Foma Retropan 320 soft what is it real ?

Agulliver said:

I thought the Foma 800 was discontinued for two reasons.

1....lack of demand. People were pushing 400ISO films rather than buying an 800ISO film

2....they had to change the formula of Fomapan 100, 200 and 400 at the time they axed 800, due to some ingredients no longer being available. This made reformulation of 800 necessary, and given it's lack of popularity they simply chose not to.

I quite liked the 800...I like that speed, and found the film's grain quite attractive. But...c'est la vie...I can push HP5+ to 800 no problem.

Click to expand...

Ilford HP5 at E.I. 800 ?......

As I mentioned IlfordFp4,Delta100
and others as some of many films I don't
forget Hp5.

The concern to these emulsions was the
question : Is there a film as an alternative
to Retro320?

Harry Stevens said:

Give me a roll of Kentmere 100/400 in 120 that's all I want.

Click to expand...

It is not avaible in 120 - am I right?
THAT is a problem with Kentmere to you
Harry....?

Looking to the special intention with
FomaRetro320 as intended from Foma
(Retro Look) or as intended from each photographer in different way for example :

- grainy look
- soft tonals
- wide tonal range
- nice highligts with different look
to most other films (depending from the developer in use)
- I would like to say : Not every emulsion
can bring this charactaristics - but some films are able to bring a look in the very
near.
(depending from developement and from
E.I.)

But now back to Hp5 you mentioned -
Agulliver.
We all know this film - I would like to say.
Some remember (perhaps) Ilfords "Press
Pack" ?
20 Films in 135-36 but without big advantage in price - as I know ...

Some photographers used this emulsion
and no other in cases of press photography.

Some with E.I. 400 - 800

Some specialist "swear" on Hp5 with an E.I. 1600/33Din. with smal grain (relative to that E.I.)
Others (in use with special "weapons" from Tetenal) loved Hp5 with an E.I.
3200/36Din. due to developement with
Emofin.
Some pushed HP5 up more and more before Ilford introduced their first Deltas.

Notice : To press photographers in bw.
to that time the legendary sentence was
born : " sometimes a most grainy picture
is allways better than NO picture"
Last I have heard was E.I. 6400/40Din.
with Hp5............never saw this but I could imagine the contrast?
The next was Ilford with their new Delta
films.

So you want to have "soft" tonals ?
Use Hp5 at E.I. 100/21Din.(only in case
of more accentuated grain than Fp4)

So you want to have a grainy look ?
Use Hp5 at E.I. 800 Agulliver...it is
also a fine way!!!

So you want to have it more and more
contrasty with RETRO Look (as a more grainy characteristic )
Use Hp5 at E I. 1600-3200 with different
developers.

But you can't get Hp5 in much more different formats as from Foma Retro320.

But HP5 would be the first film I personaly see - to get very easy a
Retro Look.

But on the other hand I can't see what is realy meant with : RETRO ?

with regards

My thoughts as a fellow Foma Retro user:

HP5+ comes in every shape and size you can imagine. It is incredibly versatile as you say. I use a lot of it myself.

I wish the Foma Retro Soft came in 120 size, don't understand why not?? But it does come in 9x12cm which happens to fit my Plaubel Makiflexes, so I am happy. I think the "Retro" is just some marketing terminology. What is RETRO? Really I don't care. But I LIKE this film (and I'm glad it's around).

Perceptol should work about as well as my Legacy Mic-X if you want to try it. I seriously doubt that you can overdevelop this stuff from what I can tell from my brief experiences with it. My development times for the photo I posted were EXTREMELY LONG, I used thirty-five minutes at 20C, spinning a JOBO tank on a Unicolor Uniroller. The developer was not diluted, it was used "Straight" (and I replenish it). The film was not overdeveloped! Just something to keep in mind.

I intend to keep going with these methods, as they are working for me.

Retro 320 doesn't currently come in 120 because Foma 120 films are coated on a different material to the 35mm and sheet films. If Retro 320 is a big success, it may appear in 120.

I developed one 135 roll today, in a very vanilla fashion using microphen, following the given times. The film is indeed quite soft, and I like the graduation I get on the portraits ,but oh my! it is grainy! I printed it on Fomatone MG and it prints very nicely, but the grain is so sharp that it seems a pointillist painting. Not sure if I like or not, will wait a couple days and have a second look at my prints.

Makiflex Retro 320 - 3 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Here is one other test of 9x12cm Retro 320 Soft. 9x9cm Image on 9x12cm film, Neg cropped to 6x9cm, Plaubel Makiflex, 360mm f11 Kern process lens at f22 1/60 sec. Full key day sun on the apple tree back from my back deck. Legacy Mic-x straight (replenished), 30 mins at 18C, Jobo sheet film tank on Unicolor Uniroller.

Nothing very exciting visually but I wanted to see how the film responds in full sun. And it was convenient to do.

Agulliver said:

Retro 320 doesn't currently come in 120 because Foma 120 films are coated on a different material to the 35mm and sheet films. If Retro 320 is a big success, it may appear in 120.

Click to expand...

Thanks! Yes of course. That makes perfect sense.
I do hope they decide to roll out 120 Foma Retro Soft.

Foma Retro Dev by Nokton48, on Flickr

Since I got 300 sheets of the 9x12cm film, I decided to get the special developer as well.
Have yet to try it.

001 by Nokton48, on Flickr

This is the Legacy Pro Mic-X developer that I use for pretty much everything.
I also make replenisher out of this.

Nokton48 said:

This is the Legacy Pro Mic-X developer that I use for pretty much everything.
I also make replenisher out of this.

Click to expand...

Could you expand a little on your methodology for this - do you follow the recipe that Kodak offered in the last Microdol-X datasheet, or do you have a different method? How bad do you find the speed loss to be?

Cheers, etc

2 qts water 90-100F
Add 1 gallon Legacy Mic-X powder
Add 24g Sodium Carbonate
Add water to make 3 quarts

Add 30 ml replenisher per 36 exp roll

Speed loss - I usually allow about 1 f/stop. Develop Ilford, Kodak, Foma, often together in the same tank

FYI -- My stock solution is now FOUR YEARS OLD and still going strong.
It seems to get better with age as it "seasons"

Nokton48 said:

My thoughts as a fellow Foma Retro user:

HP5+ comes in every shape and size you can imagine. It is incredibly versatile as you say. I use a lot of it myself.

I wish the Foma Retro Soft came in 120 size, don't understand why not?? But it does come in 9x12cm which happens to fit my Plaubel Makiflexes, so I am happy. I think the "Retro" is just some marketing terminology. What is RETRO? Really I don't care. But I LIKE this film (and I'm glad it's around).

Perceptol should work about as well as my Legacy Mic-X if you want to try it. I seriously doubt that you can overdevelop this stuff from what I can tell from my brief experiences with it. My development times for the photo I posted were EXTREMELY LONG, I used thirty-five minutes at 20C, spinning a JOBO tank on a Unicolor Uniroller. The developer was not diluted, it was used "Straight" (and I replenish it). The film was not overdeveloped! Just something to keep in mind.

I intend to keep going with these methods, as they are working for me.

Click to expand...

Well Nokton48 - first let me say : "Sorry
for delay" - I was bussy -
just had a short look on your 2. reply yesterday.

TO MAKE IT SHORT:CONGRATULATIONS !
(If you would allowe me to say so)
I am quite sure that we just find the key
to this emulsion.
Of cause there are other keys - we know
(remember Ian Grand's recomadation
with Ilford paper developer) Ian Grand refered on his experience with Fp4 - his
method was also in concern to minimise
grain size, in addition to this he recomanded a strong developer.
AND of cause other photographers have
also different intentions to this Foma film.

To have the focus on a characteristic wich is comparable with other good
emulsions we have regard as posible
alternatives to Foma Retro - I would
ideed prefer this method :
Use Foma Retro320 in a big format !
Because some disadvantages due to
grain, speed (no real high speed emulsion) - are less important in
9X12 / 4x5 / 6x7

Nokton48 said:

My thoughts as a fellow Foma Retro user:

HP5+ comes in every shape and size you can imagine. It is incredibly versatile as you say. I use a lot of it myself.

I wish the Foma Retro Soft came in 120 size, don't understand why not?? But it does come in 9x12cm which happens to fit my Plaubel Makiflexes, so I am happy. I think the "Retro" is just some marketing terminology. What is RETRO? Really I don't care. But I LIKE this film (and I'm glad it's around).

Perceptol should work about as well as my Legacy Mic-X if you want to try it. I seriously doubt that you can overdevelop this stuff from what I can tell from my brief experiences with it. My development times for the photo I posted were EXTREMELY LONG, I used thirty-five minutes at 20C, spinning a JOBO tank on a Unicolor Uniroller. The developer was not diluted, it was used "Straight" (and I replenish it). The film was not overdeveloped! Just something to keep in mind.

I intend to keep going with these methods, as they are working for me.

Click to expand...

....-are less important in 9x12/4x5/5x7
sorry-smartphone was offline -
5x7 of cause (not 6x7).
IN COMBINATION WITH MICRODOL X !

First thoughts from me was also Kodak
Microdol-x/Ilord Perceptol but I doubt
to strenght and I doubt to tonal range
because you have a lost speed and
films in perceptol are sometimes with
(for me in a good tonal range) to others:
with a too soft character - all of this stated is depending to the actual film of cause.

Big Format AND metol based Microdol-x/Perceptol is the assurance to good
results.
As you stated :"you can't overdevelope this film with Mic-x" it is also meant in direction : This developer has the strenght to this special emulsion.
PERFECT ! Of cause one would use this
developer with max.times and only as
stock solution.
THE LOST OF 1 STOP with Mic.-x/Perceptol indicate that you should
give Foma Retopan320 an E.I. 160/23Din.
And this is indeed an E.I. from old films
in the early 50th - mid 60th :

nworth said:

As 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...

So we got real Retro E.I.'s....

with compliments

twelvetone12 said:

I developed one 135 roll today, in a very vanilla fashion using microphen, following the given times. The film is indeed quite soft, and I like the graduation I get on the portraits ,but oh my! it is grainy! I printed it on Fomatone MG and it prints very nicely, but the grain is so sharp that it seems a pointillist painting. Not sure if I like or not, will wait a couple days and have a second look at my prints.

Click to expand...

Yes twelvetone12 thats one of the topics of this treath - to find an
answer to the question( I have formulated it before in this form) :

" ...to make him [Foma Retropan320] more pretty [in direction of smaler sized grain] it is a question of developer."

Just look on the experience from Nokton48.

I personally have had 2 simple test shoots with - D-19 E.I.125/22Din.
nice grain/loosy contast
(due to underdevelopment)
- Rollei RHC 1+4 E.I.125/22
the tonals: just nice/grain
was a little more sized than
with D19.

Just again :

D-19

....oops ( mixed it up)

also again :

D-10

....sorry smartphone on strike :

D-19

and Rollei RHC 1+4

Nokton48 said:

2 qts water 90-100F
Add 1 gallon Legacy Mic-X powder
Add 24g Sodium Carbonate
Add water to make 3 quarts

Add 30 ml replenisher per 36 exp roll

Speed loss - I usually allow about 1 f/stop. Develop Ilford, Kodak, Foma, often together in the same tank

FYI -- My stock solution is now FOUR YEARS OLD and still going strong.
It seems to get better with age as it "seasons"

Click to expand...

Nokton48 - I had a short look on
Legacy Mic-x Powder.

Nokton48 said:

2 qts water 90-100F
Add 1 gallon Legacy Mic-X powder
Add 24g Sodium Carbonate
Add water to make 3 quarts

Add 30 ml replenisher per 36 exp roll

Speed loss - I usually allow about 1 f/stop. Develop Ilford, Kodak, Foma, often together in the same tank

FYI -- My stock solution is now FOUR YEARS OLD and still going strong.
It seems to get better with age as it "seasons"

Click to expand...

You add 24g sodium carbonate in addition to mic-x.
What is the appropiately higher ph you
recomanded?

One of many microdol-x substitute
formula :

(from Ronald W. Anderson)

Water..........................................750ml
Metol.............................................7,5g
Sodium Sulfite (anhy.)................100g
Sodium Bisulfite...........................7,5g
Water to make.........................1000ml


with regards

........hmmmmm

And where is the sodium chloride ???

Never mind - as I said "many formulas" !

Here is the one from Steve Anchell :

Water............................................750ml
Metol...............................................7,5g
Sodium Sulfite (anhy.)..................100g
Sodium Chloride..............................30g
Water to make...........................1000ml

with regards

I simply follow Kodak's original directions that are still on the internet.
They don't state the PH values and I don't really care about that.

Legacy Mic-X is about $10 for a gallon from Freestyle. I consider that a bargain.
I do mix my own developers quite often but not this one.

Nokton48 said:

I simply follow Kodak's original directions that are still on the internet.
They don't state the PH values and I don't really care about that.

Legacy Mic-X is about $10 for a gallon from Freestyle. I consider that a bargain.
I do mix my own developers quite often but not this one.

Click to expand...

Yes it is not so much expensive because
it is $10 per gallon ( $2,65 per liter ).

By the time :

The replunisher to D-23 uses Koldak (Sodium Metaborate) - 20g.

The replunishment rate is 23ml. per roll.

Therefore I ask to ph - but it is in the
very near I hope - as we can't know the formula to mic-x.

DK-25R :

Water............................................750ml
Metol................................................10g
Sodium Sulfite (anhy.)..................100g
Sodium Metaborate. .......................20g
Water to make...........................1000ml


with regards

I would think D-23 would be a good choice to try with Retro 320, as it is very soft working.
Let us know what you find. I'm sticking with Legacy Mic-X

Nokton48 said:

I would think D-23 would be a good choice to try with Retro 320, as it is very soft working.
Let us know what you find. I'm sticking with Legacy Mic-X

Click to expand...

Every developer would be a choise just
to try out - to see what will happen.
In the very very early days this has been
the methods to come to advanced developers.

But in case of Foma Retro D-23 would
not be my recomandation.
D-23 is very much soft in developement.

No my thoughts are the same with yours - Microdol-x/Perceptol/Mic.-x.

As there are some formulas given to substitute Microdol-x and I realy don't know a original Kodak Microdol-x replunisher
(perhaps there is one from an alternative recipe)
I just had the idea , looking on your
replunishment method with Mic.-x
to use DK-25 R as replunishment.
That is indeed to find out. Perhaps the
amounds may need a change in direction to reformulation.

Perhaps it is no good idea.


with regards

PS: Any failed idea is better than no Idea!

You can choose a "recipe" to make your "Microdol-X" as usual.
Make up a gallon of it; it keeps forever. My stock solution is four years old

Then simply make up a second gallon, but reduce the water to three quarts total,
and add the Sodium Carbonate. Then you have about three litres of replenisher.
That is the correct way to make Microdol-X Replenisher.

Let me know how it goes for you.
I would NOT use another replenisher type with Mic-x. Use the correct one.

Here is the official Kodak Microdol-X data sheet:
http://www.blende7.at/datenblaetter/kodak pdf/microdol.pdf

Legacy Mic-X is here:
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/749710-LegacyPro-Mic-X-Film-Developer-(Makes-1-Gallon)

Nokton48 said:

You can choose a "recipe" to make your "Microdol-X" as usual.
Make up a gallon of it; it keeps forever. My stock solution is four years old

Then simply make up a second gallon, but reduce the water to three quarts total,
and add the Sodium Carbonate. Then you have about three litres of replenisher.
That is the correct way to make Microdol-X Replenisher.

Let me know how it goes for you.
I would NOT use another replenisher type with Mic-x. Use the correct one.

Here is the official Kodak Microdol-X data sheet:
http://www.blende7.at/datenblaetter/kodak pdf/microdol.pdf

Legacy Mic-X is here:
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/749710-LegacyPro-Mic-X-Film-Developer-(Makes-1-Gallon)

Click to expand...

Oh - yes I see : The replenisher of Microdol-x is Microdol-x itself.

I did'nt noticed this first.But you mentioned it above.
+ the addition amound of sodium carbonate!
Thanks Nokton48 - It seams so that I was a little unable to understand this
first .
But - by this way - we just have a ability
to make the developer a bit stronger in work.
If the rate of replunishment get a little higher or the ph changes as a result from
this - the times of developer should become less.
Therefore the grain size potentially will
increase .
The Magic Triangle of Developer will
coldcock this idea.

with regards

trendland said:

The Magic Triangle of Developer will
coldcock this idea.

with regards

Click to expand...

Can you explain what "coldcock this idea" means? Some strange words appear in your replies. Are you working with predictive text?

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

Can you explain what "coldcock this idea" means?

Click to expand...

The definition of coldcock according to Webster. Maybe he means it won't work?!?