Fomapan 400

dlridings

I bought a few (10) rolls of Fomapan 400 along with some Fomapan 200 and Adox CHM400. As the catalogue recommends ADOX ADX49 so highly, I decided to go with it. My first roll was developed in a 1:2 dilution for 17 minutes (nothing special, just the recommended starting time). I exposed at ISO 400 even though I’ve heard it tends to be lower. I feel it worked out fine for me.

Some other samples can be found at: Some first Fomapan 400 experiences. I was pleasantly surprised. With this message, I just want to thank FOTOIMPEX for providing such good services for black-and-white photographers.

dlridings

It’s been a frustrating week. I’ve now shot most of the Fomapan 400 and I was a bit worried. Every frame was speckled with what looked like some sort of chemical residue. I had to clone out literally a hundred tiny specks on every frame. At first I thought it was my water. I’ve been using the same setup for years and have never come across this before. I filter my water, but I thought perhaps something had gone wrong. So I bought a few litres of distilled water and worked with that. Still speckles, and here and there something that looked like flakes – small flakes. I began to suspect ATM49, the only other variable in my setup. I’ve 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 have never had this sort of result with. It definitely wasn’t as prominent with ADOX 400. The FOMA films were a real chore to clean up. Not so with the ADOX. So today I shot and developed a roll in HC110. Admittedly, it’s not fine-grain, but the negatives were spotless. There’s something here that doesn’t work well with ATM49. It’s a shame, because the results are otherwise really nice. I don’t think I’d like to use HC110 as a standard developer for Fomapan 400, though I’ve printed a couple of shots and they look just fine. The grain is there, but grain doesn’t bother me all that much. 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.

dlridings

... Each frame was speckled with what appeared to be some sort of chemical residue. I had to clone out literally a hundred small specks on each frame. At first I thought it was my water. I’ve been using this setup for years and have never come across this before. I filter my water, but I thought perhaps something had gone wrong. ... 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. [right][post="6370"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]

I’m starting to wonder if the speck problem might have something to do with the time spent in the developer. I forgot to mention that I’ve been diluting ADX49 at 1:2 rather than 1:1. That gives 17 minutes in the developer. HC-110 only required 6 minutes. Could the length of time in the developing solution be causing this? It looks like hundreds of tiny specks of dust... that is, you can actually see them on the negative with a loupe. When you scan them, they really stand out. They are so small that it wouldn’t surprise me if you couldn’t even see them on a diffusion enlarger. Anyway, I’ve been away from home for over a week now, but when I get back, I’ll try ADX49 diluted at 1:1. I like the look the developer gives, so I really want it to work with Fomapan 400. All of this might sound like criticism. I just have to say that it isn’t enough to stop me from using Fomapan. I like the film.

dlridings

I don't know if people care or not ... but I'm still impressed by Fomapan, both 200 and 400 (in 35 mm). I've also been partial to Xtol, and there hasn't been as much information available on Xtol in its various dilutions. I do a "Picture a Week" (PAW) and this week I’ve been using Fomapan and Xtol 1:2. Fomapan and Xtol 1:2 That was for 13 minutes. All in all, I might either go for shorter times (11–12 minutes) or probably a slightly higher ISO to get the negatives I like (a little thinner). This was shot at EI 400. I made a mistake on the roll and underexposed one frame by 3 stops. The negative is still usable. I’ll probably end up being one of those who rate it higher rather than lower. Nice film, no matter how you look at it. Daniel

fotohuisrovo

Yes, this film has quite a high dynamic range. But if you carry out some sensitometric tests, you’ll see that it’s difficult to get the full ISO 400 out of this film. You can also see this in the detailed graphs shown on the Foma website: http://www.foma.cz/Upload/foma/prilohy/F_pan_400_en.pdf The grain of this film is not very fine but regular, and compared with a similar film such as APX400/Rollei Retro 400, it is about the same, perhaps marginally better. A good combination with Fomapan 400 at ISO 320 is RHS/AM74 1+9 for 6:30 minutes at 20°C. This is certainly the case with 120 roll film, where grain is less of a concern. Best regards, Robert

dlridings

So a good combination with Fomapan 400 at ISO 320 is RHS/AM74 1+9 for 6 minutes and 30 seconds at 20°C. Certainly with 120 roll film, where grain is less of an issue.

Thanks Robert. Yes, I’ve always heard that, technically, it doesn’t reach up to EI 400, but I suppose that depends on how you meter and work. For me, 400 works out fine. But I’m not familiar with RHS/AM74. What sort of developer is it? Best, Daniel Ridings

Rolleijoe

It’s been a frustrating week. I’ve now used up most of the Fomapan 400 and I was a bit worried. I started to suspect the ATM49, the only other variable in my setup. I’ve 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 have never had this sort of result with. It definitely wasn’t as noticeable with ADOX 400. The FOMA films were a real chore to clean up. Not so with the ADOX. So today I shot and developed a roll in HC110. Admittedly, it’s not fine-grain, but the negatives were spotless. There’s something here that doesn’t work well with ATM49. It’s a shame, because the results are otherwise really nice. I don’t think I’d like to use HC110 as a standard developer for Fomapan 400, though I’ve printed a couple of shots and they look just fine. The grain is there, but grain doesn’t bother me all that much. 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.

[font=Garamond] Hi there, I’m new to this forum, and so glad to have found it. I’ve been thinking about trying the Fomapan 400 as well, as a replacement for APX 400. Your results in ATM49 do look very impressive. Like 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 whilst grain wasn’t much of a problem, the tones just weren’t there for me. Perhaps I should have tried Rodinal or (my standard) Rodinal Special (aka Studional). This developer is simply 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; whilst it certainly doesn’t have the inherent contrast, or ‘bite’, there are some nice shadow details that show up better with it. Here is an example of the Fortepan in HC-110. Camera is a Rolleiflex 3.5E Planar 75mm. Rolleijoe

dlridings

What paper are you printing on? I’m down to my last 10 sheets of 16x20 Agfa MCP, and I’ve been trying out Foma; whilst it certainly doesn’t have the same inherent contrast, or ‘bite’, there are some nice shadow details that come out better with it.

I’ve just been using Ilford’s paper for the last few years, since Agfa Portriga Rapid disappeared. I’m looking at what’s available here at FOTOIMPEX to try some new ones, but I haven’t got that far yet. Fortepan looks pretty good. One thing’s for sure, we don’t have to worry too much about Agfa or the other big names disappearing. There are some good alternatives on the market. Daniel

Rolleijoe

What paper are you printing on? I’m down to my last 10 sheets of 16x20 Agfa MCP, and I’ve been trying out Foma; whilst it certainly doesn’t have the same inherent contrast, or ‘bite’, there are some nice shadow details that come out better with it.
I’ve just been using Ilford’s paper for the last few years, since Agfa Portriga Rapid disappeared. I’m looking at what’s available here at FOTOIMPEX to try some new ones, but I haven’t got that far yet. Fortepan looks pretty good. One thing’s for sure, we don’t have to worry too much about Agfa or the other big names disappearing. There are some good alternatives on the market. Daniel

[font="Tahoma"][color="#FF0000"][size=3]Thanks Daniel. I’ve started using Foma Variant paper with good results so far, apart from what I mentioned above. I hope to do more experimenting (like you) with FOTOIMPEX. I stopped using all Ilford products years ago. There were several quality control issues with the materials I was receiving, so I went back to Agfa. I looked at your PAW link, and the Fomapan does look quite promising. I must say I prefer the look of the recommended developer first, then X-Tol second. I noticed you took some shots with a 3.5E as well, so those were extremely helpful to me. I know what you mean about the big players going under, but I do hope APX makes a comeback, as well as the Agfa papers – that would make my life so much easier! [/size][/colo

fotohuisrovo

About the AM74 developer: http://www.amaloco.nl/pdf/am74_nl.pdf or in French: http://www.amaloco.nl/pdf/am74_fr.pdf I cannot recommend using Foma 400 with Rodinal due to the very low E.I. you will get for an ISO 400 film. Some more tested combinations with Fomapan 400: http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/Ontwikkeltijden.pdf Best regards, Robert