Foma Retropan 320 soft what is it real ?

[trendland]

At first to Kodak D-19 ! I would prefer D-11 thinking D-8 has the strenght in the
near of Ian Grand's special weapon....
look above.

BUT I have no D-11 at this TIME - found
Agfa AtomalFF with tons of repluniser AND D-19 original from Kodak.

Because you will easily get the formulas
to all 3 (D8-D19) here just D-19 :

from : bruce.hapeman@kodak.com

water at 50degreeCelsius ...........750ml.
Kodak Elon ( Metol !!! ) ...........1g.
Sodium Sulfite (Anhydrous) ........75g.
Hydroquinone ..................9g.
Sodium Carbonate (1-Hydr.).........30g.
Potassium Bromide (Anhydr.)..........5g.
Cold Water to make ............1L.


with regards

 

[trendland]

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.

Aha ..I see ..you're a James Joyces fan

with regards

 

[trendland]

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

Yes of cause Marcelo D-76 ? One of my first Ideas (because it is still in my emergency service within 5 minutes).

But It might be not strong enough - but
it should work - of cause.

A (little bit stronger in tonals/contrast) is
Kodak D-19 as I got it correct in mind
it goes further stronger with numbers.

D-19 -> D-11 -> D-8

Kodak D-8 is perhaps a little to strong.

so I try D-19 ......look just in conclusions
Marcelo hope my batteries are fine today.


with regards

 

[trendland]

Ok - D19 is not as strong in regards to
tonals/and contrast then Rollei RHC ?

But the grain is a very little more aceptable in comparision with Rollei RHC.
I can imagine it is much more aceptable than in the Foma Retro soup - but I can't
know of cause I will not buy this stuff.

The times : 2'min 15" (E.I. 125/22Din.)

 

[trendland]

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

Marcelo the tonal range with D-19 is
with loosy contrast.

You don't see this on the scan of cause.
The scan is wichtig any image editing.

But of cause I didn't say: " please make
me loosy scans today - my developement
was also loosy" wenn I reached my lab.
Same is in darkroom the second film is
No Total Lost - perhaps the time was to
short ( forgot to say - it was stock solution by the time ).
Conclusion with D-19 either D-11 nor +
30 - 45 sekonds and that may be to
strong - asking :

" so what Foma320 Retro ???"

with regards ....Smartphone collapsed
soin.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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

I'd use the D-76 & drink the coffee...

Frankly, most fine grain developers will give very similar results to each other. Devs with vastly lower sulphite like PQ Universal are not grain solvent. They can be surprisingly fine grain with modern films with appropriate development times. In general, tonal range will be far more affected by exposure index and development time than developer choice.

If you want to mess around with coffee developers, that's your prerogative, but it's really not worth the effort if your end goal is to make photographs.

A useful test for grain and tonality would involve shooting a few rolls of film and making some prints, adjusting your exposure for suitable shadow detail & your developing time for readily printable highlights under your average shooting conditions.

Times to D-76 (stock) are given from "digitalthrough photo" ( 9,5 min at 20 degree ASA/ISO 320 )

I'd largely ignore what's posted on that website - I recall finding drastic transcription errors from manufacturer's data & far too many 'pet theory' developer times and dilutions for it to be regarded as useful in any way whatsoever.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Thanks for the advise Lachlan.

Been using Caffenol on HP5+ and really liked the results, especially at ASA 800, although D-76 is what I use when I'm looking for reproducible results.


Regards

Marcelo

 

[trendland]

I'd use the D-76 & drink the coffee...

Frankly, most fine grain developers will give very similar results to each other. Devs with vastly lower sulphite like PQ Universal are not grain solvent. They can be surprisingly fine grain with modern films with appropriate development times. In general, tonal range will be far more affected by exposure index and development time than developer choice.

If you want to mess around with coffee developers, that's your prerogative, but it's really not worth the effort if your end goal is to make photographs.

A useful test for grain and tonality would involve shooting a few rolls of film and making some prints, adjusting your exposure for suitable shadow detail & your developing time for readily printable highlights under your average shooting conditions.



I'd largely ignore what's posted on that website - I recall finding drastic transcription errors from manufacturer's data & far too many 'pet theory' developer times and dilutions for it to be regarded as useful in any way whatsoever.

That's fine from you Lachlan- that you stated this in concerns to the website :
www.digitaltruth.com .
I would not trust me to say this in such a
drastic form you did here.
But I know this site from some years ago, and I must say they were one of the first wich could give a compete short overview about formulas.
Now I notice they are much bigger with an - amazing expending in 4 years !
I have sometimes a short first look on it,
but have never been on their new sections.
To developer times in general : Many doubts in most sources .

Sometimes in own sources like :
"What are my notes telling my? Can't
believe on 6min. 1+2, 11' min 50" ?"
So it has been an improvement with every further developement !
Do you not feel so - sometimes.

Well - digitaltruth is as a source a first
guess before you have no ideas at all.


with regards

PS : the formula I gave to Kodak D-19
comes of cause not from there, it is
from Kodak (hope it is correct..)
As I noticed " Kodak Elon Developer Agent" I was quite sure aboud ......

 

[trendland]

Thanks for the advise Lachlan.

Been using Caffenol on HP5+ and really liked the results, especially at ASA 800, although D-76 is what I use when I'm looking for reproducible results.


Regards

Marcelo

I would agree with Lachlan. Better do not
use Caffenol with Foma Retro 320 - Marcelo.

On the other hand - if you would like to become an expert with Retro320 AND
Caffenol I would also agree with Lachlan:
Start this job with a few rolls and different E.I.,different dilutions, make prints with different papers, start expensive messurements in darkroom listen to statements of Ansel Easton
Adams
( the first human being regarding as an individual in this thread who is not known as a novelist )listen to him in concerns to his zone system.
I am sure it could give some respektable
results (perhaps) but better use first
your D-76 instead of caffenol.

with greetings to you in mexico

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Lachlan, trendland, thanks for the advise.

I'm running low on film now, so probably will get some Foma Retro along with my favorites, HP5+ and FP4+.

trendland, is it worth getting the Foma developer for Foma Retro?

Probably will get some and make some test with 3 developers

HP5+ on Caffenol

Regards

Marcelo

 

[trendland]

Yo

Lachlan, trendland, thanks for the advise.

I'm running low on film now, so probably will get some Foma Retro along with my favorites, HP5+ and FP4+.

trendland, is it worth getting the Foma developer for Foma Retro?

Probably will get some and make some test with 3 developers

HP5+ on Caffenol

Regards

Marcelo

You can buy it in the US from
www.bhphotovideo.com at $ 6,99
(FOMA Retro Spezial Developer)
they should also have the films.
Don't know shipping cost to Mexiko - just ask.

Bon Chance Marcelo

 

[trendland]

Yo

You can buy it in the US from
www.bhphotovideo.com at $ 6,99
(FOMA Retro Spezial Developer)
they should also have the films.
Don't know shipping cost to Mexiko - just ask.

Bon Chance Marcelo

Just forgetting : Nice shoot. Looks like
a bit as from cuba. Sure it's in Mexico.


with regards

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Yo

You can buy it in the US from
www.bhphotovideo.com at $ 6,99
(FOMA Retro Spezial Developer)
they should also have the films.
Don't know shipping cost to Mexiko - just ask.

Bon Chance Marcelo

No problem with shipping, I live next to the border and get my supplies shipped to Calexico,CA, next to the border.

Regards.

Marcelo

 

[trendland]

Just regarding this site on a big screen - noticed electronmicriscope picture in wrong size.

Here it is again : Foma 200 with grain structure ( it is more like from a cubice structured emulsion ).

Notice : Foma 200 is a little diferent from technology compared with Foma 100 because it is new improved as a result
from experiments with Foma T800 in the late 90th.

Foma started researches with Tgrain emulsion and failed, ( never reached the quality of Ilfords Deltas ) at least discontinued
Foma T800 in 2001.

sorry for wrong size first - with regards

 

[trendland]

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

Comming back to you Harry !
Sure I don't forget - but I decided that what you stated is quite in the near of
later conclusions.
So ....I am sorry for delay.

I see you are happy with Kentmere 100/400.

You would like to have it in 120 ?

Well - as I bought it I just got one 135-36 roll first of Retro320.

To test it - superficially speaking.
Perhaps 100ft rolls get in later interesst.

But one advantage is still remaning to
Retro320 : Different Formats.

120? ?? no I am not remembering this !

What is Retro ? If I just could find out
this unanswered question .

I thing I will do this and let you know later.
(first loading cellphone batterie)

with regards

 

[trendland]

What is Retro ?
As you might regard retro as an interpretation of the past you might actualy understand that film witch smell/taste strongly of it are Modern
Emulsions - of cause.

Well - in case of this Foma Film the interpretation of the past :
frustated ambitions with T grain experiments - is in an ironic form indeed:
Retro320 .

To be fair to Foma at least - there are many formats with this film.

Where does this emulsion deliver an
outstanding performance ?

In Retro ...of cause !
Seriously - where?

Let's look in short again to this here:

Unfriendly lighting ? Of cause so!!!

I wasn't able to find a more contrasty scene that day.

FULL SUN and FULL SHADOWS in extremest power.

Plus white clothes.

Beware of because this is a scan!
(darkroom work from yesterday showed it nearly in the same performance from the film negatives )

look at full datas at
above (Rollei RHC 1+4)

and the tonals with normal lighting :

 

[trendland]

just nice!



But this is also possible with :

1) Ilford Fp4
2) Ilford Delta 100
3) Foma 100/200 ??
4) Kodak T Max !! . ..and with.. .and....

AND tonal range with Rollei ATO 2.1 is
also not reachable from this Foma Film
as his brother (FomaT800) never reached the high definition/smal grain/
high speed as a specific triangled qualifying with T grain emulsions.

with regards

 

[trendland]

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

Pentaxuser - I am just waiting !

 

[Nokton48]

9x9cm neg from Plaubel Makiflex on 9x12cm Foma Retro (image cropped to about 6x9cm), Legacy Mic-X developer.

Makiflex Retro 320 - 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr


My stash of 9x12cm Foma Retro. 300 sheets! These came to me all the way from Germany.

002 by Nokton48, on Flickr

 

[trendland]

9x9cm neg from Plaubel Makiflex on 9x12cm Foma Retro (image cropped to about 6x9cm), Legacy Mic-X developer.

Makiflex Retro 320 - 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr


My stash of 9x12cm Foma Retro. 300 sheets!

002 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Well - Nokton48,
regarding Legacy Mic-x developer :

As the name of it should sugest Mic-x
(perhaps they are not allowed to name it
Microdol-x)
we have here a Kodak derivat/clone of one .....or let me say THE favorite
developer for a long time.

If you want to have NO grain with 120
films I often use Delta100 E.I. 25/15Din.
the developer is Ilford perceptol.

Your example is a brand new idea because the contrast with Delta100 (1stop lost due to perceptol and a additional - 1 stop pull processing )
is often not so high.
Of cause metol based developers have
a strenght witch is not a low as some
would expect. ....hmmm.

Ok - thank you much nokton48 - in concerns to grain it was more as clever
from you to chose this special developer -
If you would allow me to say so.

And in combination with this format it is more
interesting in regard to resolution !!!
Very Nice shots in 9x12. Thats also new
to me (avaiability also in 9x12).

with regards

PS: I mentioned it from above - to be fair
to Foma : There are a lot of different formats with Retro320.
One of the actually big advantages of this film.

 

[Brac]

I thought Foma discontinued T type emulsions because Eastman Kodak were not happy about possible patent infringements. But it was all a long time ago.

 

[Roger Cole]

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

I gave up trying to read it at all. It's totally incomprehensible to me. But the replies are from people who apparently understand it, so they're useful.

 

[Roger Cole]

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

Followed by a special edition of "Forum Word Salad!"

 

[trendland]

I thought Foma discontinued T type emulsions because Eastman Kodak were not happy about possible patent infringements. But it was all a long time ago.

You might be right Brac.
As Foma have done their own research
to T-grain emulsions - Foma might infringed any patent of Kodak ?

But as far as I know the main reason to discontinue T800 was the very low demand.
And low demand to films in 2000 ?
Notice : The worldwide production of still films reached an alltime high in this year.

The failures of emulsion with T800
(Foma planned an ISO3200 type)
destroyed all going in this direction.

Tmax100/400 and Delta100/400/ have been on the marked since years to that time.
Delta3200 was intoduced 1998 and
Kodak TMZ came out a few month later -
if I have it correct in mind. I am not realy sure but Ilford was a little bit first.

But it is also possible (patent infringements) - a quite conceivable additional reason.

with regards

 

[Agulliver]

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.