paufina
Hello,
Which developer can be used to push Fomapan 400 by
2, or perhaps even 3 stops? Which developer would
you generally recommend for this film
(even when it isn’t being pushed)?
And which one is best suited for Fomapan 200?
Perhaps not entirely unimportant: I prefer to develop
using a rotary processor, or is that not advisable (in terms of acutance, etc.)?
Thanks in advance
paufina
Roman
Hello!
Let’s see what the folks at FOTOIMPEX have to say, but personally I’d advise against pushing the Foma 400, for the following reason:
This film falls far short of the advertised 400 ASA. I’ve tried this film in both 120 roll film and 35mm format with various developers (Rodinal 1+50, Microphen, ID11 1+1, Fomadon LQN 1+14), and at 200 ISO it’s just about passable; for good shadow detail, you might even need to expose it at 125–160 ISO. (And I’m certainly no zone system fanatic who overexposes all films by 1 or 2 stops... I set my HP5 to 640–800 ISO as standard!). The film simply has a much lower speed than stated (albeit combined with quite fine grain), so it’s not really recommended for pushing.
How about an HP5+ pushed to 800 or 1600 – works very well in A49 1+1? Or, if you’re shooting 35mm, a Fuji Neopan 1600, with an exposure of 800 or 1000 ISO and developed in Microphen or A49.
Best regards,
Roman
Gast
Hello everyone
I agree with Roman; Foma 400 definitely isn’t 400 ISO, so I expose it as if it were 320 ISO
and that works for me (developing in A49 for 17 minutes at a 1:2 dilution). Even so, I push the film if I want a higher ISO, and that’s worked out quite well for me.
In the case of Foma 400, pushed to 640 ISO, I give the film a development time of 23 mins in A49 1:2; pushed again to 1280 ISO, that works out at a good 31 mins (the proof of the pudding is in the eating). But in my opinion, that really is the limit of the film.
Incidentally, it’s exactly the same with the T200. It’s only 160 ISO (roughly!), but the development times are the same as I also develop the T200 in A49.
Oh, and all this refers to tank development; rotary development isn’t my thing.
Regards,
Michael
MirkoBoeddecker
Hello,
We’re pretty much of the same opinion as the others.
The 400 isn’t a true 400, just like most of its fine grain competitors.
But pushing the film doesn’t necessarily mean you actually want to preserve the shadow detail. If you push the Foma to 800 or 1600, you get very well-differentiated mid-tones (grey-scale compression) and finely rendered highlights.
The shadows get washed out, but with many subjects this can be very appealing.
This effect is beautifully documented in Koudelka’s book ‘Chaos’.
Here in Berlin, we have many customers who expose Fomapan at 1600 and develop it in F09.
Dilution 1+200 and 20–35 minutes depending on the type of processor.
This simply produces a unique effect.
Sometimes, even in theatre photography, the shadows aren’t all that important.
So everyone has to decide for themselves.
Developing tips: A49 diluted 1+1 or 1+2, then extend the time by a factor of 1.333 per stop and add the dilution factor (1.5 for 1+1 and 2.0 for 1+2).
Alternatively, F09 as above (try out different dilutions).
Mirko Bödecker
