Foma Retropan 320 soft what is it real ?

[trendland]

I can't look away.

I'm so weak!

Don't care aboud - it goes away - perhaps you have to sleep a bit!

with regards

 

[Ian Grant]

Hi Dimesh where have you been hiding, I looked around Toronto to find you last Autumn

trendland, Beutler is going in entirely the wrong direction, it's a low energy high definition developer.

Ian

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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

Or try playing snooker with a rope!

But seriously, whenever I'm curious about a film, I buy some and try it. Doesn't anybody? Cheers!

andy

 

[trendland]

Hi Dimesh where have you been hiding, I looked around Toronto to find you last Autumn

trendland, Beutler is going in entirely the wrong direction, it's a low energy high definition developer.

Ian

I just thinking aboutt grain


with regards

 

[Ian Grant]

I just thinking aboutt grain
with regards

The developer is far too low in contrast for the film and it's not a fine grain developer, it's a High Definition developer best use with finer grained films..

Ian

 

[Lachlan Young]

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

Cheers for the injection of sanity into this thread... The PQU recommendation looks interesting. May give it a shot - if I do, will report back. 6-7m at 1+19 sound about right for starting point?

 

[trendland]

The developer is far too low in contrast for the film and it's not a fine grain developer, it's a High Definition developer best use with finer grained films..

Ian

Yes I was wrong Ian.

Sorry for delay - smartphone in use was actually low on fuel. due to batteries - I just was able to tap ( abouttttt) wich multible t and regard soon it was offline.
Now I have a computer - not so easy with smatphones - sometimes

Ian - as I thought to Beutler I was in concern with Neofin Blue AND additionally with Neofin Red. Due to strong devellopers without extreme grain as with RODINAL.

Well - Neofin Red is in the very near of Rodinal in regard to some parameters of cause.

Of cause I know both NOT as fine grained favorites. And in addition I saw Beutler just in experimental use.

But you are complitely right it shoud not work - not even in experimental use instead you would like to have Real Experiment Enlargement.

In the 80th I have got often the "triple" in use from Tetenal : Neofin Blue/Neofin Red/ Neofin Doko but this all will not be helpful here.


with regards

 

[trendland]

What ever - that should be the other side of the medal with this film : Nearly not easy to handle. On the web are a very few examples were some blunt there teeth to get
aceptable grain with this emulsion - if it may work tonals and contrast is not the very optimum.

with regards

 

[Ian Grant]

Cheers for the injection of sanity into this thread... The PQU recommendation looks interesting. May give it a shot - if I do, will report back. 6-7m at 1+19 sound about right for starting point?

I'd neeed to check my 1970's notebook . Sounds about right though, PQU gives fine grain surprisingly, I tested it with FP4 about 30 years ago, there's a speed loss that,s why Foma list Microphen.

Ian

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

....

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

with regards

I'll be right back

That was fast

 

[Lachlan Young]

I'd neeed to check my 1970's notebook . Sounds about right though, PQU gives fine grain surprisingly, I tested it with FP4 about 30 years ago, there's a speed loss that,s why Foma list Microphen.

Ian

Cheers - it's also amazingly low fog for film developing too I recall.

Ilford's data has something to the effect of 1 stop loss with FP4, 1/3 stop with HP5 & Delta 100 and 1 2/3 with Ortho+. No idea why FP4 & Ortho lose much more effective speed than HP5 & Delta 100 - all I can think of is that Delta 100 & Hp5 have a similar-ish curve to each other which is different from Fp4, but that almost certainly has nothing to do with it. Handy for those complaining about a lack of a slow, fine grain LF film though - Ortho+ hits the heady heights of EI25 in daylight...

 

[Dinesh]

Hi Dimesh where have you been hiding, I looked around Toronto to find you last Autumn

As Carnie will attest, I live at hockey rinks from September until April. Damn kids!

 

[Ian Grant]

Cheers - it's also amazingly low fog for film developing too I recall.

Ilford's data has something to the effect of 1 stop loss with FP4, 1/3 stop with HP5 & Delta 100 and 1 2/3 with Ortho+. No idea why FP4 & Ortho lose much more effective speed than HP5 & Delta 100 - all I can think of is that Delta 100 & Hp5 have a similar-ish curve to each other which is different from Fp4, but that almost certainly has nothing to do with it. Handy for those complaining about a lack of a slow, fine grain LF film though - Ortho+ hits the heady heights of EI25 in daylight...

The low fog is due to the low level of sulphite in dilute PQ Universal compared to D76/UD-11, the 100g/l of sulphite has some solvent & physical development effects depositing silver in the emulsion.

The stop loss with FP4 in PQ Universal needs to be in context, when I used FP4 commercially it was always at 80 EI in replenished ID-11, that was also typical for many other users. When I was testing developers in the mid 1980's I found that there was a 1/3 of stop difference between FP4 in PQ Universal compared to ID-11 so 64 EI, it gave excellent fine grain, I used it at 1+19. I was using a lot of Ilford Ortho with PQ Universal and copying with Tungsten lighting so at 40EI.

We have to note that the PQ Universal made today isn't quite the same as back then as now it uses Dimezone (since manufacture was out sourced) instead of Phenidone, and Phenidone is still used in PQ film developers like Microphen, Xtol etc. I'd make up my own from raw chemicals using Phenidone.

Ian

 

[klownshed]

I'm starting to worry that Retro 320 gives off hallucinogenic fumes.

 

[pentaxuser]

I'm starting to worry that Retro 320 gives off hallucinogenic fumes.

Have a look at a thread about Retro 320 either started by or certainly contributed to by Ricardo Miranda not long after it first came out. He attached several shots from Retro 320 and while I was not as enamoured by them as Ricardo, they certainly seemed to have a different look and I am one who has difficulties in seeing different looks in different films compared to many others.

pentaxuser

 

[Harry Stevens]

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

 

[trendland]

That was fast

You mentioned "That was fast" Marcelo
in regards to short times with the recomanded developer?

Let's have at first a short look at the datas from Foma (Retro Special Developer) I am quite sure you got this Marcelo but perhaps to some other who were just interested and have not try out
this film up to now.
I personaly did it not at this time - because I have just one roll of it at home,
but I will have no shooting with it next
two weeks.
(better do experiments not with things
wich has to be done superb)

Foma Retro Special developer (stock)

E.I. 320 4-5 min.
E.I. 640 7-8 min.

max. recomended - 2 EV [1250/DIN.32]

So you are right - Marcelo !

In concern of short developer times regarding the other developement methods listed by Foma (Data shieds)
......you have it of cause - I know.

But I would realy not trust to imagine
the grain at - 2 EV at 1250/DIN.32 .

Therfore the Special Developer from
Foma is just a special designed stuff
to handle this emulsion within normal
times - (very agressive) I don't know
the tonals - but is it Retro of cause ?

Regarding this "New Emulsion" @ Foma !

It has been a good friend and "old"
acquaintance of some - in the
Emporer's New Clothes in a style
to Retro with the help from Fomas
Special Retro Developer:

FOMA T800 also known as
Paterson Acupan 800 (in GB)

at his time (discontinued 2001) with

E.I. 640......

and now risen from the grave accompanied by his assistence to make
make him pretty.

A matter of personal taste I would say.
.......


with regards


PS. to make him more "pretty" it is a question of developer.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

has anyone tested Retropan with D-76?

Regards

Marcelo

 

[trendland]

has anyone tested Retropan with D-76?

Regards

Marcelo

9,5 min. in D-76 stock Marcelo
but grain and tonals? ?.


with regards

 

[Lachlan Young]

has anyone tested Retropan with D-76?

Regards

Marcelo

Extrapolating from the Microphen numbers and the available data from Ilford for ID-11 & Microphen, times for stock D-76/ID11 might be 15-20% longer than Microphen. From what I recall from elsewhere, the EI320 times reach approx 0.52 contrast index & the EI640 are in the 0.56 range. With the rest of their films, Foma regard 0.65-ish range as normal contrast. 12-20 mins with full strength D-76 at 20c might be sort of the right ballpark to equate to the Microphen times. Maybe even towards 30 mins. D76/ID11 shadow speed will generally be 2/3 stop slower than Microphen. Other than that, differences between D76 & Microphen are very small in the tonality department, everything else being equal.

 

[trendland]

Extrapolating from the Microphen numbers and the available data from Ilford for ID-11 & Microphen, times for stock D-76/ID11 might be 15-20% longer than Microphen. From what I recall from elsewhere, the EI320 times reach approx 0.52 contrast index & the EI640 are in the 0.56 range. With the rest of their films, Foma regard 0.65-ish range as normal contrast. 12-20 mins with full strength D-76 at 20c might be sort of the right ballpark to equate to the Microphen times. Maybe even towards 30 mins. D76/ID11 shadow speed will generally be 2/3 stop slower than Microphen. Other than that, differences between D76 & Microphen are very small in the tonality department, everything else being equal.

Times to D-76 (stock) are given from "digitalthrough photo" ( 9,5 min at 20 degree ASA/ISO 320 ) - Lachan ! I just personaly have had doubts to D-76 with this "short" times, you might
be absolute right in comparison to Microphen.

But on the other hand (I personaly would try longer times with D-76 ) - I doubt to tonals AND grain with D-76 in general ! So as you know sometimes with dev. charts - just a first start point .

I´ll be back later and then let us see......... !!

with regards

 

[trendland]

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?

Hey Ron - I followed your advice -just
bought a second roll and took them both
to a shooting with E6.

Otherwise I would like to shoot my Retro320 within the next months.


But let me say first : I don't realy like
to discus fotos in regard to films,developer, times with scans.

Because it makes no sense you just regarding the scanner in this issue.

I haven't done this before - but now
I feld under presure because you whanted to see.

Well - there is no other way to avoid now.

.......comming to developer, times, methods, formulas etc. later because being online with smartphone - hard to tap theese little......with big fingers .

And have firefox crashes somtimes. ....


First film with Rollei RHC 1+4

with regards

 

[trendland]

To developer in general - I would not like
more Retro than necessary in grain.
That is impossible with Foma RSD. it is fast and with great power and the film is
as grainy as it is.
Look above were Retro320 comes from.
And look at this here :

it is from the Fomapan200 grain structure- shoot is made with the help of an electronmicroscope.
Perhaps you know this picture of cause.
It showes quite clear that Foma failured
in the end 90th trying to make T-grain
emulsions.The film - they saw a chance
- was FomaT800.
But as a result they reformulate Foma200 - wich shows us here a mix of grain form/design : 1/3 T grained I would say.

But what kind of developer could reduce
the grain and give good tonals?

I decided to Rollei RHC 1+4 and I decided to PULL this film.

Hope it let my PULL it .....

The E.I. was 125/22Din. the temp. 20
agitation as you know....(30sec./30sec)
TIME : 2' min 45" .

Well the grain was not so very smal but
I dont't know any Foma Film .

Grain is aceptable - don't look at the
scan it has not be seen there.

But belive me : It has GRAIN !!

BUT the contrast is also there so it is
one of many possibilities as starting
point.
Tonals are not as bad as doubt - first.
But just from the negatives.

Here just again with second scan

comming back with 2. film in D-19.


with regards

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

9,5 min. in D-76 stock Marcelo
but grain and tonals? ?.


with regards

Thats mostly the question, how much would the tonal range be affected?

I mostly use D-76 and Caffenol on my films, so would like to try this film but stick to my current developers.


Regards

Marcelo

 

[Craig75]

OP believes it isnt new film and hates the grain and tonal reproduction...

but then shoots it anyway and unsurprisingly hates it.

Is that right? Its a slippery beast the flow and logic of this thread.. something of the james joyces about it.