[quote name='dlridings' post='6370' date='05-02-06, 09:56 ']It has been a frustrating week. I have shot most of the Fomapan 400 now and I was a little worried.
I started to suspect ATM49, the only other variable in my set-up. I have never used ATM49 before.
I was even getting speckles with the ADOX 400 film, which is supposed to be HP5, a film I use a lot and I've never had this kind of result. It definitely was not as prominent with ADOX 400. The FOMA films were really a chore to clean up. Not so with the ADOX.
So today I shot and developed a roll in HC110. Sure, it's not fine-grain, but the negatives were as clean as a whistle. There is something here that doesn't work well with ATM49. It's a pity, because the results, otherwise, are really nice.
I don't think I'd like to have HC110 as a standard developer for Fomapan 400, though I've printed out a couple and they look just fine. The grain is there, but grain doesn't bother me a whole lot.
I'll probably try D76 and Xtol. I won't use Xtol if it can't be diluted.
Still ... I like this film. I was pleased to see that the speckle problem wasn't inherent in the film but was due to a combination of factors.[/quote]
[font=Garamond]
Hi there, I'm new to this Forum, and soo glad to find it. I've been thinking about trying the Fomapan 400 also, as a replacement for APX 400. Your results in ATM49 do look very impressive. As with you, I don't think HC-110 would be the way to go with it.
I've tried the Fortepan 200 in HC-110 (1:50 from syrup) and while grain wasn't much of a problem, the tones just weren't there for me. Maybe I should have tried Rodinal or (my standard) Rodinal Special (aka Studional). This developer is just wonderful. Fine grain, and beautiful tones.
What paper are you printing on? I'm down to my last 10 sheets of 16x20 Agfa MCP, and have been testing Foma, and while it certainly doesn't have the inherent contrast, or "bite", there are some nice shadow details which show up better with it.
Here is an example of the Fortepan in HC-110. Camera is Rolleiflex 3.5E Planar 75mm.
Rolleijoe
I started to suspect ATM49, the only other variable in my set-up. I have never used ATM49 before.
I was even getting speckles with the ADOX 400 film, which is supposed to be HP5, a film I use a lot and I've never had this kind of result. It definitely was not as prominent with ADOX 400. The FOMA films were really a chore to clean up. Not so with the ADOX.
So today I shot and developed a roll in HC110. Sure, it's not fine-grain, but the negatives were as clean as a whistle. There is something here that doesn't work well with ATM49. It's a pity, because the results, otherwise, are really nice.
I don't think I'd like to have HC110 as a standard developer for Fomapan 400, though I've printed out a couple and they look just fine. The grain is there, but grain doesn't bother me a whole lot.
I'll probably try D76 and Xtol. I won't use Xtol if it can't be diluted.
Still ... I like this film. I was pleased to see that the speckle problem wasn't inherent in the film but was due to a combination of factors.[/quote]
[font=Garamond]
Hi there, I'm new to this Forum, and soo glad to find it. I've been thinking about trying the Fomapan 400 also, as a replacement for APX 400. Your results in ATM49 do look very impressive. As with you, I don't think HC-110 would be the way to go with it.
I've tried the Fortepan 200 in HC-110 (1:50 from syrup) and while grain wasn't much of a problem, the tones just weren't there for me. Maybe I should have tried Rodinal or (my standard) Rodinal Special (aka Studional). This developer is just wonderful. Fine grain, and beautiful tones.
What paper are you printing on? I'm down to my last 10 sheets of 16x20 Agfa MCP, and have been testing Foma, and while it certainly doesn't have the inherent contrast, or "bite", there are some nice shadow details which show up better with it.
Here is an example of the Fortepan in HC-110. Camera is Rolleiflex 3.5E Planar 75mm.
Rolleijoe
