Fomapan 400

Stefan · 2013-09-12T09:55:59+00:00

Hallo! Ich bekam einige Rollfilme Fomapan 400 geschenkt: In welchem Entwickler soll ich sie verarbeiten? Vorrätig habe ich Rodinal und D 76. Fomapan 400 s...

Stefan

Hello! I’ve been given some roll films of Fomapan 400: Which developer should I use for processing? I’ve got Rodinal and D 76 in stock. I’ve heard Fomapan 400 is quite coarse-grained. Does that rule out Rodinal? Even for 6x6? I’ve also heard Fomapan 400 is only around 200 ISO. Is that right? Can anyone give me some initial pointers on the development time? What would be an ideal developer? Best regards!

Gast

I’d use D-76 or Xtol and perform exposure at 250 ISO. The film has already quite high granularity in Rodinal, even in medium format. € € D-76? 8 mins? 20°C Xtol? 7 mins? 20°C € Agitation: 30 seconds of continuous agitation, followed by continuous agitation for 10 seconds at the start of every minute. € Best regards, Wolfgang

ThomasPauly

The technical data sheet (http://foma-cz.cs4.cstech.cz/en/fomapan-400) supports this recommendation. However, according to the characteristic curves published by the manufacturer, the printed speed of 400 ASA is never achieved, even when using the speed-enhancing Microphen. ? I have personally tried the film in combination with the two-stage Diafine universal developer. In this process, the material actually produces a very fine grain. In terms of sharpness, based on my visual impression using a 13x enlargement, it is comparable to other classic films in its sensitivity class; the tonal reproduction is decent. If you overlook the film’s inflated sensitivity rating, it serves you well. Curiously, the base of the roll film is tinged with blue. ? Regards ? tepe

Morte

Well, I like the grain of Foma film in Rodinal. Even with 35mm. As always, it’s a matter of taste. It just looks ‘classic’ – you could say it’s a bit like Koudelka’s style. This film has character. If you expose it at 400 ISO, the shadows might get a bit washed out. At 250 ISO, it comes out nicely balanced.

Stefan

Hello and thank you very much for your help! € I’ve been given 25 roll films of Fomapan 400 (and roughly the same number of Fomapan 100). So I can try out both developers (D76 and Rodinal) on the Fomapan 400. I’ll test the 100 ASA film later. € For Rodinal, I was thinking of a dilution of 1+50. Or would 1+100 make more sense? For D76, I was thinking of 1+3. Do these dilutions affect the speed? € I’m quite a beginner when it comes to film development and darkroom work. So far, I’ve only read the odd thing or two online. € € Best regards!

TR

The dilutions will have no effect on speed. With Rodinal, the dilution will result in barely noticeable changes to the image. With D-76, the image becomes marginally more sharp and the grain slightly coarser (not tested personally). I would always use D-76 diluted as a single-use developer – especially for medium format. € Also bear in mind, to stick with the topic of speed, that you would naturally have to measure the exposure correctly as well – for instance, an in-camera integral metering outdoors in portrait orientation (due to the bright sky) will practically always result in underexposure, and you would then expose the film at, say, 1600 ASA instead of 400 ASA without realising it. So when discussing ISO sensitivities, you must always first ensure that the exposure has been measured correctly. This point is often overlooked in most forum discussions about ISO sensitivities. € Regarding Fomapan roll film: at the very least, be prepared for significant curling (which can be really annoying). I’ve also had problems with an faulty emulsion from time to time. But this will certainly vary from batch to batch. Still, I would have taken this film for free, of course.

ThomasPauly

Especially when using a process for the first time, you shouldn’t experiment with several variables at once. If the result isn’t right, you won’t know what caused the problem. 250 ISO, D-76 stock, 8 minutes – this can be considered a safe bet, so I’d start with that. € With powder developers, using them as a diluted single-use developer is convenient and produces reliable results. A 1+1 ratio is a good compromise between economy and speed. If no values are available for diluted D-76, I apply the following rule of thumb: the time for a 1+1 dilution at 24 oC is equal to the time for the stock solution at 20 oC, increased by 10%, i.e. t1+1, 24 oC = 1.1 x t1+0, 20 oC. In this case, that would be around 9 minutes (at 24 oC, mind you). Agitation for 30 seconds continuously, then for 10 seconds (3 times) after every subsequent minute. € I find 24 oC practical anyway. In summer, it is sometimes difficult to keep the baths at 20 oC, and heating is easier than cooling if in doubt. € Good luck, € tepe

Gast

If you’d prefer to develop the 400 film using a 1+1 ratio at 20°C (250 ISO): ? D-76 1+1 for 13 minutes ? Agitation: 30 seconds of continuous agitation, followed by 10 seconds of continuous agitation at the start of every minute. ? Best regards, Wolfgang

Stefan

Also bear in mind, to stick with the topic of speed, that you would naturally need to measure the exposure correctly as well – for instance, a camera’s built-in matrix metering outdoors in portrait orientation (due to the bright sky) will almost always result in underexposure, meaning you would end up exposing the film at, say, 1600 ASA instead of 400 ASA without even realising it. So when discussing ISO sensitivities, you must always first ensure that the measurement is correct. This point is often overlooked in most forum discussions about ISO sensitivities.

Would light metering (with a dome) be a solution? Normally, as I understand it, you measure the shadows that are still supposed to have detail and then perform an exposure 2½ stops shorter than the meter reading indicates. However, this is best achieved with a spot light meter, which I don’t own; I have a Profisix. ? Many thanks again for all your help and advice.

TR

Measuring light using the dome is the easiest way to get an accurate reading. In varying lighting conditions, you should take the reading where the least light falls on the subject – for example, under the canopy of a tree rather than in front of it. What you say about spot metering is correct (in photographer’s jargon, one would say: ‘You set the shadows to Zone II 1/2’). With matrix metering, however, you can achieve the same result without all that calculation and without the need for an expensive spot meter.

piu58

> With Rodinal, I was thinking of a 1:50 dilution. Or would 1:100 make more sense? Both films tend to produce blown-out highlights. I used Rodinal at 1:70 back then. The development times were exceptionally short, even at 16°C – around 8 minutes, if I remember correctly. If you overdo it, the highlights get washed out. The ‘cure’ for such films that blow out highlights is Atomal 49. I haven’t tried it on this particular film, but I have on the even more critical aerial photography films. Both films require one stop more light than stated on the packet. On the other hand, they are quite of fine grain for cubic films, so this basically balances itself out.

Gucker

When exposed at 400 ISO, I perform development in Fomadon R09 at a dilution of 1:50 for 7 minutes at 20°C and get what I consider to be lovely results; I find the grain very pleasing. However, I will take note of the material’s lower speed described here and try exposing it accordingly.

Stefan

Hello! ? Thanks again! ? I’ve had a bit of a read online and my head’s spinning a bit. As I mentioned above, I’m a complete beginner. ? What gamma setting should I actually use when developing my films? I have a diffusion mixing head. What would happen if I ever wanted to use a condenser unit? A very hypothetical question! But wouldn’t it make sense to develop to a gamma value that lies between the values for condenser and diffusion enlargers? Just in case. ? Please excuse my beginner’s questions once again! ? Best regards!

pittyman

Hi Stefan, take it easy!! There’s a lot written on the subject; you can learn a great deal from it, but it can also drive you absolutely mad. There are photographers who swear by testing their process down to within half a stop. That’s reassuring, of course, for the moment, as it gives you a sense of confidence in handling the equipment and you learn a great deal about working with photographic materials. I used to do that too, but somehow I’ve lost the desire to constantly rack my brains over ‘perfect’ negatives and the optimal exposure time. I’d rather go out and take photos, and a good photo is hardly spoiled by anything. But to each his own... Back to your question: As a beginner, it’s advisable, as I’ve already described in detail here, to start by familiarising yourself with a ‘beginner-friendly’ combination of film, film developer, paper and paper developer. The fewer variables there are in the process, the quicker you’ll get to know their respective quirks. Which gamma? I couldn’t care less about the gamma value of a negative! It serves merely as an aid and is, and remains, ‘merely’ a technical measurement that says little about the finished image. The gamma of a high-key or low-key negative results in a completely failed shot in terms of its contrast range. Nevertheless, there may be a wonderful shot among them. What matters most to you at this stage. Start by developing your negatives according to the instructions, stick to one film plus the developer, and try out the negatives with your paper first. If they have too much contrast, reduce the development time by 20 per cent next time. If the prints are too flat, increase the time by 10 per cent. This way, you’ll quickly get a feel for your film, the development process and how to handle photographic paper. The aim is to stay within a gradient range of 2 to 3. Aim, not a rule!! Bear in mind that it’s easier to increase the contrast than to soften a print from a negative that’s too harsh. So if in doubt, develop for 10% less time! The only thing that matters is the print on your paper; everything else is merely an intermediate step. I, too, work with both types: mixed light and condenser. Both have their pros and cons, as is always the case in life. The condenser produces a slightly harder print from the same negative, the diffuser a slightly softer one. If you wish to work with both systems, I would recommend focusing the development of the negatives on the condenser. I hope this has been of some help to you... Dirk