.

Because it would be waste of resources in any directions.
(old foma 400 offers from eBay would be cheaper )

Perhaps it is exact this in any way - but
first this Retro320 could get its chance. ( only this one roll I bought should find out this )

So the question of its ancestry is a strong interest to me.

Any ideas ?

It's different from Fomapan 400 - the datasheets show this quite clearly.

I recall some testing found it was about a 200 speed film in the 'special' developer at a normal (mid 0.5s) contrast index. 2/3 under box in MQ developers is generally not surprising for Foma's films.

Ian Grant (I think) commented that a lot of manufacturers used to make 'soft' gradation films many decades ago. A 100-160 speed (pre-1960 ASA change) film of that type would therefore have not be totally unsurprising in their range in the 1940s/50s (Anyone got a 1950s Foma or Neobrom catalogue?). Anyway, I'd not be surprised if Foma had the formula for one, updated it etc, put it into production. That would go some way to explaining the fairly intense grain some have commented on. Foma themselves, it should be noted, recommend the sheet film 320 for contact printing on to Fomatone etc.

The preference for the 'special' developer also adds credence to a much older film design - it is quite an aggressive developer (relative of DK-60a?) to get the times down into reasonable ranges for useful contrast ranges.

I keep meaning to give some of the sheet film a go, but have been a bit too busy to get on with it & see how it behaves under different lighting etc.

trendland said:

But is a new emulsion? I doubt a little.
ISO 320 ????
If a new created retro emulsion would
be have ISO rates of 64/19`DIN I could imagine "Smart/Clever Marketing "

Click to expand...

I can forgive you the cynicism born out of ignorance, but not if it is born out of an hidden agenda or pure malice.
It is the second time in 24 hours that you throw doubts at what manufacturers tell you.

Here is a link to a thread I wrote about this very different film.
All you had to do was to search this forum, instead of throwing mud to one film manufacturer that still does R&D:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I feel like I'm reading Dr. Seuss writing about film.

"Retro" refers to a style of film, not a copy of an old style film. I would expect the style to reflect the fairly soft, wide latitude films that were available in the 50s and 60s, but not all retro films are like this. These old films could be developed to fairly high contrast in the aggressive developers of the time; Ansco recommended gammas of 0.7 to 0.9 and Kodak recommended 0.6 to 0.8 when developed in D-76 (undiluted), DK-50 and similar soups. In general, you should consider the new "retro" films just to be films, with their own peculiarities, that may or may not reflect an older style. Try them and get used to their characteristics, just like any other film. There are no promises, but you may like some of them.

As for speeds, the old ASA speed (ca. 1950) equivalent to ISO 320 would be in the 125 to 160 range. They measured speed differently then, so an exact comparison is not possible. There were a number of films in this speed range: Ansco Superpan Press and SSS Pan; Defender Arrow Press; Kodak Supepanchro Press Type B, Superpanchro Press Sports Type, and TriX Panchromatic; and others from European manufacturers. Most of these were pretty grainy and not very sharp, but they were useful as sheet films for press work. I would expect any modern "retro" film to have much better photographic characteristics, which may involve some compromises with latitude and contrast.

All evidence, including what Foma said when they launched Retro 320, is that this is a new film in that they started manufacturing it in 2015. It is retro, in that they have formulated this new film with the desire to make photos that have a 1950s look to them. It's certainly new production and not something that has been lying around and it took a lot of work by the Foma people to bring it to the market.

If you like it, buy a 100' roll or three. If you don't...then don't. But there's no need to cast aspersions about it's origin.

Lachlan Young said:

It's different from Fomapan 400 - the datasheets show this quite clearly.

I recall some testing found it was about a 200 speed film in the 'special' developer at a normal (mid 0.5s) contrast index. 2/3 under box in MQ developers is generally not surprising for Foma's films.

Ian Grant (I think) commented that a lot of manufacturers used to make 'soft' gradation films many decades ago. A 100-160 speed (pre-1960 ASA change) film of that type would therefore have not be totally unsurprising in their range in the 1940s/50s (Anyone got a 1950s Foma or Neobrom catalogue?). Anyway, I'd not be surprised if Foma had the formula for one, updated it etc, put it into production. That would go some way to explaining the fairly intense grain some have commented on. Foma themselves, it should be noted, recommend the sheet film 320 for contact printing on to Fomatone etc.

The preference for the 'special' developer also adds credence to a much older film design - it is quite an aggressive developer (relative of DK-60a?) to get the times down into reasonable ranges for useful contrast ranges.

I keep meaning to give some of the sheet film a go, but have been a bit too busy to get on with it & see how it behaves under different lighting etc.

Click to expand...

Thank you Lachlan Young for your statement.
But let's to make sure now first :
As I understand you corect some little doubts are remaining.
We are looking NOT to some manufactured Foma 200 with came out in greater ammounds from detective production by Foma.
These films also should have (may be only little) different characters caused by emulsion compared with Foma 100 - 400.
Such films would thrown away in the past
because they failured in emulsion Quality.

It is of cause not easy to imagine if that could happen with bigger amounds - more than the normal amounds of film
witch has to be handled as comercial waste from normal emulsions test runs.
But we all now quality problems in production some times.
Not imaginable to several masterrols at
all?

And that should be the reason some times to have "brand named" and others.

Or a manufacturer have to rate some
production runs as B-Quality?

The next idea to me is : "Lets bring out a new film - we are changing some parameters in regard to developer times,
we have to start marketing in Direktion
Of Retro" "And we sell this stuff ".

And the resuld would be a new emulsion
with different characteristics to any
others.

I will come back later with conclusions-
sorry for interupt this here.
film

Lachlan Young said:

It's different from Fomapan 400 - the datasheets show this quite clearly.

I recall some testing found it was about a 200 speed film in the 'special' developer at a normal (mid 0.5s) contrast index. 2/3 under box in MQ developers is generally not surprising for Foma's films.

Ian Grant (I think) commented that a lot of manufacturers used to make 'soft' gradation films many decades ago. A 100-160 speed (pre-1960 ASA change) film of that type would therefore have not be totally unsurprising in their range in the 1940s/50s (Anyone got a 1950s Foma or Neobrom catalogue?). Anyway, I'd not be surprised if Foma had the formula for one, updated it etc, put it into production. That would go some way to explaining the fairly intense grain some have commented on. Foma themselves, it should be noted, recommend the sheet film 320 for contact printing on to Fomatone etc.

The preference for the 'special' developer also adds credence to a much older film design - it is quite an aggressive developer (relative of DK-60a?) to get the times down into reasonable ranges for useful contrast ranges.

I keep meaning to give some of the sheet film a go, but have been a bit too busy to get on with it & see how it behaves under different lighting etc.

Click to expand...

Part 2 of two parts:

But if thinking in this way would imply that the manufacturer - just in this theoretical example - is unable to reproduce the emulsion from his defective produktion run again.

So his new film should be from the market after few month - and every new
"Fan" of this film wouldn't be glad aboud.

But is it totally unrealistic at these days?

No - because of the very smal demand of
this marked we have today.

And with a very special emulsion like
Retro320 soft from Foma. ........... ...?

Thinking on Agfa - how many years after
Agfa was from the market - their latest pruduced bw films were sold?
WITH different names and to so many years.

Because of the smal market.

Looking to my roll 135 I noticed it is labled with paper!
That is nothing what tells us anything to
production at Foma Film but it strongly indicates a small production line - may
be because of a rare Film (Retro).

Coming back to your extraordinary experience with this special emulsion
Lachlan - I absolute understand you
corect in the way that it is imposible to say this Foma Film is anything else
than a totaly new produced film.

Because of the very special characteristic of this emulsion witch is first diferent than any other Foma Film
(sorry for saying this - but I have not any
experience with Foma at this time)

Secondly it is a character styled emulsion in the way of what is indeed
the experience of Ian Grand - made with
some emulsions from that time far behind. (pre 60th).
Do I understand this concerns correct from your statement ?

with regards

So, trendland, what have you decided to do in terms of trying or not trying Retro 320? A one sentence answer will be fine

pentaxuser

nworth said:

"Retro" refers to a style of film, not a copy of an old style film. I would expect the style to reflect the fairly soft, wide latitude films that were available in the 50s and 60s, but not all retro films are like this. These old films could be developed to fairly high contrast in the aggressive developers of the time; Ansco recommended gammas of 0.7 to 0.9 and Kodak recommended 0.6 to 0.8 when developed in D-76 (undiluted), DK-50 and similar soups. In general, you should consider the new "retro" films just to be films, with their own peculiarities, that may or may not reflect an older style. Try them and get used to their characteristics, just like any other film. There are no promises, but you may like some of them.

As for speeds, the old ASA speed (ca. 1950) equivalent to ISO 320 would be in the 125 to 160 range. They measured speed differently then, so an exact comparison is not possible. There were a number of films in this speed range: Ansco Superpan Press and SSS Pan; Defender Arrow Press; Kodak Supepanchro Press Type B, Superpanchro Press Sports Type, and TriX Panchromatic; and others from European manufacturers. Most of these were pretty grainy and not very sharp, but they were useful as sheet films for press work. I would expect any modern "retro" film to have much better photographic characteristics, which may involve some compromises with latitude and contrast.

Click to expand...

As pretty grainy as Retro320 should be as experiences of most stated to the whole internet recomandations outside
of APUG.
Some stated that they are unable to handle the grainy character of this film
with all kind of developers they have in use and tryed til today.

So it is very nice from you to explain the
difference in use of some older emulsions with simular character we are
regarding.
A time as press photos reached a good quality with Graflex Speed Graphic !
So we see 4x5 inch film in this character you described as Foma Retro320 also again ?

with regards

pentaxuser said:

So, trendland, what have you decided to do in terms of trying or not trying Retro 320? A one sentence answer will be fine

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

I am not sure if this special film is some with will top my preferences due to the
experience with Ilford Pan F- I would make in directions of higher speed up to
ISO 320 - but first I have to make sure
if one could buy the new Foma in some
years for a second order - wich may be not possible if FomaRetro320 soft is only
a short production run due to unspecific
uncestry.

...one sentence in "easy syntax" to you,
pentaxuser.

with regards

Why do you fear this may be in short supply due to "unspecific ancestry"?

Foma have told us what it is. It seems to be self sustaining in that they are selling enough to continue production.

What's the problem?

Wtf?

I have bought houses with less research.

Ricardo Miranda said:

I can forgive you the cynicism born out of ignorance, but not if it is born out of an hidden agenda or pure malice.
It is the second time in 24 hours that you throw doubts at what manufacturers tell you.

Here is a link to a thread I wrote about this very different film.
All you had to do was to search this forum, instead of throwing mud to one film manufacturer that still does R&D:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Click to expand...

Ricardo Miranda - " We don't see our world as it is - We see this world as we
are "

This should have a little to say aboud
me - of cause (so I feld sorry aboud being
persistent some times)

But this should have also a little to say
aboud you of cause ( so you should perhaps thinking to what it may say aboud you )

Again to me : I first had to translate
what is meant about pur malice ????

Back to facts - of cause I read you treat before and thanks a lot to the link you
gave me - I just read it aggain but sorry
to telling you - your methods in use are
in regards of rank an emulsion to personal preference and to general issues of emulsion characteristics.

That's fine (and pls. do not interprete this again as a doubt pure malice)

But I mentioned it first have a look above
I perhaps need no recommandation to handle it - just of my own methods in use.
And to concerns of uncestry I noticed it before - it seams not be absolute helpfull in regard to identify the emulsion.
(Do not say totaly)

So as you can see also above I asked because of general experience.And aboud ideas.

How could I say this in other ways?

Comming to methods to identify the emulsion from its ancestry.

Times and developers - many they have learned it - do it in regards of personal
affectations - and that will be correct all.

The comparison to compare between should be the structure in grain with different developers.
May be this could be the best to avoid
particularly meaningful results- just to identify the ancestry from ist orginal
(only in case of doubts ).

Well - I haven't work with Foma til know.
What Do I have to comparrision?

I just made it with some Ilfords.

And when you have a 5x7 inch engagement where you just count the grain because the original
sorry to give this now in meter is

4,80 x 2,60 estimated because of the
cellar wall - you just know the specific
structure depending to developer and exposure and emulsion number of cause.
(Noticed never differences by numbers)

with regards

hdeyong said:

I have bought houses with less research.

Click to expand...

But you shuld know the risk with a house
you bought with less research than to this treat is indeed an actual risc - has it gone good ?

with regards

Agulliver said:

Why do you fear this may be in short supply due to "unspecific ancestry"?

Foma have told us what it is. It seems to be self sustaining in that they are selling enough to continue production.

What's the problem?

Click to expand...

It would not be the first manufacturer who stated :" Here we have a brand new film " - some times later it seams a little
bit different .

And last I remember was an order of
nearly 100 120bw films.

I tested this film (nearly 40 gone to this test) and I found out the origin.

For me it was a good film in a total different use.
Today are some left. BUT I CANT BUY ANY OF IT PER NEW ORDER .

Half a year later I got my first films they discontinued it.
All tests with regards to the specific
characteristic are wasted .

And to test nearly 50 films is ok - when you perhaps whant to work with to years.


with regards

Well I suppose the events of the past year indicate how susceptible people are to absurdity, conspiracy theories, and of course absurd conspiracy theories.

After the break, we bring you news that will shock amaze and horrify you - how the Bilderberg group secretly funds Kodak Alaris

Trendland:

Try it. Stop wasting your time with logorrheic & probably incorrect hypotheses. Write to Foma & ask them about the film if your existential crisis is that great. However, you appear to have a desperate urge to create pointless uncertainty & doubt around a number of well documented products in a way that some might increasingly construe as concern trolling. Asking ceaseless questions without reading the answers & experiencing the materials for yourself is not a useful learning experience.

I think most reasonable people will try a new film, see if they like it, buy some, use it, & if it is discontinued through a lack of demand possibly be a bit annoyed - but being forced to change your materials can be a good thing.

I think Trendland has made his mind up and I for one will certainly not try and change it for him. I leave it to others to keep up the "good fight" as they say. I have a feeling that trendland will welcome your efforts.

pentaxuser

Lachlan Young said:

Trendland:

Try it. Stop wasting your time with logorrheic & probably incorrect hypotheses. Write to Foma & ask them about the film if your existential crisis is that great. However, you appear to have a desperate urge to create pointless uncertainty & doubt around a number of well documented products in a way that some might increasingly construe as concern trolling. Asking ceaseless questions without reading the answers & experiencing the materials for yourself is not a useful learning experience.

I think most reasonable people will try a new film, see if they like it, buy some, use it, & if it is discontinued through a lack of demand possibly be a bit annoyed - but being forced to change your materials can be a good thing.

Click to expand...

Sorry - may be you just missunderstood
my Intention a bit.

1) your recomandation in concerns to Foma320 was indeed Most helpfull and with great ecpertice I did not expect first.
2) you make me 89,5 % sure to believe.
3) I just not be exited aboud parameters-
but this may change.
4) TO change my mind it seams so - it is not to bad to have different formats.
5) But first I would make sure 100% to
geht not some special stuff - find out later.
6) If this would happen to me twice - I am indeed in the near of existencial crisis
But not because of waste time and money to some 100ft. film.

Because I was so stupit - to make the
same mistake again.
Trust statements of people with the intention to sell things to you :
ALTOUGH yourself warned you :

First get sure aboud !


And I can not see any kind of conspiracy
theories behind this. Or a concern trolling - don't nown what this means but it sounds good : " concern trolling "
No I would never intend this.

But friends - notice we have to do with ??

-Rebranded films from Lomo etc.
- Original Films
- discontinued Films and Formats
- Films of old masterrols from
manufacturers wich will tel us
this film is a new produced emulsion.

with regards

trendland said:

Part 2 of two parts:

But if thinking in this way would imply that the manufacturer - just in this theoretical example - is unable to reproduce the emulsion from his defective produktion run again.

So his new film should be from the market after few month - and every new
"Fan" of this film wouldn't be glad aboud.

But is it totally unrealistic at these days?

No - because of the very smal demand of
this marked we have today.

And with a very special emulsion like
Retro320 soft from Foma. ........... ...?

Thinking on Agfa - how many years after
Agfa was from the market - their latest pruduced bw films were sold?
WITH different names and to so many years.

Because of the smal market.

Looking to my roll 135 I noticed it is labled with paper!
That is nothing what tells us anything to
production at Foma Film but it strongly indicates a small production line - may
be because of a rare Film (Retro).

Coming back to your extraordinary experience with this special emulsion
Lachlan - I absolute understand you
corect in the way that it is imposible to say this Foma Film is anything else
than a totaly new produced film.

Because of the very special characteristic of this emulsion witch is first diferent than any other Foma Film
(sorry for saying this - but I have not any
experience with Foma at this time)

Secondly it is a character styled emulsion in the way of what is indeed
the experience of Ian Grand - made with
some emulsions from that time far behind. (pre 60th).
Do I understand this concerns correct from your statement ?

with regards

Click to expand...

You open a thread with a question, yet you later come to your own conclusions and answer the question yourself.

What you want is a blog. This is not a blog, this is a forum. Create your blog and post there about the evil Foma factory. And about how films should always be ISO multiples of 100 (100,200,400...), never 64 or 320.

...... ähm sorry - just reading last words
above I got an idea of " concern trolling "
(an Idea of the meaning )

TO make sure how it is meant above : Manufacturers in general
Not Foma Film expicide.
Looking to all the derivates on basis
of old Agfapan100/400.

BY the time : What is a film manufacturer
2005 in china?

Luky of cause

The rebranded films from Lomo....we don't know what they are for sure and Lomography aren't telling us. Though with the expired Ferrania film they have said what it is, and that it's not fresh.

The Foma Retropan 320 has been stated by Foma to be a new film which they are producing at their factory, starting in 2015. It's not some rebranded film they bought off another manufacturer or found a few thousand feet in a forgotten cupboard. It's new production, with an expiry date on the tin or box a couple of years hence just like their other consumer products.

I like the term "concern trolling".

flavio81 said:

You open a thread with a question, yet you later come to your own conclusions and answer the question yourself.

What you want is a blog. This is not a blog, this is a forum. Create your blog and post there about the evil Foma factory. And about how films should always be ISO multiples of 100 (100,200,400...), never 64 or 320.

Click to expand...

You stated Foma as evil?

That should be indeed " Concern Trolling" and indeed a form of " conspiracy
theories " I just have to learn.

But what is a blog?

I have indeed some ideas in what kind
of direction facts are going before starting investigative research.

And I should not ask here on APUG things wich were quite clear to me.

So I should indeed not do this because :
"It brings no profit to the whise".

So I asked aboud things I doubt a bit because of realistic logical issue.

Be sure I will come to my own conclusion at least - flavio91.

Do you not thing so - comming to your own conclusions?

with regards