Fomapan 100 speed?

[skellum]

Okay, any day now I'll finish the box of FP4 I've got open. Then it'll be time to check out the Fomapan 100 that's been sitting staring back at me patiently for the last week.
So yes, I know that EI and developing time varies from person to person (meter, shutter, agitation, enlarger type, personal taste etc) and I'll be testing myself, BUT anyone using it in 5x4?
Massive dev chart says ISO 40 for 11 minutes, but I hear stories that it's kind of contrasty stuff, with easy to block highlights.
Just looking for a jumping-off point to get started.
Cheers Team!

[Richard Gould]

I use the fomapan 400 in both 35mm qnd 130, and I rate it at between 200 and 320, depending on the light, and I would suggest trying 50 to 75 as a starting point
Richard

[Adrian Twiss]

I rate it at ISO 50 and develop it in Pyrocat HD (1:5:94 dilution) for 11 minutes. Many thanks to Ian Grant for this recommendation. I get excellent shadow detail and the compensating nature of Pyrocat keeps the contrast in check.

I have found that Fomapan is "fussy" when being processed. I was obliged to prepare the Pyrocat working solution with distilled water to avoid mottling of areas of even tone. I am able to use tap water with all the other films I use. I live in north west England where the water is slightly hard (harder than Edinburgh water but not as hard as water in the South East).

I notice that you live on the Isle of Lewis. I am going on a walking holiday on Lewis and Harris in July. Looking forward to it and hoping for some good weather.

[Leo Stehlik]

I use Fomapan 100 in 5x4" most of the time since 2008 when I've bought my Graflex.

Here's what works for me (experience based on 20+ 50sheet boxes).
I rate it at ISO 80 for Rodinal 1+25 (6 minutes) and 1+50 (11 minutes)
I rate it at ISO 50 for Pyrocat M 1+1+100 (12 minutes)

The film in general looks more contrasty than it really is, but maybe that's just me, as I tend to print from more contrasty negatives (I've got a diffuser head enlarger).

There's one important thing to mention though. Keep in mind this film's heavy reciprocity failure.

A half-second exposure = 1 sec exposure
A 1 sec exposure = 10 sec exposure
A 10 sec exposure = 20 minutes exposure

[Leo Stehlik]

examples - I took this one from Dartmoor with the FADU lot in 2011 on Fomapan 100: Graflex Crown Graphic 5x4" Camera, 135mm Xenar, yellow filter (filter factor 1). Fomapan 100@80, Rodinal 1+50@11.30min, Printed on Ilford Galerie FB Grade 3 paper

http://www.flickr.com/photos/leostehlik/5436066001/

[Lostlabours]

As Adrian says I've been using Fomapan 100 & 200, I began using them about 6 years ago becuse of their availabilty when I'm in Turkey.

Fomapan films build up contrast very quickly and need much shorter development times than any other films I use, approx 70%.

I get great results, negatives that are easy to print, shooting them at half the box speed and dveloping in Pyrocat HD at 1+1 to 100 11min @ 20° in the UK, I process to the water temperature in Turkey which is usually 27°C in the summer.

To clear up any possible confusion Adrian's dilution is probably using a weaker solution of Sodium Carbonate as Part B rather than the usual Potassium Carbonate Part B, the results are the same.

Ian

[Alan Clark]

Skellum,
Although I have not used Foma 100 in 5x4 format I recently shot a roll of Foma 100 in 120, followed by a 120 roll of FP4, on the same subjects and in the same lighting conditions. After photographing a tree on the final frame of the Foma film I left the camera on the tripod, re-loaded with Fp4 and shot the first frame on the same tree, for a direct comparison.
1. I tend to expose fairly generously, going for an average reading between a grey card (or grass...) in the shade and in the sun. So,
2. I rated both films at 125 and developed them together in the same tank.
3. Development was in Rodinal 1+50, semi - stand with four initial inversions then one iversion every five minutes. Total time 20 minutes.
4. Both films came out with very nice contrast, suitable for printing on a middle grade of paper. But suprise suprise, I thought Foma 100was contrasty stuff yet the FP4 actually had slightly more contrast.
5. The tonal range /response was different. When no filter was used the blue sky came out darker in prints from Foma negatives.
6. No obvious difference in sharpness, if any.
7. no obvious difference in grain, if any.
8.After a month in a ring binder the roll of Foma is still very curly. The FP4 was flat when it dried...

I have plans to switch to Foma 100 in 5x4 when my meagre last few sheets of FP4 and Adox 100 have gone. Initially I intend treating it just like 5x4 FP4, then fine tuning if necessary.
Hope this helps.

Alan

[Alan Clark]

A couple of points I should have made in my previous post.
Because I expose rather generously I am probably actually exposing Foma 100 ( at FP4) at 64. This is in sunny conditions.

I don't use semi-stand for sheet film as I believe it is only safe when the film is upright, and I develop sheet film flat in a Paterson processor.


Alan

[Lostlabours]

I did some tests of the reciprocity failure of Fomapan 100 and found that for my use it wasn't as bad as Foma's own figures, half a stop at 1 second and 1 stop at 10 seconds.

Ian

[Alan Clark]

Originally Posted by Lostlabours

I did some tests of the reciprocity failure of Fomapan 100 and found that for my use it wasn't as bad as Foma's own figures, half a stop at 1 second and 1 stop at 10 seconds.

Ian

Hello Ian, hope you are well.
This seems to be more or less in line with the now defunct Adox 100. This is relevent because Adox users, myself included are now switching to Foma.