Foma 400 @ 800 development time.

[costa43]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all

As a newbie to the home development side of things, I picked up 50 rolls of Foma 100/400 on the cheap (circa £3 a roll equivalent where I am) to learn the craft, or at least have a better understanding of it before I experiment with different, more expensive film stocks. In the summer, I tended to overexpose the film by a stop and develop it as normal, without too much consideration of the development temp. As I have gained some experience and advice, I'm now always bringing the temperature of my chemicals to 20 degrees and developing as per the massive dev chart at 400 which is 7minutes. With winter approaching, I've just shot a couple of rolls at 800 and wanted to push them one stop. Guidance online tends to have times for 10.5min at 640iso but I can only find times for 800 if I was to dilute xtol to 1:1. I'd rather not do that so my question is, has anyone used the combo of xtol at stock and Foma400@800 with good results? 

Thank you

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[chacker]

Hi, never tried that combination therefore can't give an advice on that. I did use Rodinal with not so convincing (very grainy) results and since then I stick to the Foma own developer + times and get decent results. Fomadon LQN is the name and it is believed to be similar to Ilfords Ilfosol 3.   

[BernardC]

On 11/19/2024 at 6:22 AM, costa43 said:

As a newbie to the home development side of things, I picked up 50 rolls of Foma 100/400 on the cheap (circa £3 a roll equivalent where I am) to learn the craft, or at least have a better understanding of it before I experiment with different, more expensive film stocks.

That's great, it's fun to experiment and learn.

One thing you'll learn is that people assign magical properties to certain black and white chemistries and processes. The way you hear them tell it, a standard ISO 400 film can become a low-grain 1600 ISO film, provided you know the right potions and incantations. The reality is that most films perform a certain way (speed, grain, shadow/midrange/highlight contrast). There isn't much you can do to change their performance, and still get printable negatives.

When you "push" film, you are increasing development and contrast. You rarely get much extra speed, or shadow detail, but your under-exposed highlights get brighter through over-development. Some push-process techniques try to compensate for this by using extremely dilute developer, or extremely low agitation, or usually both. The idea is that your developer is so weak that it will exhaust its chemical activity in areas where you have lots of exposed silver (the highlights), but it will keep developing areas with little exposed silver.

I'm not saying that this has no effect, but it's more subtle than people often claim. What you really end-up with is negatives that are "N+", in Zone System terms, meaning that they have a compressed dynamic range that is suitable for lower-contrast scenes. It won't make one film look like a totally different film. Keep in mind that the Zone System was devised at a time when multigrade papers were rare, and not as good as graded paper. They had to go to great lengths to create negatives that would print on their favourite paper, whereas we can just try a different contrast filter, or play with the curves in software.

Here's what I suggest in your case. First-off, Foma's information sheet says that you don't need to increase development for mild under-exposure, so try that. If you find that your negatives are too flat (low contrast), the next step is to increase development slightly. For instance, you could try 9 minutes instead of 7 minutes. If the results of extra processing get you closer to your desired look, then you can try even longer times with lower agitation and diluted developers. It could get you where you want to go, but only if you were nearly there. It won't turn FP4 into HP5.

On 11/19/2024 at 6:22 AM, costa43 said:

As I have gained some experience and advice, I'm now always bringing the temperature of my chemicals to 20 degrees and developing as per the massive dev chart at 400 which is 7minutes

Consistency is key. Stick with one film and developer and you'll eventually pre-visualize your exposures, meaning that you'll instinctively know how a scene will look when printed (physically or electronically). The worse thing you can do when starting-out is to process every roll in a different way, or try a different film each time. You'll get lucky every once in a while, but you won't know why.

I'm not a huge fan of the Massive Dev Chart. Sometimes it suggests times that I know won't work for me, and sometimes it's close. The first place to look is the manufacturer's own chart, such as the Foma one linked above. They are usually very close. In this case, the Massive Chart and Foma both suggest 7 minutes for Xtol.

[costa43]

21 minutes ago, BernardC said:

That's great, it's fun to experiment and learn.

One thing you'll learn is that people assign magical properties to certain black and white chemistries and processes. The way you hear them tell it, a standard ISO 400 film can become a low-grain 1600 ISO film, provided you know the right potions and incantations. The reality is that most films perform a certain way (speed, grain, shadow/midrange/highlight contrast). There isn't much you can do to change their performance, and still get printable negatives.

When you "push" film, you are increasing development and contrast. You rarely get much extra speed, or shadow detail, but your under-exposed highlights get brighter through over-development. Some push-process techniques try to compensate for this by using extremely dilute developer, or extremely low agitation, or usually both. The idea is that your developer is so weak that it will exhaust its chemical activity in areas where you have lots of exposed silver (the highlights), but it will keep developing areas with little exposed silver.

I'm not saying that this has no effect, but it's more subtle than people often claim. What you really end-up with is negatives that are "N+", in Zone System terms, meaning that they have a compressed dynamic range that is suitable for lower-contrast scenes. It won't make one film look like a totally different film. Keep in mind that the Zone System was devised at a time when multigrade papers were rare, and not as good as graded paper. They had to go to great lengths to create negatives that would print on their favourite paper, whereas we can just try a different contrast filter, or play with the curves in software.

Here's what I suggest in your case. First-off, Foma's information sheet says that you don't need to increase development for mild under-exposure, so try that. If you find that your negatives are too flat (low contrast), the next step is to increase development slightly. For instance, you could try 9 minutes instead of 7 minutes. If the results of extra processing get you closer to your desired look, then you can try even longer times with lower agitation and diluted developers. It could get you where you want to go, but only if you were nearly there. It won't turn FP4 into HP5.

Consistency is key. Stick with one film and developer and you'll eventually pre-visualize your exposures, meaning that you'll instinctively know how a scene will look when printed (physically or electronically). The worse thing you can do when starting-out is to process every roll in a different way, or try a different film each time. You'll get lucky every once in a while, but you won't know why.

I'm not a huge fan of the Massive Dev Chart. Sometimes it suggests times that I know won't work for me, and sometimes it's close. The first place to look is the manufacturer's own chart, such as the Foma one linked above. They are usually very close. In this case, the Massive Chart and Foma both suggest 7 minutes for Xtol.

Thank you. I appreciate the advice. I am definitely striving for consistency now before trying anything new. I'll make a calculated guess on the development time like you suggest. Hopefully it works out, I'll post some results on here if it does. 

[BernardC]

51 minutes ago, mark_s90 said:

teh biggest failure of the massive dev chart is that no one specifies what they are actually DOING with the film.  For instance, no one says this recipe is for scanning negatives with a scanner, or a camera, or for printing at the photolab. Or for tossing into their 23cII enlarger at home. 

THus everyone wonders why they have an entry for a 180 min development time for this film X with rodinal at ISO 800, but also one at same dilution and film at 800 ISO but for only 15 minutes..

I totally agree. That's why I check the manufacturer's data sheet first. They are more consistent, and you can check other films in order to get a feel for new films. For instance, if you know Tri-X, and Kodak says 8 minutes for a particular dev, whereas you prefer 7 minutes, you'll know to remove some time from their suggestions for another film.

One good thing about the Massive Dev Chart is if you are trying an alternative process/procedure. Pyro for instance, which isn't on most manufacturer charts. It's a data point telling you that someone somewhere got usable images using a given time/dilution/temp. It's better than having no starting point at all.

As you point-out, no two thermometers are the same, your water isn't the same as someone else's, and no two people agitate the same way. Kodak charts should come with a warning that they are "only valid in Rochester New York."

 

In this case it doesn't matter. The Massive Chart matches the manufacturer specs. I suspect that the dev chart publishes manufacturer specs by default, and adds extra data points later.

[lmans]

I have found you have quite a bit of leeway with Fomo...so experiment. Chances are you won't see much of a difference between times unless you go to the extreme. I usually do 1+1 and do my foma 400 at 13.5 minutes..... but I have on occasion experimented up to 16-17.

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Massive Dev Chart has plenty of suggestions for Foma 400

https://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=Fomapan+400&Developer=&mdc=Search&TempUnits=C&TimeUnits=D

[Bliz]

Not that foma 400 is a great film for pushing, it even isn’t 400 to begin with.

[lmans]

True....not even 400....   so you are allowed more leeway!!!!...    Foma is my film by choice and 400 fits well. I don't mind 100 in real sunny weather but most of the time shoot shadows though.