Foma Retropan - First roll
Old 07-09-2015   #1
kiteboy
Registered User
 
kiteboy is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 33
Foma Retropan - First roll

This week I took delivery of 17m of Retropan 320 and had my first attempt at bulk loading.

I shot a roll using an OM2 with the 50mm1.8 in automatic mode.
Processed in Foma Retro Special developer - following the manufacturer's instructions faithfully. Dev 4' 30" at 20C. 30 second agitation to start then 10 seconds per minute.

The images below are scans with minimal adjustment in Lightroom.







I hope this helps anyone considering trying this film. Shame it is not available in 120

Good luck

Andrew
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2015   #2
adresaba
Registered User
 
adresaba is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Croatia
Posts: 236
Thanks.
Which scanner is this?
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2015   #3
kiteboy
Registered User
 
kiteboy is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by adresaba View Post
Thanks.
Which scanner is this?
Scanned with Epson V700 at 2400dpi using Epson Scan software.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2015   #4
whitecat
Lone Range(find)er
 
whitecat's Avatar
 
whitecat is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,362
I like it!
__________________
My Gallery



Zeiss Ikon Zm, Olympus Trip, Rolleiflex FX, Yashica Electro 35, Nikon 35 TI, Nikon 28 TI, Widelux F7, Contax TVS III, Zeiss Ikon 35, Minox, Olympus 35 EE3, Konica AA 35, Minox 35 GT, Canonet QL17, and many more....
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2015   #5
presspass
filmshooter
 
presspass is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,200
Thanks for the images. This film seems to do just what it is supposed to - handle extreme contrast well. Again, thanks for posting. Any additional would be appreciated.
  Reply With Quote

Foma Retropan - Roll 2
Old 07-21-2015   #6
kiteboy
Registered User
 
kiteboy is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 33
Foma Retropan - Roll 2

Second week with this film. These were shot in late morning full sunlight. Leica M6 with 40mm Summicron C.







Same processing as roll 1.

If anyone has experience with developers giving finer grain I would be interested. i like the tonality but not the grain!

Thanks

Andrew
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2015   #7
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
 
sebastel's Avatar
 
sebastel is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: highdelberg
Posts: 1,129
very nice.
as for developer recommendations: i mostly use rodinal, which is not really known for fine grain. sorry.

cheers,
sebastian
__________________

si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2015   #8
Filzkoeter
stray dog
 
Filzkoeter's Avatar
 
Filzkoeter is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin - Germany
Age: 33
Posts: 415
From my tests with the Retropan film, I must say: the tonality is quite nice but the grain is WAY too much for 35mm (and I like grain). It's by far the grainiest film I've ever shot and I don't believe it can be tamed in 35mm.
I think Retropan could be really nice in large format.
__________________
-Miko

- flickr -
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2015   #9
pirx70
Registered User
 
pirx70 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 41
Posts: 20
Hello Filzkoeter,

Have you - or anyone - made any prints under enlarger so far? Or perhaps are you conclusions on grain from loupe inspection of the negative? I have no clue about scanning, but for aught I've read about others' experience, scanners do do strange things with grain, disfiguring it awfully compared to what it's like when projected on the enlarger board. I am really curious as I'm about to buy 135 film in bulk, and as I'm a bit tight on the budget, thought the Foma might be interesting. What I am after, before I invest in the 17 m spool, is what a 24x30 cm enlarger print from Retropan negative looks like, compared to e.g. HP5 (also resolution-wise).
Cheers,
pirx70

Quote:
Originally Posted by Filzkoeter View Post
From my tests with the Retropan film, I must say: the tonality is quite nice but the grain is WAY too much for 35mm (and I like grain). It's by far the grainiest film I've ever shot and I don't believe it can be tamed in 35mm.
I think Retropan could be really nice in large format.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2015   #10
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Filzkoeter View Post
From my tests with the Retropan film, I must say: the tonality is quite nice but the grain is WAY too much for 35mm (and I like grain). It's by far the grainiest film I've ever shot and I don't believe it can be tamed in 35mm.
I think Retropan could be really nice in large format.
Well this is good to know as I intend to get some sheets in the 9x12cm size.
Tonality and response characteristics are more important to me than grain, in the larger format.
__________________
“The secret of getting ahead is getting started.”
― Mark Twain
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2015   #11
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,801
Wow, that is grainy (and like you, I like grainy).

And I agree that this will kick-butt in larger format, I'd say even in 120 this could be a nice one for nature still-life shots with a lot of textures.
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2015   #12
Filzkoeter
stray dog
 
Filzkoeter's Avatar
 
Filzkoeter is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin - Germany
Age: 33
Posts: 415
pirx70: I've done no prints from the Retropan negatives, but even projected on the enlarger-board or inspected with a loupe you can see that the grain is as big and coarse as it is on the scans. I wouldn't rate Retropan high in the resolution departement.
__________________
-Miko

- flickr -
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-22-2015   #13
DominikDUK
Registered User
 
DominikDUK's Avatar
 
DominikDUK is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,029
Am I the only who remembers the how to get more grain or how can I grain of tri-x circa 1950's threads.

Foma has give those who want loads of grain a choice. Looking at a neg trough a loupe or only project it on the baseboard without actually printing the neg only tells half the story mat paper for instance swallows a lot of grain, some glossy surfaces are good at hiding grain as well. I am also sure that prints will kick ass on Ilford Multigrade art paper which will reduce the appearance of grain and the art texture paired with grain will make the photo look like a lithograph or etching.

I would also be interested knowing how well protected the emulsion is against reticulation as the results look very grainy for a 400 ISO past (since 1970's) or present emulsion
  Reply With Quote

Then I tried D76
Old 07-22-2015   #14
kiteboy
Registered User
 
kiteboy is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 33
Then I tried D76

I shot another roll today and tried D76 stock at 20 degrees for 7 minutes. Agitate for first 30 seconds then 5 seconds per minute. Here are some of the results - negs a bit thin - see what you think.







  Reply With Quote

Old 07-23-2015   #15
kossi008
Photon Counter
 
kossi008's Avatar
 
kossi008 is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Dresden, Germany
Age: 52
Posts: 927
I've shot a first test roll end developed it in Emofin. Negs came out way too thin (Zone VIII at logD = 0.6), so I would have to do it again with a longer dev time to know more. But I'll probably go for Xtol stock in my next attempt to tame this film.

Grain is large, but OK'ish; doesn't look reticulated, just large, compact grain aggregations. I attached a 2000 ppi raw scan snippet.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Retropan_Emofin_2000ppi_Z185_05.jpg (175.1 KB, 11 views)
__________________
Photon Counter
My flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-23-2015   #16
pirx70
Registered User
 
pirx70 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 41
Posts: 20
Hi Kossi,

And what EI speed did you actually use for the exposure?

I am quite impatient to try the film, if the grain is there it's not a problem to me, it seems like a nice offering for portraits and sentimental quasi-pictorialist landscapes.

What is your impression of the manufacturing quality? Are there any holes in the emulsion, scratches etc.?

Cheers,
pirx70
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-23-2015   #17
kossi008
Photon Counter
 
kossi008's Avatar
 
kossi008 is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Dresden, Germany
Age: 52
Posts: 927
Quote:
Originally Posted by pirx70 View Post
Hi Kossi,

And what EI speed did you actually use for the exposure?

I am quite impatient to try the film, if the grain is there it's not a problem to me, it seems like a nice offering for portraits and sentimental quasi-pictorialist landscapes.

What is your impression of the manufacturing quality? Are there any holes in the emulsion, scratches etc.?

Cheers,
pirx70
Shot at 320, which I could not verify given the overall too short development time (Zone I exposure came out at logD = 0.03 but then, like I said, Zone VIII was at 0.60!).

No quality problems so far, but keep in mind that I've only shot one 12 exposure test roll... More to come this weekend.
__________________
Photon Counter
My flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-26-2015   #18
ravilamir
Registered User
 
ravilamir's Avatar
 
ravilamir is offline
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: London, UK
Posts: 214
I'll continue my testing of Retropan 320 that started in this thread: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...d.php?t=148885

Just an observation: Foma published a small set of developing times in some developers.
I'll say if you deviate from the manufacturer recommendations, then you are on your own. If you like the results, then it is great. If you don't, then please don't blame the film or the manufacturer.

Someone observed this film dries flatter.
All Foma films dry very flat indeed.

These were shot at EI640 and developed in the Retropan 320 developer for the time and agitation prescribed.

7-24-2015_002 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

7-24-2015_048 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

7-24-2015_007 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

7-24-2015_012 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

7-24-2015_021 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

I am very pleased with this film.
__________________
Ricardo Miranda
Canon P. Voigtlander Bessa R

Olympus M-1, OM-1/N, OM-2/N, OM-4, OM-4Ti
A bunch of Nikons
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-26-2015   #19
Muju79
http://muju.tumblr.com/
 
Muju79's Avatar
 
Muju79 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 88
Seems a tad overly grainy with the dev conditions you used. There's also some halo around highlight areas, is it the film or perhaps your lens has some haze inside?
__________________
Thou great star! What would be thy happiness if thou hadst not those for whom thou shinest!
(F.W. Nietzsche, “Thus spoke Zarathustra”)
  Reply With Quote

Promicrol?
Old 07-26-2015   #20
europanorama
Registered User
 
europanorama is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 212
Promicrol?

Why not trying out promicrol? Am i wrong?
__________________
Michael Przewrocki
www.3dreal.ch
www.stereopan.tk
3DSTEREO-Aeropanoramas
Marspanoramas in 3DSTEREO
under reconstruction
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-27-2015   #21
ravilamir
Registered User
 
ravilamir's Avatar
 
ravilamir is offline
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: London, UK
Posts: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muju79 View Post
Seems a tad overly grainy with the dev conditions you used. There's also some halo around highlight areas, is it the film or perhaps your lens has some haze inside?
I think it is a combination of some of the OM lenses I used are single coated and the poor scanner.
I have had the same with Fomapan 100 with Rodinal 1:100 stand.
__________________
Ricardo Miranda
Canon P. Voigtlander Bessa R

Olympus M-1, OM-1/N, OM-2/N, OM-4, OM-4Ti
A bunch of Nikons
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-27-2015   #22
lawrence
Registered User
 
lawrence's Avatar
 
lawrence is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 2,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by ravilamir View Post
I think it is a combination of some of the OM lenses I used are single coated and the poor scanner.
I have had the same with Fomapan 100 with Rodinal 1:100 stand.
The reason is that Foma 100 has no anti-halation backing. I would imagine the same applies to Retropan.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 18:31.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.