trendland
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2012
- Messages
- 3,398
- Format
- Medium Format
If I understand correctly, the only reason to think this film is relabeled Retropan is the 320 ISO designation?
From the datasheets of both, I find this info:
Imago 320: Offered in 135 format on 120 micron acetate base, and 120 format on 100 microns base. Suggested development: HC-110(B) 5 mins 30 sec or Microphen stock 6 mins 30 sec, red-cutoff 680 nm
Foma Retropan 320: Offered in 135 format on 125 micron acetate base, and sheet film on 175 micron. Suggested development: HC-110(B) 7-8 minutes or Microphen stock 10-11 mins, red-cutoff around 670 nm
Other developers are suggested on the datasheet, but those two are the only ones in common.
Regarding 5222: FPP's markup is 40% from EK list price, not 100% as Trendland claims. The current Eastman Kodak list price is $645 for 1000 feet (https://www.kodak.com/uploadedFiles...ucts-Price-Catalog-US-Prices_Sept_2017_V7.pdf, page 18).
Well - from all parameters you mentioned as comparison between both films - thank you for this information Arctic amateur - the red cut of has the most impact to me.
That both films aren't the same.
Because of : 120 micron acetat base to 125 micron acetat base - (to me) it is the same.
Who will messure micron (in mm) ? I guess you have allways a tollerance of min. 1-2 micron - am I right ?
The difference in recomanded developing times I absolute would not care about.
Have you ever reached optimal results with allways same times as recomanded
artic amateur?
Sometimes we all noticed bad published (wrong) times. Thats realy relative.
But the infrared sensitivity up to 670nm vs 680nm that make a real difference from the film.
If we can say it precisly it may be a films
"fingerprint" ( films with allways exact 675,8 nm redcut)
On the other hand this may be also in concern to production tollerance.
You will never see all emulsion numbered films with 675,82 nm for example.
I can't say in what form the ability in IR depends to aged films - may be it increases very little like ISO sensitive in bw.
So we are just at the beginning - because
670nm vs. 680nm is relative and may be the same......




Does not anybody tryed this film meanwhile and has also experience with Retro320?
I just have still one Retro320 remaining
but I will not buy this new film (as I sayd before)
Otherwise we may speculate about origin of this new emulsion much longer behind the film is discontinued - what may be happend meanwile with Retro320.
But this makes the speculation about - real interisting, because both issues may come together then.
with regards