Foma Retropan 320 soft what is it real ?

trendland · May 15, 2017

Agulliver said:
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".

Ahh - Agulliver .....suddenly a bright shine in the color of very little doubts rises over your reply.......hmmmm.

Lomo....Ferrania.....Rollei ...last is from
me.

Yes you are wellcome Agulliver - you just created a binding precedent.

Companys are sometimes wrong with their own produced stuff.

I see - they need sometimes more information aboud their own stuff.

We will find out where FomaRetro320 is
from - believe me I am quite shure aboud
this.

(That it will happen)

with regards

OptiKen · May 15, 2017

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

LOL - very loudly!

Agulliver · May 15, 2017

I give up. Really.

Ricardo Miranda · May 15, 2017

trendland said:
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

I surrender! I give up (waves white flag)!

Just do me a favour: within the next week, please go out and take some pictures. Use any film you want, anything.

flavio81 · May 15, 2017

trendland said:
We will find out where FomaRetro320 is
from -

Retro 320 is from :

Jana Krusinky 1737/6
500 02 Hradec Kralove
Czech Republic, EU

trendland · May 15, 2017

pentaxuser said:
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

Well - pentaxuser I see you got your scathing humour back - that fine.

Well I am no independent lawyer - realy not - never wanted this to be.

BUT sometimes I realy interested to thoughts : "Whow would it be to find out the true as a advocatus of it."

So as you stated what you think my efforts to others would be - I will
tell you : It would be nice to have more releable evidances because here is a situation with has a
sufficient grounds for suspiction.

And the question to be answered is simple:

Is Foma guilty or is Foma not guilty ?

with regards

trendland · May 15, 2017

OptiKen said:
LOL - very loudly!

Yes - additional - the suspicicous identity of your Dr.Sei as

OptiKen said:
LOL - very loudly!

Yes in addition we should find out the suspicious identity of this Dr. SEISS
sombody bring into this play.

with regards

Cholentpot · May 15, 2017

trendland said:
Yes - additional - the suspicicous identity of your Dr.Sei as

Yes in addition we should find out the suspicious identity of this Dr. SEISS
sombody bring into this play.

with regards

I've heard he goes by, Theo LeSieg

But nor do I know of, a man named Geisel

He wrote and he wrote, many books of blerg

And drew and drawed, for a world unstilled.

Oh, sketches and 'tunes, colors awry,

Party his fault, for my photographic eye.

flavio81 · May 15, 2017

trendland said:
Yes in addition we should find out the suspicious identity of this Dr. SEISS
sombody bring into this play.

doctor seiss sings edelweiss
doctor seiss knows about foma
he speaks and he writes without a comma
he dips and spikes his food with aroma

doctor seiss is just a man
who knows what a man knows
and knows what you don't know
doctor seiss knows more, madam
more than you or me about RetroPan

paul ron · May 15, 2017

The company isn't wrong about their product... I(m sure they use a standard to rate their products. Have you considered, its more about how you use it that makes the biggest difference?

Not everyone likes box speeds, or uses a particular developer to process. Push, pull, over expose/under develop, under expose/over develope... its all about YOU, not the film.

After all, its YOUR print in the end that will reflect your creativeness using a certain material, not the manufacturer. How do you want to interpret your image that bends the rules, but, it is very personal and unique to each photographer... not a scientific standard.

Now lets see some of your photos to show us how you like to use it?

PS; Trendland, where are you calling from? I have the feeling English is not your first language?

hdeyong · May 16, 2017

I think I'll go and try pushing a rope up a tree, more satisfying.

greg zinselmeier · May 16, 2017

This is a trip, dude!!

trendland · May 16, 2017

paul ron said:
The company isn't wrong about their product... I(m sure they use a standard to rate their products. Have you considered, its more about how you use it that makes the biggest difference?

Not everyone likes box speeds, or uses a particular developer to process. Push, pull, over expose/under develop, under expose/over develope... its all about YOU, not the film.

After all, its YOUR print in the end that will reflect your creativeness using a certain material, not the manufacturer. How do you want to interpret your image that bends the rules, but, it is very personal and unique to each photographer... not a scientific standard.

Now lets see some of your photos to show us how you like to use it?

PS; Trendland, where are you calling from? I have the feeling English is not your first language?

Well - Paul that's indeed (as you mentioned) the key to this special emulsion from Foma.
As we all feel it is no further standard bw
film due to grain, due to it's tendency of
soft disposition (Foma 320 was given it's name after this character).
And something else is very different to
ordinary films : Foma has an own special
developer, recomanded to develope this
emulsion.
Other manufacturers did it in the same
way in the past, but there you should get
the advantage of their emulsion only exclusive with special development.

Otherwise you will have no profit to some
films (Agfa Copex/Adox CMS20 - Spur Modular UR/Spur Nanospeed SL)

The new Foma developer is no need todevelopment - so I ask why?

with regards

I'll be right back

trendland · May 16, 2017

paul ron said:
The company isn't wrong about their product... I(m sure they use a standard to rate their products. Have you considered, its more about how you use it that makes the biggest difference?

Not everyone likes box speeds, or uses a particular developer to process. Push, pull, over expose/under develop, under expose/over develope... its all about YOU, not the film.

After all, its YOUR print in the end that will reflect your creativeness using a certain material, not the manufacturer. How do you want to interpret your image that bends the rules, but, it is very personal and unique to each photographer... not a scientific standard.

Now lets see some of your photos to show us how you like to use it?

PS; Trendland, where are you calling from? I have the feeling English is not your first language?

And Paul - sure I have considered how to use it - at least perhaps some others here on APUG see this different :
Why not to use Ilford HP5 instead of.
The effects with Foma Films are much
less important than the use of different
methods of developement - I would say.

But for Foma it seams to be nice to use their own chemistry.
And for Foma it seams to be they considered also how to use it.

For me as you asked - it is quite clear :
It is not the film wich is responcible to
have a nice shot.
It is not the method of developement too.
It is not even a question of wich camera
in use (read last aboud a APUG member
with plastic cameras).

It is not even the complete camera technology - it is just the idea to a photo
or let us say :"THE INTENTION OF THE
PHOTOGRAPHER"

But I would say experience with all aspects will help - sometimes a lot.

Coming at least to box speed - you mentioned it also - I see this in the same
way you stated it.

It will be no mystery to many here on
APUG regarding other Foma Films ISO 100/200/400 some could remember:

FOMA T800(Paterson Acupan 800 in GB)

As you mentioned box speed Paul -
just regarding the E.I. to this discontinued Foma emulsion :

ISO 640 ! FOMA RECOMANDED !

Some say the grain structure is nearly
the same in comparison with :

ISO 320 Retropan!

.......just want to now what I buy as
I decided less buying a pig in a pog !

with regards

chris77 · May 16, 2017

this should be a sticky!

Agulliver · May 16, 2017

Are you suggesting that Retropan 320 is the same as Fomapan 800 (AcuPan 800) ?

trendland · May 16, 2017

Agulliver said:
Are you suggesting that Retropan 320 is the same as Fomapan 800 (AcuPan 800) ?

Wellcome back Agulliver!

with regards

Ian Grant · May 16, 2017

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.

You're right Lachlan, Ilford's Soft Gradation Panchromatic plates were listed as "for portraits in artificial light" the H&D speed was 700 in Daylight, 200 with Tungsten lighting. They state it cuts the need for retouching

The reason for these special lower gradation plates was simple, plate development times were typically short a 1960's Ilfor Formulae book list 4½ mins in ID-2, compared to 4 mins for FP4, times were even shorter in ID-36/PQ Universal. So it was was difficult to control contrast just through exposure and development, particularly as there were no light meters when first introduced sometime around 1930. Ilford's Soft Gradation Panchromatic plates were a third of a stop faster than regular Fine grain panchromatic plates when introduced.

In 1924 Ilford only listed two Panchromatic plates and they were a lot slower, by the time Soft Gradation Panchromatic was introduced speeds had significantly increases it would be approx 160 EI (1/3 stop faster than FP3/4).

Foma Retro 320 films needs to be compared first to their other films where it has significantly softer gradation to the two I've used Fomapan 100 & 200. Because their own data-sheets don't use a standard developer for all films it's hard to know what difference there really is. Their special developer must be quite an active MQ developer something like ID-2 or ID-36 because the development times are much shorter than for Microphen according to the Retro 320 data sheet. So Retro 320 must be very significantly softer than the 100 & 200.

If I didn't have too much film in stock I might try a couple of rolls, but it'll have to wait.

Ian

elerion · May 16, 2017

pdeeh said:
Wtf?

Totally agree

trendland · May 16, 2017

Ian Grant said:
You're right Lachlan, Ilford's Soft Gradation Panchromatic plates were listed as "for portraits in artificial light" the H&D speed was 700 in Daylight, 200 with Tungsten lighting. They state it cuts the need for retouching

The reason for these special lower gradation plates was simple, plate development times were typically short a 1960's Ilfor Formulae book list 4½ mins in ID-2, compared to 4 mins for FP4, times were even shorter in ID-36/PQ Universal. So it was was difficult to control contrast just through exposure and development, particularly as there were no light meters when first introduced sometime around 1930. Ilford's Soft Gradation Panchromatic plates were a third of a stop faster than regular Fine grain panchromatic plates when introduced.

In 1924 Ilford only listed two Panchromatic plates and they were a lot slower, by the time Soft Gradation Panchromatic was introduced speeds had significantly increases it would be approx 160 EI (1/3 stop faster than FP3/4).

Foma Retro 320 films needs to be compared first to their other films where it has significantly softer gradation to the two I've used Fomapan 100 & 200. Because their own data-sheets don't use a standard developer for all films it's hard to know what difference there really is. Their special developer must be quite an active MQ developer something like ID-2 or ID-36 because the development times are much shorter than for Microphen according to the Retro 320 data sheet. So Retro 320 must be very significantly softer than the 100 & 200.

If I didn't have too much film in stock I might try a couple of rolls, but it'll have to wait.

Ian

Ian regarding Foma Retopan 320 - it
is avaible also in 4x5 inch, 5x7inch,
I don't realy know If you just can get it in
8x10 inch - may be it is discontinued there.
Well - Ian as you recomanded ID-2 /
ID-36 as an MQ based method?
TO me as I am no friend of agressive grain structures - I would avoid first Rodinal.But I would say,with this film,
cause of his grainy charactristics - it would not help very much.
Regarding ID-36 your favorit - I feel a bit
angry with the contrast but this seams
to be also specific with this emulsion.

To avoid Fomas special developer it should be a way just to try D-76 ?

But your ID-36 should do this job much better of cause.

As a great fan of Willi Beutler I would give him the advantage with his famos formula to first results.
Later on with ID-36 ? It would be indeed
a question of personal references.
May be first ID-2/ID-36 - it sounds better.!

with regards

R.Gould · May 16, 2017

trendland said:
Ian regarding Foma Retopan 320 - it
is avaible also in 4x5 inch, 5x7inch,
I don't realy know If you just can get it in
8x10 inch - may be it is discontinued there.
Well - Ian as you recomanded ID-2 /
ID-36 as an MQ based method?
TO me as I am no friend of agressive grain structures - I would avoid first Rodinal.But I would say,with this film,
cause of his grainy charactristics - it would not help very much.
Regarding ID-36 your favorit - I feel a bit
angry with the contrast but this seams
to be also specific with this emulsion.

To avoid Fomas special developer it should be a way just to try D-76 ?

But your ID-36 should do this job much better of cause.

As a great fan of Willi Beutler I would give him the advantage with his famos formula to first results.
Later on with ID-36 ? It would be indeed
a question of personal references.
May be first ID-2/ID-36 - it sounds better.!

with regards

Retropan is available in 10x8, at least in the UK from process supplies, if it was available in 120 then I would love to try it, but it never has been produced in 120, from what I have seen from a friend of mine it is a totally different film from Fomapan 400 or 200, both of which I use, they are pretty much the only black and white films I use,

trendland · May 16, 2017

R.Gould said:
Retropan is available in 10x8, at least in the UK from process supplies, if it was available in 120 then I would love to try it, but it never has been produced in 120, from what I have seen from a friend of mine it is a totally different film from Fomapan 400 or 200, both of which I use, they are pretty much the only black and white films I use,

Thank you R.Gould - I noticed that it should be avaible in 8x10 inch but I can't
find it first.
So I was not sure if it is still avaible.

Most avaible Retropan320 you can find
(not as expensive as expected) in
135-36 and 100ft noteworthily is 5x7
as a quite "cheap offer" - I like this format !

with regards

Ian Grant · May 16, 2017

trendland said:
Ian regarding Foma Retopan 320 - it is avaible also in 4x5 inch, 5x7inch, I don't realy know If you just can get it in 8x10 inch - may be it is discontinued there. Well - Ian as you recomanded ID-2 / ID-36 as an MQ based method?

TO me as I am no friend of agressive grain structures - I would avoid first Rodinal.But I would say,with this film,
cause of his grainy charactristics - it would not help very much. Regarding ID-36 your favorit - I feel a bit angry with the contrast but this seams to be also specific with this emulsion.

To avoid Fomas special developer it should be a way just to try D-76 ?

But your ID-36 should do this job much better of cause.

As a great fan of Willi Beutler I would give him the advantage with his famos formula to first results. Later on with ID-36 ? It would be indeed a question of personal references. May be first ID-2/ID-36 - it sounds better.!

with regards

I'm not actually recommending ID-2 or ID-36 merely stating that Foma's Retro Special developer must be very similar as they state it's an MQ powder based developer and the development time shows it to be very active compared to Microphen which would indicate there must be Carbonate present. The time differences match data in my Ilford Formulae book for processing films in ID-2 or Microphe.

If I was using Retropan 320 I'd actually develop in PQ Universal the dev time would be around 3½ mins 1+9 20ºC, but that's rather short so 1+14 or 1+19 would be better. I used to use PQ Universal with Ilford Ortho film at 1+19 and the results were superb.

Ian

trendland · May 16, 2017

Ian Grant said:
I'm not actually recommending ID-2 or ID-36 merely stating that Foma's Retro Special developer must be very similar as they state it's an MQ powder based developer and the development time shows it to be very active compared to Microphen which would indicate there must be Carbonate present. The time differences match data in my Ilford Formulae book for processing films in ID-2 or Microphe.

If I was using Retropan 320 I'd actually develop in PQ Universal the dev time would be around 3½ mins 1+9 20ºC, but that's rather short so 1+14 or 1+19 would be better. I used to use PQ Universal with Ilford Ortho film at 1+19 and the results were superb.

Ian

Ok - Ian so I may have mixed some facts
from above.
By regarding ID-36 I have just had the idea with Beutler not so very different
in the first look - but it should work also.

Well - Ian I see you just now get in use with stronger weapons.

I forgot the name of my first Ilford paper
developer but it was indeed not so far away from your strong soup.

Diamezon S/Hydrochinon

Dinesh · May 16, 2017

I can't look away.

I'm so weak!

Foma Retropan 320 soft what is it real ?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency