Topic: Foma Retropan

[Ed Wenn]

Has anyone here used the wonderfully named (at least for sucker like me) Foma Retropan? Aside from anything else it has a 'convenient speed'. Well, that's good news 

"Foma RETROPAN 320 offers very delicate soft tones perfect for a range of applications where a soft 'retro' look is desired. With a convenient speed of 320 asa/iso Retropan offers something refreshingly different to the established films on the market."



http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/foma-retropan-320-35mm-36-3791-p.asp

[SLVR]

if only it came in those reusable retro canisters 

[Late Developer]

Ed - check this out.

The photos from the roll I used were shot via an old Voigtlander Vitomatic and processed by a lab using standard chemicals.  Apparently, there's specific developer for it.  I liked the lower contrast and the sort of "glow" (which is probably more to do with the camera) but the grain was like golf balls compared to other medium speed film.

http://www.filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=8657.msg117180#msg117180

[02Pilot]

I've been meaning to get a couple rolls to try them in Caffenol (probably stand developing for starters). I haven't used much Foma film, but what I tried had a very soft emulsion and was actually about half the listed box speed (again in Caffenol). I've seen samples of the Retropan elsewhere and liked the look for the sorts of subjects you'd expect (portraits, soft light landscapes, old stuff, etc.).

[astrobeck]

Andrea Ingram has....

I bought 2 rolls, but have not used them...

[Francois]

If it has a weak AH layer like I think, I would be fantastic for vintage looking night shots.

[Gimenosaiz]

Hi!

I've shot a couple or rolls.

With its specific developer (better):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/123541493@N02/albums/72157674870172941

EDIT: I have put all the photos in the album

In this post of a spanish forum I posted some photos of a roll I developed with HC-100 (1+47) (nearly awful):
http://manualens.com/foro/index.php?topic=21600.0

I don't like it, mainly because of the grain ...

Cheers!
Antonio

[Late Developer]

Hi!

I've shot a couple or rolls.

With its specific developer (better):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/123541493@N02/30876272665/in/dateposted/

In this post of a spanish forum I posted some photos of a roll I developed with HC-100 (1+47) (nearly awful):


http://manualens.com/foro/index.php?topic=21600.0

I don't like it, mainly because of the grain ...

Cheers!
Antonio

Antonio, I can only agree with you.  It's an interesting film and I'm sure it will have its uses.  However, in 35mm format, I don't regard it as something I would use to take portraits.  Additionally, the 35mm version doesn't seem to be very good at recording deep blacks or crisp whites - very "grey" look to it.  As much as I like a bit of grain, without the dedicated developer, I can't live with that much grain.....

[Francois]

I guess the 35mm version must be more sensitive to the type of developer used.
Those who create grain edge effects and the high accutance developers will make the film appear sharper. It also grey-er simply because more light goes through and around the individual grains.

[Gimenosaiz]

Hi!

This was not a good choice either ... Fomapan 320 4x5 developed with Xtol. stupid choice :-( ... Even worst given that the lens was a projector lens that I hadn't tested before ...


Graflex_Retropan_Xtol_011_026 (Copy) by Antonio Test, on Flickr

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123541493@N02/albums/72157676267723765

Cheers!
Antonio

[Ricardo Miranda]

I have used Foma Retropan 320 both with the Retro developer as well as Rodinal.
An album of some pictures is here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78429898@N03/albums/72157654935188262

[Ed Wenn]

HI Everyone, thanks very much for taking the time to reply....especially when there's already been an in-depth discussion of the film on this forum. Doh! I should have checked before I started a new thread, sorry.

I have now read both sets of posts and am very much the wiser for it. Thanks a lot.