Now discontinued and only available in limited amounts and often expired. This film was a bold attempt to resurrect some of the old style BW photography characteristic through a very generous greys and wide range of mid tones you cannot find elsewhere. It however turned out to be much of a central European niche the Foma factory was unable to continue feeding. I shot it at 200-400, I cannot agree this film should be classed as 200 as it behaves very differently in different lighting conditions, in or outdoors, longer exposure times and smaller appertures in any case seem to work best and this film appears to like generous amount of light and will perform well in low and high contrast situations; A very few photos among the reviews show its real potential; it almost seems that majority of the reviewers did not really do their homework. I came across a photo in a forum which al sot seemed a random afterthought - a fisherman by a canal in a mist/fog which illustrate that a very long exposure can tease a lot of life out of this unusual film as well as a good amount of natural light. I only have one processed roll to choose scanned samples from as majority of the retropan I home developed was in reversal kits to obtain positives which I did not bother scanning. I would strongly advise against reverse processing now as there are only few left on the market and you would certainly need to experiment with exposure, chemicals as well as developing times to get great results. the negatives I got were from a malfunctioning 6x7 camera but they all show a fabulous range of mid tones/ greys.
I would say the dedicated powder developer is something to definitely try on any Foma films not just retropan but I would recommend sourcing it directly from Czechia as resellers in the UK easily double or triple its original price. the retropan developer can depending on the quality of the water you use and your local climate alter the tone of the negative and soften the resulting image.

Interesting, but not perfect. Just scanned some negs again and now I see clear difference compared with HP5 or something similar. I would say this film is rated a bit too high - the real ISO should be about 200, works good with Rodinal, but can achieve better resolution with other developers (but never tried that, yet). Overall - I still recommend this film.

I finally shot my last roll of Retropan for some woodland photography near my home. I'm not sure if this will ever be sold again, so I just wanted to put one last photo here to remind folks what Retropan was good at. Contrast. Spring has definitely arrived here in the north west of England and that means a lot of the footpaths in the local woodland are enclosed by the greenery above. This is where Retropan thrived, the ability to shoot slow speeds at small f stops in my Agfa Isolette 1 brought out the contrast as I made my way through the woods. Dark shadows mixed with the light filtering through the leaves to produce images I am rather pleased with. I could have sat on this film for years, keeping it frozen, but it deserved to be used and remembered for the fine film it truly was. If Foma were ever to bring out a new version of Retropan, I will be buying it.

Shot two rolls of retropan under studio conditions to obtain a retro film look.

Exposure was measured on a Sekonic and tested with a digital camera set to the same iso. The film camera was a C220 with both 80mm and 180mm lenses.

I had the films processed and scanned by a lab in B'ham..one I used with good results for years.

The results were awful. Thin negs (complete with drying marks and dust..irrelevant I know!) and the scans revealed little or no shadow or highlights rendition. Grain was more like what you would expect from pushed Kodak 3200.

So, in truth, I don't know. I suspect the response from most labs that it can be processed in standard jollop (id11/d76) is a myth and can only conclude it needs very careful processing in a dedicated developer to achieve its best.

The digital files (d700) were spot on at 320 iso, full of detail and full dr...(I've been shooting in studios for 36 years!)

you cannot get better for your buck! so cheap, but such great results - many rich, creamy mids. unusual, but very versatile speed.

Similar to Bergger Pancro this gives a more muted image - no punchy blacks. I did love my results from it but I would say it wouldn't be my every day film stock of choice. I certainly recommend that you try it though!

My friend Keith asked me if I had tried Foma Retropan 320 and I hadn't. I was intrigued enough to load a roll of Retropan 320 in my Agfa Isolette 1 medium format folding camera and had a wander around town taking snapshots of local landmarks. I developed it in Kodak HC-110 dilution B and I am quite pleased with how the film performed in my 65 year old camera. I like Fomapan film for it's classic grain and Retropan 320 has plenty of it, but in a pleasing way. It has just the right contrast to give good separation between tones without looking like mush. I enjoyed trying this film out and have another roll for another sunny day that I am looking forward to using. That's all that matters with any film, if you look forward to using it again, buy some more. This is exactly what I am going to do next pay day so I can explore the capability of Retropan 320 some more.

I don't know how I feel about this film, it came out very nicely with the shadow detail and grain which does make it look old, but it was a mixed bag and out of the 10 exposures I got maybe 3 that i was truly happy with.

I bought a couple of 120 rolls to try and used them in my Mamiya 7ii on a walk by the Thames between the O2 and the Thames Barrier on a sunny January Saturday at low tide. I developed it in Microphen. On scanning, my first impression was that many shots were a disappointment, I don't think it handles certain subjects that well, but then I noticed this one and printed it in the darkroom and it's changed my opinion of this film, in that it's one of those where if you get the subject right it gives you an image quite different from any other film - it is soft, it is grainy, it is low contrast, and it has a period look (it doesn't look like a photo taken in 2021) and can give a glow. I've not quite got this print right (the sky isn't right) but it is a negative I want to return to in the darkroom and produce a large fibre-based print: there's not that many negatives I have which warrant the effort but I think this one does and that's a consequence of this film. I'm going to buy some more.

I usually shoot Foma 100 but thought I would try out Retropan. I sourced some of the Foma Retro developer and would recommend doing so with this film. It's easy enough to mix up and store and isn't very expensive. Some of the video reviews online talk about the grain being over the top in the 35mm version, but all I can say is the look that the 120 film gave with teh recommended developer was very pleasing. It's certainly not going to give edge to edge sharpness (it's called Retropan Soft remember) but for dreamy scenes this film looks amazing. It's almost certainly not an everyday/all situations film though. I shot it in my Bronica SQA and was a bit lackadaisical with the metering. The examples here were mobile phone shots of the negs, (far from perfect in terms of distortion etc), developed in Snapseed. The warmer tone is without converting the file to b&w and the cooler one is after a simple b&w conversion. I really like this film and can't wait to use it in my Holga Pinhole Wide as I think this may be a fantastic combination. Watch this space.

I'm amazed at the amount of detail this film captures, particularly in the shadows. It makes slightly soft pictures, and therefore really excels at taking subjects with a shallow depth of field. I can see why this would be a great choice for portraits. I tested it on landscapes. It's not ideal if you want everything to be sharp in focus and it's not very contrasty, but like I said, for subjects where the background is allowed to melt away it looks great. I think the ideal pairing for this film would be a vintage lens that will complement its softness. I shot mine on a Lubitel 166B and am delighted with how it looks. My sample photos were developed in Rodinal 1:25 for 20 minutes and I'm really happy with the uniform grain.

I used the Retropan 320 on a test shoot on location and the pictures came out very soft with little contrast and faded. Just wanted to test it for portrait work and it isn't my style of B&W film. The images have a retro style that might suit other type of portraiture. Perhaps I made the wrong choice of film for the type of shoot.

I've loved Retropan 320 in 35mm, and now I love it in 120. It has a strange quality that I can't get enough of. Added to that, it's very cheap. I always make sure I have a couple of rolls of this in either format. Try it at least once.

Love this cheap trick. I use it to give my pictures a retro mood without spending a fortune. The visible grain structure mixes with the subject, hence is very suitable for portrait work or architecture.
It is pretty forgiving ISO rating, used it from bright sunlight to dull/dark days, beware however that in low light, i.e. large aperture, the results are going to be very soft. Embrace it :-)

As a first time user of the film I wasn't sure what to expect. No need to worry though. It runs smoothly and if processed in the dedicated developer gives a stunning antique look to your images. Now sourcing 5x4 to give that a whirl.

This is great b&W film and the packing is handy as it can be reused.
I have decided to dust of my old medium format camera and get back to using films again as I feel I miss the fun of photography with digital. I have used the film to take portraits and found the images came out just great as my images have a real soft look which my sitters (family) just love. I am really enjoying getting back to films and would really tell digital shooters to give it a try just once.

Probably my second or third favourite black and white film to use, after Bergger Pancro 400 and maybe Ilford HP5 400, aside from those films those this film is better than I'd thought it would be and the grain gave it a sort of cloudy haze creating a ominous look to some photos which some people might like light but i certainly did.