Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Notices

Go Back   Film and Darkroom User > Monochrome Work > Monochrome Film

  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12th April 2021, 05:39 PM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,962
Default

If anybody is in the area, a visit to Middleton Top Incline is worth the effort. Actually that area plus Matlock Baths and the Heights of Abraham is worth an afternoon at least

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 14th April 2021, 09:59 AM
Lostlabours Lostlabours is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: West Midlands/Aegean
Posts: 1,988
Default

I'm puzzled by the use of the word soft in this thread. I've shot hundreds of rolls of Fomapan 100 & 200 in the last 15 years all 120 also sheet film. Always at half box speed and with shorter dev times compared to other films as they build up contrast far faster.

Looking at your 1+1 ID-11 dev time that's a similar cut to my use in Pyrocat HD compared to say FP4, HP5, etc.

To me there's insufficient detail in the shadows (particularly the reeds) indicative of under exposure, and my guess is soft is lack of densitiy. That also increases the apparent graininess.

I've found Fomapan 100 and 200 to be excellent films but you really need to tame them in terms of exposure and development. I'm about to buy a few hundred pounds worth of Fomapan 200 in 10x8 and possible 18x24 (cm), and if I can get it 12"x10".

Why Fomapan 200 rather than the 100 ? In my case I find the quality difference in terms of grain, sharpness, and tonality virtually negligible and it's a stop faster so better for hand held work.

Ian
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 14th April 2021, 10:58 AM
John King John King is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: County Durham
Posts: 3,309
Default Fomopan 200

This is the 1st Fomo film I have used so what I see from the negatives is a softness in tones. Not in definition. I, like you have processed many B&W films and can tell when a film is under exposed or under developed. It is not either!

Bear in mind this is a scan from a A4 sized print, but the quality has had to be much reduced to reduce the file size to allow it to be uploaded. The original print of the Bullrushes has very little in the way of shadows anyway, being partially against the light the reeds (root area) are translucent, hence little or no shadows.

The original print is very acceptable, but only because I have had to 'up' the grade I printed it at. (GD3) Normally with FP4 or Kentmere I like to expose the paper at G1.5 or 2.

The question of grain on the original print (which is where it matters) does not occur and is to all intents and purposes insignificant, it is only on the scanned image that it becomes apparent.

For the next films I will be exposing it at less than box speed and see what I get then. If I cannot get on with it then it is back to Ilford.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 14th April 2021, 12:15 PM
MartyNL's Avatar
MartyNL MartyNL is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: based in The Netherlands
Posts: 3,339
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John King View Post
The original print is very acceptable, but only because I have had to 'up' the grade I printed it at. (GD3) Normally with FP4 or Kentmere I like to expose the paper at G1.5 or 2.
John, I'm intrigued by the way that you print/process, especially FP4, because I rarely ever go below filter 2 when printing. I've always thought/understood it is easier to increase contrast at the printing stage rather than decrease contrast. So I've deliberately aimed for my neg's to be soft tone wise or of low contrast or a long tonal scale.

I suppose my question is, how did you arrive at your method?
__________________
MartyNL

“Reaching a creative state of mind thru positive action
is considered preferable to waiting for inspiration.”
- Minor White, 1950
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 14th April 2021, 04:42 PM
John King John King is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: County Durham
Posts: 3,309
Default Printing Gd1.5 or 2

It is only since the advent of MG5 that I have reduced the grade to 1.5 (where necessary) The blacks on MG5 are more intense, if that is the correct word so I reduce these with less contrast.

You may have your method, I have mine and so long as we are both happy I cannot see the problem.

The print contrast was not the original question, it was the lack of depth of highlights in the negative when using Foma 200. Richard Gould also comments that he has the same results when exposed at the box speed and reduces the speed to 125. So I am not alone in my findings.

I am going to reduce the speed to 160 for half the film and 125 for the remainder and use what I find easiest. It will be developed in ID11 at 1 to one at the time suggested in the Massive Development Chart.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 14th April 2021, 06:29 PM
Richard Gould Richard Gould is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Jersey Channel Islands
Posts: 5,433
Default

Not just me John, I think it is generally accepted that fomapan films do notreach box speed,other than when developed in microphen, which is the developer that Fomapan did their film speed test with, or so I believe, I did use box speed for quite a long time, in spite of the dealer in France, where I first bought the film from before it became easily available in the UK, but although sometimes it worked fine, In very often got fhin soft negs, but since experimenting for myself to find the ideal speed for 200 and 400, every frame is nice, plenty of detail,sharp and lovelyb contrast, 99% print at G2, although In do sometimes print at 1.1/2 or 3 for artistic reasons, so my little French photographic shop keeoer was right all those years ago
Richard
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 14th April 2021, 11:03 PM
John King John King is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: County Durham
Posts: 3,309
Default Foma films.

Thanks Richard. You have answered the next question about the speeds of the 100 and 400 emulsions are not to be taken for granted.

My negatives are not 'thin', all the detail is there but just low contrast, very much as I would expect if the film was stale/out of date which these one are not, according to the date stamp on the box.

Getting the speeds they claim by using a speed increasing developer is a little bit cavalier without making it known on the box. (if that is in fact what happened).
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 15th April 2021, 05:16 AM
Uwe Pilz's Avatar
Uwe Pilz Uwe Pilz is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Leipzig, Germany.
Posts: 354
Default

I recommend developing Foma films in Atomal 49. Box speed is reached, grain is reduced, ond no more blocked highlights with the 100 and 400.

The Foma 200 can be developed with Rodinal, but doe only reach half box speed. Nevertheless, a good combo. 100 and 400 give blocked highights in Rodinal.

Users reported problems with F200 6x6, but not with 35 mm. I by myslf had problems with F200 6x6.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 15th April 2021, 06:56 AM
Richard Gould Richard Gould is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Jersey Channel Islands
Posts: 5,433
Default

Uwe I have to disagree with you about 200 and 400 in Rodinal, untill last year, for over 20 years, I only ever used Rodinal to develop Fomapan 200/400 in Rpdinal, and I still use Rodinal for 50% of my Fomapan films, the only films I ever use, and get quite lovely negatives with it, and never blocked highlights, in fact plenty of detail in both highlights and shadows, it was only last year that I started to use ID11 stock, because I decided to try something new, to me
Richard
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 15th April 2021, 07:13 AM
John King John King is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: County Durham
Posts: 3,309
Default Developers

I use ID11 for all my film developing and if the speed is less than the stated box speed, I can live with that. So if I loose a bit of speed that is no great problem. Most of my pictures will be taken using a tripod anyway.

Like Richard I appreciate the fact that I don't get blocked highlights either, but as the film is considerably cheaper than the likes of T max or even FP4.

I would be struggling to see the difference in quality between Fomo200 and FP4, I don't inspect my negatives with a microscope, I get on with the hobby. I may see a difference between that and T Max 100 which is very sharp.
Reply With Quote
Reply
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

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

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

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fomapan R100 slide film CambsIan Monochrome Film 2 11th May 2019 11:43 AM
fomapan film big paul Monochrome Film 0 19th September 2015 07:37 PM
fomapan 200 film what have i done big paul Monochrome Film 19 3rd August 2015 10:35 AM
Fomapan 120 film, dev times in RO9 developer AlonewithmyBW Monochrome Film 11 24th February 2015 04:12 PM
Fomapan 400 120 film Dave miller Sale or Wanted 4 11th March 2010 05:24 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.