Foma Retropan 320 Soft

Starting playing around with this unique film...

I gave up on Foma 120 films after the Foma 200 QC debacle. I occasionally see this with F200 in 35mm and never with 4x5. So, what you saw here isn't shocking.

Thank you for the video Andy.

I love Foma 320. I am one of those former Foma users who found and reported problems with their 200 product in 120 (in fact I don't use it anymore) but Foma 320 has always been nothing but perfect. Never once an issue, a blemish, over hundreds of rolls exposed and developed.

Where did you source your test roll? This has not been manufactured for a long time, and any roll will now be expired. Not fair IMHO to assess QC of an entire line of products from an expired roll. Was it frozen by any chance? Freezing Foma rolls leads to issues.

I know you're a fan of HP5+ but comparing HP5+ with Retropan 320 is like comparing a bottle of Heineken with one of Trappiste Chimay. Most people will agree that HP5+ is just about 'right' and a great all rounder - whereas Retropan is not an all rounder, it's a specialist product used to achieve certain creative results. Some people will hate the Chimay, some people will love whatever novelty it brings to drinking a beer.

Retropan 320 works absolutely fine at box speed (incident Sekonic metering) in my own workflow using its dedicated high energy developer (Foma Retro Special). Overexposing it results in inferior image quality, because the poor halation properties really start to show up strongly.

When I tested it in ID11 I thought the results were subpar, like those you show.

The Retropan expired 09/2024. I bought it before the expiry date. Hardly old. Kept in the freezer. The roll of HP5 was 4 years old. I included HP5 as a standard... So that Retropan's characteristics are more obvious.

chuckroast said:

I gave up on Foma 120 films after the Foma 200 QC debacle. I occasionally see this with F200 in 35mm and never with 4x5. So, what you saw here isn't shocking.

Click to expand...

Yes Not for me either I have the impression and always have had based on what I have seen on Photrio, that Foma's QC is maybe 40 years or more behind Harman's

pentaxuser

I've often had problems with frozen Foma film in 120 (and with Rollei Retro, which is Aviphot repackaged by Foma).

For some reason, frozen Foma has given me backing paper issues, and I ended up blaming the poor quality paper wrapping Foma rolls come packaged in. They are not aluminium foil or plastic (whatever it is that Ilford uses) but made of a material that is perhaps permeable to humidity?

Anyhow, using Retropan 320 rolls stored on a shelf in the basement at a constant 10-20°C, within expiry date, and not refrigerated or frozen, I have not run into artifacts or backing paper issues with this particular product.

Thanks for the video!
I apparently have been trying to make Retropan 320 behave like a normal film, and trying to obtain a normal D-max where none exists.

Excellent video. This is definitely different! I have yet to try it. Looks interesting.

We spoke on Youtube. D-19 1+1 is what I use.
Finally getting results I am after. I use a modified D-19 with reduced sulfite to the B version of 72g and use K carb in place of Sodium 45g as i bought alot of it when getting stock for making Pyrocat HDC.
I tried to upload photo but it failed.
Using a very dark red filter with it as well

JpsCOimages said:

We spoke on Youtube. D-19 1+1 is what I use.
Finally getting results I am after. I use a modified D-19 with reduced sulfite to the B version of 72g and use K carb in place of Sodium 45g as i bought alot of it when getting stock for making Pyrocat HDC.
I tried to upload photo but it failed.
Using a very dark red filter with it as well

Click to expand...

Thank you and I do appreciate your comments over on YouTube! D-19 at 1+3 has been my go to developer for HP5 and Carbon Transfer printing. Definitely going to try it with 4x5 320 Soft. Did you reduce the sulfite to increase sharpness? I would love to see your photo. Was the file too large?

Andrew O'Neill said:

Thank you and I do appreciate your comments over on YouTube! D-19 at 1+3 has been my go to developer for HP5 and Carbon Transfer printing. Definitely going to try it with 4x5 320 Soft. Did you reduce the sulfite to increase sharpness? I would love to see your photo. Was the file too large?

Click to expand...

Yes. Ive tried downsizing. But still will not upload. Ill keep trying. I have it on FB/IG but wont Post here.
I read in some old kodak literature of a (B) Variant containing 72 versus 90/98 on sulfite and figured give it a shot.
When I first changed to K carb i was getting ill effects no matter the dilution and around same time had read of this B variant. So chose to go that route. It seems sharper.
But I have not done side by side comparisons

@JpsCOimages koraks post might help...

Makiflex Rollei Retro Soft 9x12cm 360 Kern Microdol-X by Nokton48, on Flickr

Pacaderm showers in Goodale Park on a soft winter day. Plaubel Makiflex 9x12cm Rollei Retro Soft sheet Film Kern Arau 360mm F9 repro lens Microdol-X Arista 8x10 RC #3 Multigrade dev. Full neg image shown 9x9cm photography on 9x12 sheet film. I used a RADA Normalfalz plate holder with film insert to hold the film.

@Nokton48 Thanks for posting that. What EI? Any post adjustments made?

Foma WAY overrates their EI speeds. I added one or two stops (maybe three), as I wasn't sure. No post adjustments made, except maybe adjusting levels very slightly in Flikr. The original silver print looks better than this IMO. I replenish my Microdol-X, it a SLOOOOOW acting developer. I bought four bags of the Retro Developer, I may try that next. I bought a bunch of Retropan in 9x12cm and 120 from PhotoImpex in Berlin when it first came out. Need to start using it again.

@Nokton48 if you are adding one or two stops, then that means some where down around EI 80-160. Are you noticing increased halation? One person commented that he avoids rating so low due to that issue. Personally, I love halation.

I also love halation. It was VERY Overcast and raining. I think the film responded well under these conditions. My straight Microdol-X Replenished times were 20-30 minutes. I've never overdeveloped with Microdol-X. Or at least get something I couldn't print on #2 RC paper.
I bracketed not knowing what to expect.

Edit: I see I printed this on #3 RC paper, the straight #2 print needed additional contrast. This is unusual for me to go to #3 but it needed it in this case.

Foma 320 is not a universal film but it's great for (studio) portraits. The extended red sensitivity camouflages skin irregularities (just like Rolle Retro and Superpan), it's a film with built-in make-up. The overall softness of the film is also helpful.