Lets unite for change (Foma Retro 320 in 120 format)

I've just recently sent a mail to Foma Bohemia regarding their newest film Foma Retropan 320.

The film, as some of you may or may not know, is produced in 135 rolls and several different sheet sizes, but not medium format 120.

This is in my opinion most unfortunate, as the film does not lend itself well to miniature format. The grain is of size and character that does not suit the extreme requirements given when enlarging small format films.
I'm not alone in this opinion, the reviews overall has been overshadowed by disappointment.
On the other hand, the film has a superb tonality, it's actually quite stunning when shooting large format. But of course, like all Foma films the reciprocity is absolutely awful.

This is why I believe that it deserves to be sold as 120 rolls as well, where grain size is of less importance, and you're less likely to need a shutter speed longer than a second. Quite frankly, I believe that 120 is the perfect format for Retropan 320, a match made in heaven!

So I urge everyone to please contact Foma, and thell them how much we want, how much we need this film!

foma [at] foma.cz


And of course, a picture:

Isn't the economic logic as follows: If Foma could produce 120 Retropan 320 without additional cost it would have done so to increase sales. If the first sentence is correct then it follows that it has to invest extra money to produce 120. It has to weigh up the additional cost against the future additional profit that will result from the investment.

I wonder how many potential users there are on APUG of Retropan 320 in 120 roll film. I suspect not very many but let's say there are several hundred potential users. Would that be enough to persuade you to invest money in the facilities for 120 if Foma belonged to you and a board of directors and its future, your future and that of its workers depended on this being the right decision. Is several hundred extra users enough to make the investment sound?

I doubt it but of course you may believe that several hundred( or whatever figure you have in mind) new users are enough but to believe that you need to know a lot about Foma's business. Do you have any evidence that a few APUGers writing to Foma is enough to make 120 production viable?

Without some knowledge of costs v potential profit we are back to the kind of forlorn wish-list thread that wants Kodak to bring back Kodachrome, HIE etc. Fuji to bring back Neopan 400 in 120 etc

I wish you well but economic reality has to be considered for the sake of current users of current Foma products.

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

Do you have any evidence that a few APUGers writing to Foma is enough to make 120 production viable?

Click to expand...

Let me reply with a question; do you believe there is a greater chance that Foma will produce the film in 120 format if nobody shows interest?

Seriously, whats up with your attitude? If you're not interested, please stay out of my thread.

I wish you well in your thread and was simply trying to show that there has to be strong evidence that a lot of film users and not just those on APUG want this film in 120. It may be that Foma itself has done some research on the viability of producing Retropan in 120 and is still gathering evidence but I doubt that unless APUGers in their 1000s write to Foma and convince it that there is a serious demand, there will be much change in Foma's investment decisions.

So far I seem to be the only one to have replied but I await with interest how big the interest is in writing to Foma.

Good luck. I promise I shall stay out of your thread from here on

pentaxuser

It looks weird to me. That's only one man's opinion. Tri-X gives me a look that I have never been able to improve upon. Lots of other films have worked to produce some good images for me at much less cost, but I wouldn't buy this film based upon that photo. To me, the only thing retro about it is the costumes, the old house, and the car. Of course, who knows what the print looks like? All I have to go on is the web file on my monitor.

Most 120 film uses a thinner base stock than 35mm, exceptions include early TMAX 120 and Ilford Delta 3200, which were cut from the same master rolls that the 35mm film was cut. So it could be done. And FOMA is a sort of boutique film operation already so, who knows?

Jockos it aint the film..it's the photographer...honestly it may be a valid request but we really do have a wonderful selection to choose from; after all analog was supposed to be dead circa 2016
people who either lament the past films or try to create new ones should be out making photographs!
have a great day!!
peter

darkroommike said:

And FOMA is a sort of boutique film operation already so, who knows?

Click to expand...

Where do you got that idea?

Foma Retropan 320 Soft can be beautiful even in 35mm.
You need to follow the manufacturers "recipe".
But, even going outside the recommended developers, it can still be very nice.

With Retro developer

6-24-2015_002 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

With Rodinal 1+100

6-22-2015_027 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

I thought more people should be interested in this, and was not at all expecting any negativity on a forum named APUG, I thought you guys loved film.

Foma might just be what's keeping TriX and the likes alive, by providing an economical entry level for beginners, students and the like. Especially when it comes to large format, where the sheets may be close to half the cost of Ilford or Kodak film. Every person choosing to NOT go into large format because of cost, is one step closer to your favorite sheet size being discontinued.
And look at the Arista EDU films, I hear they are extremely popular in art schools in the US, simply because the people there can actually afford them. And what does these people use when they have money? Kodak perhaps? Maybe not if they choose early on to go digital, since there weren't any low cost options.

Really not what I had expected..

Well, I'm going on the road now for a week with my Szabad, loaded with 5x7 Retropan of course!

Jockos said:

[...]negativity on a forum named APUG

Click to expand...

Welcome to APUG, the most curmudgeonly place on the internet!

120 can be too expensive for them. The expensive part is the backing paper and the print/ink on them.

baachitraka said:

120 can be too expensive for them. The expensive part is the backing paper and the print/ink on them.

Click to expand...

They are already producing a lot of 120 in their other film types, and the backing paper does not need to be any different than what they already use (film-type can go on the sealing bands, to save money on differently printed backing-paper).

Ricardo Miranda said:

Where do you got that idea?

Click to expand...

What that FOMA is a boutique supplier of films that their customers really want rather than just what the company decides to produce (think Yellow boxes)?

1. They just rebuilt a smaller 35mm film perforater
2. Just purchased and rebuilt a coating machine from Ilford (Switzerland) capable of doing smaller batches of emulsion coatings.
3. and they have introduced some really new and different products in a time when the big guys are downsizing.

... so, yeah I guess there's evidence of that. I could have used bespoke rather that boutique, neither has anything to do with the handmade junk on Etsy.

Jockos said:

I thought more people should be interested in this, and was not at all expecting any negativity on a forum named APUG, I thought you guys loved film.

Really not what I had expected..

Well, I'm going on the road now for a week with my Szabad, loaded with 5x7 Retropan of course!

Click to expand...

Just a reality check, it was in now intended to be a slap down, I shoot more 120 than anything else and I'd like to see it, too.

darkroommike said:

What that FOMA is a boutique supplier of films that their customers really want rather than just what the company decides to produce (think Yellow boxes)?

1. They just rebuilt a smaller 35mm film perforater
2. Just purchased and rebuilt a coating machine from Ilford (Switzerland) capable of doing smaller batches of emulsion coatings.
3. and they have introduced some really new and different products in a time when the big guys are downsizing.

... so, yeah I guess there's evidence of that. I could have used bespoke rather that boutique, neither has anything to do with the handmade junk on Etsy.

Click to expand...

I think that's ADOX you're talking about...

I wouldn't mind if Retro320 became available in 120, but I suspect it was intended as an LF film from the start, rather than as rollfilm.

darkroommike said:

What that FOMA is a boutique supplier of films that their customers really want rather than just what the company decides to produce (think Yellow boxes)?

1. They just rebuilt a smaller 35mm film perforater
2. Just purchased and rebuilt a coating machine from Ilford (Switzerland) capable of doing smaller batches of emulsion coatings.
3. and they have introduced some really new and different products in a time when the big guys are downsizing.

... so, yeah I guess there's evidence of that. I could have used bespoke rather that boutique, neither has anything to do with the handmade junk on Etsy.

Click to expand...

You're mixing manufacturers!
Yeap, it is ADOX you're talking about just as Lachlan said.

Jockos said:

I thought more people should be interested in this, and was not at all expecting any negativity on a forum named APUG, I thought you guys loved film.

Foma might just be what's keeping TriX and the likes alive, by providing an economical entry level for beginners, students and the like. Especially when it comes to large format, where the sheets may be close to half the cost of Ilford or Kodak film. Every person choosing to NOT go into large format because of cost, is one step closer to your favorite sheet size being discontinued.
And look at the Arista EDU films, I hear they are extremely popular in art schools in the US, simply because the people there can actually afford them. And what does these people use when they have money? Kodak perhaps? Maybe not if they choose early on to go digital, since there weren't any low cost options.

Really not what I had expected..

Well, I'm going on the road now for a week with my Szabad, loaded with 5x7 Retropan of course!

Click to expand...

Well, you do know that if you don't row your boat the same as most people or row it upstream you will hear about it. I'm sure Pablo Picasso heard about it when he tried his later and different style painting, but he probably told them to "F" off. I follow his style.................John W

I see absolutely no problem with the OP trying to organize information that would help a film manufacturer conclude there is a demand for a film.

I believe most of the pessimistic responses in this thread are directed to the other side of the question - the cost and other potential downsides of trying to meet that demand.

IMHO, a lot of people who aren't in the industry underestimate those costs and other potential downsides.

But the OP wasn't seeking help in addressing that part of the question, so I'll say to those who have concentrated on them here: "Bah Humbug"

If you like the OP's idea, tell FOMA. They can make their own determination about the challenges.

I like the OP's style! I also think that maybe, just maybe Foma is testing the waters. We might just see 120 format Retro 320 if 35mm format sells well. So, maybe all us 120 shooters ought to try a couple of rolls on 35mm? That's how you tell foma!

Hey, if there was a chance Foma would consider a run of 16x20 123 with the "old" gelatin (great lith and bormoil paper), I'd get involved.

If someone at Foma answers your emails, see what it would take - a kickstarter or actual, paid pre-orders? Who knows. Then it's up to you to do the legwork and hit whatever goal they need.

For me, the "unavailability" question really comes down to two levels of product these days - what is there a workable replacement for, and what do I simply have to say goodbye to?

As an example - though I'm not versed in that particular Foma film, there are films that seem like they can approximate some of the scans I've seen, the Rollei red-sensitive stuff for example, and maybe adding things like a halation reflector and testing that. I don't know if that would get someone close or not. What we do have is a wealth of great B&W films with great tonal range and individual characteristics. A shocking amount of choices when you look at the age we're in and the ubiquity of digital, from hobbyist to fine-art acceptance.

On the other hand - we're down to about one traditionally lith-able paper (Unibrom) and it's kind of a one-trick pony, rough and gritty and "bad xerox" look (though some folks have tamed it). I'd put up some cash to get some small supplier to do a run of something like Ektalure or Maco Warmtone. I'd love to find out someone in China or something could do a cadmium paper - there's some holy-grail right there (those are both cad papers I believe)... to a lith fan. But us lith guys are fairly organized, we have Tim Rudman as our General and Wolfgang Moersch as out mad scientist, and both of them have the ear of manufacturing to some extent. I think our odds are a little better if the whole community got behind something, because there already is a loose community with established lines of communication.

Myself, I'd also go nuts for dependable B&W pack films in the 100 and 400 ISO ranges for proofing. I could live with a pack adapter when shooting 4x5 after all, and I'd gladly test to see what ND or adjustments I'd need to proof various films. But I may be an oddity in B&W film shooting, complex lighting and props and multiple exposures and so on; most folks can do basic proofing with a DSLR when needed. I'd about kill to see Polagraph come back to life, too - but for fine-art, that was always a niche, it was a presentation film for charts and graphs. And Ektachrome 320 Tungsten. But I may be a market of one, so those aren't even pipe dreams for me.

To fight a battle like this, you need to gather up an army. No harm in giving it a shot, and the original post here was an appropriate first step. I didn't find the naysayers to really be "rude", just reality-check. There's no harm in seeing what Foma thinks.

JW PHOTO said:

a couple of rolls on 35mm?

Click to expand...

Or a couple of bulk rolls!

Jockos said:

I've just recently sent a mail to Foma Bohemia regarding their newest film Foma Retropan 320.

The film, as some of you may or may not know, is produced in 135 rolls and several different sheet sizes, but not medium format 120.

This is in my opinion most unfortunate, as the film does not lend itself well to miniature format. The grain is of size and character that does not suit the extreme requirements given when enlarging small format films.
I'm not alone in this opinion, the reviews overall has been overshadowed by disappointment.
On the other hand, the film has a superb tonality, it's actually quite stunning when shooting large format. But of course, like all Foma films the reciprocity is absolutely awful.

This is why I believe that it deserves to be sold as 120 rolls as well, where grain size is of less importance, and you're less likely to need a shutter speed longer than a second. Quite frankly, I believe that 120 is the perfect format for Retropan 320, a match made in heaven!

So I urge everyone to please contact Foma, and thell them how much we want, how much we need this film!

foma [at] foma.cz


And of course, a picture:

Click to expand...

It was unnecessary to say the grain is bad in 35mm as the grain is lovely in 35mm.
Knocking copy is bad...
They have to invest a lot to do a master roll (for 120) if they don't think it will sell they won't.
This is why Kodachrome disappeared.

Threads like this come and go. When it is all said and done it is Foma that knows the market and what will sell and what will not. They are the ones that did the cost analysis. It is not a simple matter of cutting a master roll down to 35, 120 and LF these formats are typically coated on different base stock. And of course there are additional packaging requirements. In all these threads the OP presumes that he knows more than the manufacturer.

Slightly off-topic, but.......I dig the photo. I would (also) like to see one that was shot at a smaller aperture. Would enjoy seeing the car and barn as (almost) sharp as the newly-weds.
I would say more, but the rant would probably be misplaced here.
Anyway, i am not qualified to judge the film itself...just wanted to say i like the really look/honesty/simplicity of the picture.