New RETROPAN 320 soft

**Jockos** · 26-Jul-2015, 06:24

So now I guess we've all seen the terrible results this film produces in 35mm, did anyone try it in large format yet? I'm still waiting for Fomafoto in Norway to get their stock..

**Nissin** · 7-Aug-2015, 22:50

Originally Posted by Jockos

So now I guess we've all seen the terrible results this film produces in 35mm, did anyone try it in large format yet? I'm still waiting for Fomafoto in Norway to get their stock..

Yes, I have. I've just uploaded four photographs to Flickr shot on 4X5 Retropan 320. Shots 1 & 2 were processed for 4 minutes using the Retropan special developer: 3 & 4 were processed for 4:30. I've also uploaded, for comparison, two photos using HP5 @ EI 320.

More specifically,
1. The odd numbered shots were all taken at F/32 @ 1/15 second, while the even number shots were shot @1/30 second: i.e. pushed by 1 stop.
2. All the negatives were scanned using Vuescan on an Epson GT-X970 (V750) @ 6,400 dpi and then saved @ 3,200 dpi. No colour correction or sharpening from the original scan.
3. To maximize the dynamic range of each of the Retropan shots, their exposure was adjusted by an identical amount (1.9) in Lightroom 6.1.
4. The HP5 scans were not adjusted for exposure.
5. Apart from exposure, no other adjustments were made to any of the images. No contrast adjustment, nor sharpening of any kind was applied.

The Retropan shots are shown below. All the shots can be seen on my Flickr photostream.

Retropan 320 #1.jpg by John Shillaw, on Flickr

Retropan 320 #2.jpg by John Shillaw, on Flickr

Retropan 320 #3.jpg by John Shillaw, on Flickr

Retropan 320 #4.jpg by John Shillaw, on Flickr

**Domingo A. Siliceo** · 9-Aug-2015, 00:51

What kind of developer is "Retropan special developer"? John, did you process any Retropan sheet in ID-11 for comparisons?

**Nissin** · 9-Aug-2015, 02:23

Originally Posted by Domingo A. Siliceo

What kind of developer is "Retropan special developer"? John, did you process any Retropan sheet in ID-11 for comparisons?

Hi Domingo
The Retropan special is powder developer sold by Foma specifically for the new film. I'm a bit of a novice in processing, so I can't tell you much about its constituents. The information is available in English at http://www.foma.cz/ew/f1eccb0a-1372-...b5998472475-en. I didn't try the Retropan in ID-11, but it might be interesting to compare. One more for the to-do list

I've added a "final" processed version which I have printed.

Retropan 320 final version by John Shillaw, on Flickr

**towolf** · 11-Aug-2015, 05:40

Originally Posted by Nissin

Yes, I have. I've just uploaded four photographs to Flickr shot on 4X5 Retropan 320.

Interesting. Isn’t it pretty puzzling that this supposed "soft" film with it’s flat response curve looks so much more contrasty (and it’s lack of shadow detail) compared to the HP5 and Acros examples?

If you have to boost the Retropan by almost 2 stops in LR to get this look but not the HP5, then this indicates that the Retropan is underdeveloped or underexposed?

**Nissin** · 12-Aug-2015, 04:58

Originally Posted by towolf

Interesting. Isn’t it pretty puzzling that this supposed "soft" film with it’s flat response curve looks so much more contrasty (and it’s lack of shadow detail) compared to the HP5 and Acros examples?

If you have to boost the Retropan by almost 2 stops in LR to get this look but not the HP5, then this indicates that the Retropan is underdeveloped or underexposed?

You have a very good point and one that has been bugging me since I processed the negatives. At first I thought it might be caused by software, so I processed the files again using Epson's dedicated scanner software instead of Vuescan. The results were almost exactly the same, therefore I think that software issues can be discounted. What is constant for all scans is that the Retropan negatives are about 2 stops underexposed compared to the HP5 shot. However, I can be quite sure that exposure was not a factor since the HP5 shot was exposed only minutes before the Retropan shots, in the same light, and with the same settings - that's why I shot the HP5 to allow for such a comparison.

So, if the original exposure was OK, then the other logical option is that the negative was underdeveloped. However, I processed the negatives using the developer specified by Foma and following their development guidelines: in fact I developed at 4:00 and 4:30. The fact is that the HP5 was processed using well established parameters for ID-11 and yielded an excellent negative without any further processing (see the HP5 image below). Retropan 320, on the other hand, does not appear to be so well-behaved (see the Retropan 320 original image below). Possibly the developing times suggested by Foma for 4X5 are too conservative, but OK for 35mm. Maybe Retropan 320 should be rated at 200, or even less. What is interesting is that when processed further to produce a curve similar to the HP5, the underexposed Retropan negative is quite contrasty, but it blocks up in the shadows and does not improve much after a 2 stop increase in exposure in Lightroom (see Retropan 320 processed image below). The HP5 shot, on the other hand, is less contrasty, but the exposure is even across the full range of tones.

I'm hoping to shoot some more Retropan 320 over the weekend and would welcome ideas for ways to test the film further. I'm out of HP5, though.

Epson HP5 original by John Shillaw, on Flickr

Epson R320 original by John Shillaw, on Flickr

Epson R320 processed by John Shillaw, on Flickr

**Jockos** · 12-Sep-2015, 05:54

I got this info from Foma in regards on how to process sheets in w27 (XTOL) 1+1:

Let us recommend you to use the developing time of 7 minutes (El 320), eventually 9:20 minutes (El 640) corresponding to the temperature of 24 °C.

Didn't try it out yet, but will probably next week, when I have some exposed sheets.

**tih** · 14-Sep-2015, 00:45

I did some sensitometer based testing of RetroPAN 320 over the weekend, using Ralph Lambrecht's article and spread sheet, after observing that Foma's recommendation of 7-8 minutes in HC-110 diluted 1+31 at 20 deg C seems to be just about right for a diffusion enlarger. Since I have a condenser enlarger, I ran the tests with HC-110 diluted 1+50 instead. I got results that were just right for N-2, N-1, N, N+1, and N+2 at 4, 5.5, 8, 12, and 20 minutes. This was with 4x5" sheet film, in a daylight tank, using pre-soak, agitating by inversion for thirty seconds at the start, and then for ten seconds after each additional minute.

**tih** · 14-Sep-2015, 12:22

Actually, after cleaning up the data a bit, rechecking some dodgy looking readings, and interpolating the results more carefully, I end up with 4, 6, 8, 12, and 18 minutes, with an extra 1/3 stop of exposure at N-1, and 2/3 stop at N-2. Also, I note that my chosen dilution to soften up the negatives for a condenser enlarger is very close to Kodak's "dilution E" for HC-110. Is that what dil E (1:47) was intended for, I wonder? To be used instead of dil B (1:31) to get negatives that are one paper grade softer? That's what I see with RetroPAN, anyway...