>>4216324>isnt that your job, not the films jobDon't be autistic, you know I'm talking about the look of the film, not the artistic merit of the photo itself.
>>4216348I did Retropan in HC110 solution B, at 20°C. I mean it doesn't look BAD, it's contrasty but not too much (like Rollei for example), but I don't see any of the qualities specifically advertised for this stock. Also this picture (reposting) I shot at 200 and developed for an extra minute, and the neg still looks fairly thin. The first roll I (unwisely) shot at 320 and developed at mid point of recommended time range and it was barely fucking visible and a bitch to scan.
And it still looks stupid grainy even for 320 stock, remember this is 120 only film, pretty sure I've seen less grainy shots from 400 films in 35mm.
Now for regular Fomapan 100, 200, 400) in 35mm, I actually do like to develop them in Rodinal, it's really the only way to give them some salvageable "character", that is to crank their shittyness up to the point where it seems to be intentional.
Like someone said in previous thread, shoot Kentmere if you want something more "normal" looking and less frustrating to deal with. Or at least shoot Fomapan one stop below box speed (and develop normally) because they are never box speed anyway.
