dl8ram
Hello to all you darkroom enthusiasts :D
As you can probably guess, I’ve got a few questions.
After years of shooting only in colour, I’ve decided
to get myself a darkroom and have been busy stocking up.
After my first attempts with ORWOpan 100 in the Kiev, I now need some film for a slightly more manageable camera.
After a long search and testing 400 Tura and HP5, I’ve now bought something different.
CHS 50 for when I don’t need to be so fussy, and Fomapan Creativ 200 (is that Fomapan T 200?) because of its
more everyday-friendly speed and its supposedly high pushability.
To use something other than Rodinal for a change, I’ve also got hold of two alternative developers.
Promicrol and A49
To avoid ending up with a total disaster like I did with my first roll of HP5, I’ve tried testing both films.
I followed
Norbert’s
method.
I developed a test series on Fomapan for 7 minutes in Promicrol and measured it with my MP 104.
I did the same with a test series on CHS 50, developed for 6 minutes in Promicrol.
The Fomapan performed (values calculated using the Excel spreadsheet downloadable from the website above)
did not really fare well.
The results for the CHS 50, on the other hand, were (in my view) well within the acceptable range.
Here are the calculated values and the development procedure.
The CHS 50 achieved a film gradation of 0.64 and a sensitivity utilisation of 40 ASA
The Fomapan achieved a film gradation of 0.72 and a speed of 121 ASA
Now, I admit that the MP 104 is not a dedicated densitometer and that other minor inconsistencies may have crept in, but I think a trend is evident.
Now a brief description of the procedure for testing and development.
A white wall was used as the measuring surface, which was illuminated quite evenly by a halogen spotlight.
The spotlight and camera were set up so that an exposure time of 1/250 sec. was achieved for Zone V.
The light meter was set to spot. The series of measurements was exposed at 1/8 to 1/8000 sec.
Both films were developed, without pre-rinsing, in Promicrol 1+19 at 20°C.
Once the timer started, the can was filled, agitated continuously for 30 sec. and then tilted once every 30 sec.
Once the time was up, the developer was drained off, stopped with 5 water changes, and then
fixed for about 7 minutes and continuously rinsed for 15 minutes. (Here’s a quick question about the wetting agent. Does that stay on
the film or should it be rinsed off?)
Measurements were taken using a Durst F60 condenser enlarger, with the lens stopped down to f/5.6, and the density determined at the centre
of the projected area (at the point where the spot light meter also takes its reading).
So, that was a lot of rambling, but this should enable everyone to follow both the setup and the development process
.
What surprised me most was that (I couldn’t find any development times for either film in this solution)
I seem to have guessed quite well for a first attempt :)
The CHS 50 performed quite well. The 1/3 stop loss in speed with a reasonably acceptable curve
gives cause for hope.
The Fomapan falls significantly short. Not only is a 2/3-stop loss in speed not what I
bought the film for, but it’s also already very steep. (Just for a laugh, I developed two shots of my snow-covered garden for 8 minutes
and ended up with negatives that, with a density range of about 1.6 logD (ISO R 160), are barely enlargable.)
Just to pre-empt the ‘if you need 800 ISO, buy 800 film’ argument: pushing shouldn’t be the rule,
it should simply be an option.
Now to my questions:
Which developers do you use for these films?
What could I change in my process to achieve flatter curves?
I’ll be testing the other two developers and, if there’s interest, I’ll post the results here.
Best regards,
Alois
Roman
Hello!
The Foma 200 (T200 was the 'old' name) is a great film; I’ve had good results using it with Calbe A49.
BUT: As you’ve discovered yourself, you simply can’t go above ISO 100–125 with this one – if you want a Foma with ISO 200, go for the Fomapan 400 (which actually only has an ISO range of 200 to 250).
As for pushing: Why on earth would you want to push a 200 film? You might as well use a 400 film and get much better results... Pushing only makes sense if you’re moving into sensitivity ranges where there are no longer any suitable films available, doesn’t it!?
dl8ram
Hello Roman,
First of all, thank you very much for your reply.
As I hope was clear from my first post, I’m not here to haggle over 1/10 of a stop.
What I’m really after is a sensible combination of film, exposure time and developer that will produce negatives from the two selected films which can be enlarged properly. My dissatisfaction with the Fomapan stems from its behaviour being very different from what I expected. Well, I admit that I haven’t gathered many data points yet, but what I’ve seen so far isn’t encouraging.
Pushing the 200 is just one option I’d like to keep open.
Unfortunately, I don’t always have all the film stock to hand that I’d like to have at that moment.
I’ve read on various sites that the Fomapan has a very wide exposure latitude.
I assumed that it could be pushed by +1 or +2 without too much hassle, or even +3 if things get really tight.
However, However, my first test with Promicrol was very sobering. Given its low base sensitivity, the film is already very steep. Let’s see what results I get with the other developers.
I tested a combination for the CHS 50 today.
Developed according to the schedule listed in the first post: 9 minutes in Rodinal 1+50
Film gradation -0.67
Speed 32 ASA
There’s room for improvement. The curve doesn’t show any flattening in the upper range yet. The maximum density achieved is also slightly higher than with development in Promicrol. In the range of zones III to X, an almost perfect straight line emerges.
I suspect that with 1 to 1½ minutes’ extra development time, I could reach or exceed 40 ASA
and also achieve a fairly ‘normal’ steepness. I’ll test that out when I get the chance.
But first, the Fomapan in Rodinal :)
I’ll post the results as soon as possible.
Best regards,
Alois
dl8ram
Hello,
As promised, here are the results for Fomapan Creativ 200 in Rodinal.
I used the longer of the two development times given by "Digitaltruth" – 10 minutes.
(This raises the question again: is Fomapan Creativ 200 the same as Fomapan T200?)
In short ............. it’s only suitable for pictures from the steam sauna
A few pictures I took on the test strip for visual inspection clearly call for
paper with a soft gradient.
Here are the calculated values:
Film gradient 0.93 with a rather irregular curve.
The achieved speed of 110 ASA is even lower than with Promicrol.
The maximum density of 2.54 logD is very high.
I think the second exposure time of 8 minutes would be more acceptable.
The results with A49 will be available tomorrow.
Best regards to all readers.
Alois
P.S. I’d be delighted to receive a few comments!
dl8ram
Hello everyone,
As promised, here are the results for Fomapan Creativ 200 in A49.
Developed at 20 degrees in A49 1+2 for 17 minutes according to the above formula.
Film speed 0.70
Achieved speed 159 ASA
In terms of speed, this is already significantly closer to the manufacturer’s specification.
For me, however, the film is far too steep.
Images exposed on the same roll produced contrasts that can only be reproduced with (Xtra-soft to Special) effort
.
My aim, however, would be a 10 DM distribution around the Normal gradient :-(
I’m curious to hear what you think.
Best regards,
Alois
Manfred
Hello,
I’ve used Foma 200 several times now, but depending on the developer, I only get an ISO of 100 to 125.
I’ve tried: Paterson FX 39 1+9, 4:30 mins, 125 ISO, agitate twice at the start, agitate once every 30 seconds, as well as AM74/LP Supergrain 1 + 11.5 – 20 ml concentrate to 250 ml developer – 4:00 mins, 100 ISO, same agitation pattern.
The negatives can be enlarged well over gradients between 2 and 3.
You can also see from the data sheet that the film isn’t exactly a speed demon:
http://www.foma.cz/Upload/foma/prilohy/F_pan_200_en.pdf
Size
Manfred
dl8ram
Hello Manfred, hello everyone reading this,
First of all, here are the results for the CHS 50 in A49.
ADOX CHS 50 in A49 1+2, developed for 11 minutes without a pre-treatment.
Film gradation 0.50
Achieved speed 35 ASA.
Well, there’s still room for improvement. In any case, this is the first attempt that has yielded a reasonable gradient.
With rinsing and a slightly longer development time, 40 ASA and a gradient between 0.50 and 0.6 should be achievable.
Manfred
Looking at the data, it’s clear (though it may be that my English is letting me down) that the speed is only achieved at the cost of
extreme gradient.
Best regards
Alois
Manfred
Alois, that's how it is.
Height
Manfred
dl8ram
Hi Manfred,
I’ve printed a couple of the photos I always take alongside the greyscale test (so I’ve got something to compare them with).
It’s not really a problem with the right paper. Apart from the one that’s been developed a bit too heavily,
the greyscale tones come out well. I’ve also printed a few photos from the CHS 50 and I really like them.
Best regards,
Alois
FrankJBeckmann
Hi,
The Creativ 200 works well at ISO 100. You shouldn’t push it any further than that. If you’re looking for a flexible ISO 200 film, you could go for the HP5+ (or Adox CHM 400), for example. Pushing becomes interesting when there’s no more sensitive material available – i.e. beyond 1000 ASA – or if you want to achieve very specific effects. But you have to be aware that a large part of the detail in the shadows will be lost. If you don’t want that, you should stick to the film’s true speed, and that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with what a manufacturer prints on the packaging.
The fact that the Adox CHS 50 ends up at 40 ASA shouldn’t come as a surprise either, given that it used to have a 17 (corresponding to its speed according to DIN) in its name.
dl8ram
Hi Frank,
I feel misunderstood (it’s a strange feeling – I usually only get that with my wife :) )
I don’t want to be working with film ranging from 6 (,4) ISO to 6400 ISO.
But who hasn’t been in a situation where they desperately needed a film with more speed, but
there wasn’t a single camera shop to be found, or it was a Sunday. So either leave the film in your pocket, or try to get something usable out of what you’ve got to hand.
That’s why I don’t find it uninteresting to know how well a film can be pushed.
And above all, I want to know that ‘before’ I’ve suffered underexposure of 2 or 3 stops come hell or high water
and have no idea how best to turn the film into something printable.
Questions like... I had underexposure on WX film with Y stops... how do I have to cook it in solution Z to still see anything in the pictures? They’re not that rare here.
It’s perfectly clear to me that in low light I’m better off using a “proper” 1600 or 3200 film.
(Although, to be fair, they usually don’t actually reach the ASA values printed on them either)
Best regards,
Alois
FrankJBeckmann
Hi Alois,
If you experience underexposure of a film by 2–3 stops, the only thing that helps is Emofin and a prayer – no matter what film, no matter which god. Generally speaking, higher-speed films are easier to push, as the lower-speed ones quickly become quite steep. Any light that doesn’t reach the film can’t be conjured up by the developer either. That’s physics, no matter how many people ask about it.
Bye
Frank
dl8ram
Hi Frank,
Your comment
Quote: “Any light that doesn’t reach the film can’t be conjured up by the developer either.”
I don’t want to argue with that. But what’s wrong with exploring what’s possible before things go completely pear-shaped? :)
Have a nice day
Alois
SamuliSchielke
Due to its somewhat erratic contrast behaviour, gentler developers such as Xtol/Fomadon Excel (which contain the same ingredients) or Fomadon LQN are recommended for Fomapan 200 (creativ = T200).
I usually develop it in Fomadon LQN, using the times straight from the data sheet, agitating for 5 seconds every minute. I perform exposure at ISO 160 and get excellent detail throughout, from the shadows right up to the highlights. I don’t have a densitometer, but the prints turn out great with a gradient of 2.5 to 3. In ATM 49, Fomapan 200 does indeed become very hard very quickly, and also produces an unnecessary amount of fog in a film that already has quite a lot of base fog. However, it works well for 35mm due to its fine grain.
I’ve developed the film a few times in Rodinal, for 8 minutes if I remember correctly, and I was very pleased with the result. The effective ISO sensitivity is indeed likely to be slightly lower than with Fomadon LQN. With Rodinal, the base fog is the lowest. Perhaps a bit too much for 35mm, but great for medium format and larger.
Otherwise, I’m in the process of switching to Fomapan 100 myself. It also has an effective ISO of 100 and is, in my opinion, a bit more robust = has greater tolerance for errors. The image quality is slightly different and I somehow prefer it.
http://www.foma.cz/Upload/foma/prilohy/F_pan_100_en.pdf
Samuli
dl8ram
Hi Samuli,
I think the LQN is also the standard developer. I’ll have a bit more of a go with it. I’ve now got the much more forgiving CHS under control quite well. As long as I’ve still got plenty of the developers mentioned above, and a fridge full of film, I won’t be ordering anything extra.
I’ll start by reducing the development times by 20–30% and see how the film behaves. Apart from the ‘outlier’ with its almost S-shaped density curve, everything was printable.
So it’s adequate for ‘snapshots’. I won’t rely on it for one-off occasions until I’ve got a better handle on the film, but it’ll do.
I’ll keep the forum updated on the results.
Best regards,
Alois
dl8ram
Hello dear readers,
As promised, here’s more information.
Today, an experiment not to be repeated.
Fomapan Creativ 200 in Promicrol 1+25 (I know, that’s way beyond the manufacturer’s recommendation)
With 1 min. washing (I know the film doesn’t really need it), followed by a 7-min. bath according to the usual method.
Film speed 0.59
Achieved speed 59 ASA
Maximum density in Zone X 1.19 logD over fog.
The film isn’t quite pulling its weight. The shadows are a bit washed out, but the steepness is so moderate that it can be enlarged to ‘Normal’ with very good results. (All test photos were flash shots in the same room with no extreme contrast)
I’ll develop the next roll for much longer, with minimal agitation; perhaps I’ll manage to bring the shadows to life a bit after all.
Compared to the CHS 50, the grey tones are significantly less pleasing.
Let’s see what tips and comments come in.
Best regards,
Alois
piu58
Hello,
In short ............. it’s only any good for pictures taken in a steam room
A few pictures I took on the test strip for visual inspection clearly call for
paper with a soft gradient.
:
Then it’s over-developed. I’d start by reducing the development time by 30%. That’ll also benefit the grain.
dl8ram
Hi Uwe,
The problem is more that the film has a terribly steep gradient. I’ve tried to counteract this a bit.
The dilution of the developer reduces the gradient, and I’ve found that this helps to flatten the film’s gradient. The resolution in the shadows improves too. What’s still missing is the speed.
I’ll use the residue of the batch for further tests. Let’s see if I can improve the speed a bit whilst maintaining a reasonable gradient. At least I now have negatives that print well.
I’ll keep you posted.
Best regards,
Alois
SamuliSchielke
The best way to prevent banding is probably to use a developer that works gently whilst making good use of the film’s speed. If you can’t get hold of Fomadon LQN, give Xtol a try. There’s also some fairly precise information on this in the data sheet.
Samuli
dl8ram
Hello Samuli,
My stock of developers hasn’t changed since my first post.
So, as promised, here’s a little ‘follow-up’ on my experiences with the developers I have.
I hope I’m not repeating myself with the details.
Promicrol 1+25: pre-soaked for approx. 1 min, developed for 7 mins, agitation as above.
Achieved speed 59 ASA (which is rubbish), gradient 0.59
Everything is difficult to compare; the shadows are a bit washed out.
From Zone 3, almost perfect grey-scale reproduction
Promicrol 1+25, pre-soaked for approx. 1 min, developed for 9 mins, agitation rate 1 time/min.
Achieved speed 61 ASA (not much better either), gradient 0.61
Otherwise as above.
Promicrol 1+25, pre-soaked for approx. 1 min, developed for 15 min, agitation every 2 min.
Achieved speed 150 ASA (that would be nice), gradient 0.72 (far too steep)
The negatives on this film, having been taken even in the brightest sunshine,
look almost like silhouettes. Copiable on soft paper, but the results are unsatisfactory.
Promicrol 1+25, pre-soaked for approx. 1 min, developed for 15 min, agitation every 4 min.
Achieved speed 136 ASA (quite decent), gradient 0.62 (still a little too high for my taste)
Very good printability. The best result so far with this mixture. I will continue to test this developer.
I think that by further diluting the developer and shifting the agitation rhythm towards
‘stand development’, I can both push the speed up a bit further and flatten the gradient slightly. Even at the risk of the development time increasing to up to half an hour.
So far, changing the agitation rhythm has shown that it has a positive effect on the shadows and the entire lower part of the curve.
Oh, one more thing. The film is Fomapan Creativ 200.
Best regards,
Alois
