Neil Purling Posted May 31, 2009 Share #1 Posted May 31, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) The higer speed Fomapan does not make the box speed. A developer like Ilfotec LC29 does give the 200 & 400 films a fighting chance. However the film developes faster than it's peers and there was no margin for error at 1:29 and my first attempt ended up over-developed. So I diluted the Ilfotec 1:50 as if it was Rodinal and gave a test strip of Foma 200 10 min at 20C. The time is the upper end of that reccomended for the Foma 200 in Rodinal 1:50. The first thing I noted was the perfect crispness of the rebate markings, no smudging at all. Foma 200 developed thus should be rated at 100 ASA (on a sunny day). It remains to bee seem how it looks on a day without such bright conditions and how much more speed I can wring out of it.Try rating at 200 and giving 13 min? I have more work to do obviously. Unless someone else has already tried Ilfotec diluted 1:50 with Foma 200 and 400............. In that event it will take much less effort for me to establish what speeds & times suit my way. I exclude the Foma 100. It seems to be happy rated 100 with Rodinal 1:50 for 10min. No need to try LC29, unless I get bored......... 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 31, 2009 Posted May 31, 2009 Hi Neil Purling, Take a look here Anyone using Fomapan?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
fotohuis Posted June 3, 2009 Share #2 Posted June 3, 2009 I am using regulary Fomapan 200 in Para-Amino Phenol (Rodinal). The film speed is around 125. Here an example in N+1 iso 160. It's a nice film with an old fashion look. The Fomapan 400 has a real lack of speed: iso 200-250. I tried it out in RHS/AM74 to improve the speed but it stops somewhere on iso 250. The grain is visible but not dramatically with RHS/AM74 but here I prefer Neopan 400 or R3 (Rollei). An example in the snow (Krkonose) on Fomapan 400 with AM74 1+9. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/86513-anyone-using-fomapan/?do=findComment&comment=920333'>More sharing options...
Neil Purling Posted June 3, 2009 Author Share #3 Posted June 3, 2009 The Foma technical data tells the story. Foma 100 does what it says on the box. It's only with the F200 & F400 we have problems. The F200 drops between 0.25 to 0.5 stops, not bad. I was not sure what Rodinal and F200 would give. I think your figure of 125 ASA would be about right. The F400........ If you tried to develope it in Rodinal/R09 I fear the effective speed might be not much better than what can be expected of F200.Maybe 160-180 ASA. I tried the Foma 400 in Rodinal for the Agfapan APX400 timing. It was my first roll of Fomapan 400 and I was developing APX400 at the same time. Trying to rate F400 at the box speed in Rodinal produces coarse grain, which is no surprise. I think a normal fine-grain developer will be better. I am experimenting with Ilford LC29 at 1:50 so a tiny overshoot on the time of 15 sec or so isn't significant over-development. I am working on Fomapan 200 at present and will try the 400 in the same brew. I think the F200 would be a good universal film but the F400 is never going to be anything like Ilford on speed or grain. I may have found a way to get a long roll of F200. When Hexagon International orders X-ray film they might be able to slip a 30 metre can of F200 into the case. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted June 4, 2009 Share #4 Posted June 4, 2009 I rate the 200 the same as I rate FP4+ (64-80 in MP and 100 in Mamiya 7) I rate the 100 2/3 stop slower than the above (typically 50 in the MP and 80 in the Mamiya 7) I like them both very much. No QC issues in 35mm tho I have had scratches etc in 120 in the F200. I like th look. very traditional and the perfect antidote to thevery clean and smooth looking modern emulsions. Both are a little grainier than FP4+ or the like and I find diulte Xtol looks good, as it does with a dash of Rodinal thrown in for more grain and bite Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted June 4, 2009 Share #5 Posted June 4, 2009 I have used some fomapan 400.. very different look from Trix. It seems that it has no antihalation layer so it makes it look like more as chinese Lucky some halos, grain seems on loose. I like the result. Impressionistic, maybe I will test to develop at half speed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPerson Posted June 4, 2009 Share #6 Posted June 4, 2009 Interesting thread as I am considering the 200 & 400. I have only used Fomapan 100 but I rate at 160 iso for my main developer Diafine. MP | Nokton 40/1.4 | Fomapan 100 | Diafine 4 + 4 | Coolscan Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/86513-anyone-using-fomapan/?do=findComment&comment=921345'>More sharing options...
Neil Purling Posted June 4, 2009 Author Share #7 Posted June 4, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Tomasis: The last time I used any 35mm Tri X Pan was in the late eighties, because what they used at my local rag. I looked at the cost of a 30 M can of Tri X, About fifty GB £. I should try some to compare with the Foma 400. The Tri X is about 22GBP more than the same length of Foma 400. How does the Foma 400 compare with Tri X? In any category but speed that is. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
poynterama Posted June 5, 2009 Share #8 Posted June 5, 2009 I have some Ilfosol 3 and ID-11 at home and was going to try souping a roll of Fomapan 200 in each. The massive dev chart gives the following recommendations: ID-11, stock, 200asa, 5-6 min ID-11, 1+1, 200asa, 8-9 min ID-11, 1+3, 200asa, 12-13 min Ilfosol 3, 1+14, 200asa, 6 min Has anyone tried any of these combinations with success? edit: all at 20oC Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPerson Posted June 5, 2009 Share #9 Posted June 5, 2009 Stumbled on these devs and times whilst searching for Fomapan 100 in R09: FomaFoto Norway Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted June 5, 2009 Share #10 Posted June 5, 2009 rating the foma 200 at 200 is asking for trouble, even in fast devs like Xtol 1+X and DDX. Its no faster than FP4+ and Fp4+ does not come anywhere near 200 in D76/IDll. Trust me, Foma 200 is NOT a 200 speed film and does not even manage it in speed increasing devs. Diafine might be different tho. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Purling Posted June 5, 2009 Author Share #11 Posted June 5, 2009 (edited) Foma 200 is better than FP4? I expect that if used with my favourite Rodinal the effective speed would drop to 125ASA as for FP4. They say that F200 rated 125 with Rodinal is also better than F100. given normal development in ID11/D76. Could you get a decent result with Foma 400 @ 200 ASA with Rodinal/R09? The speed pf Foma 200 in ID11 is no better than 160-180 ASA @ 5&6min in ID11 stock. These two times give a gamma of 0.5 & 0.6 respectively. They are from the official Foma data too. MPerson: Those times look interesting. I tried Foma 400 in R09 diluted 1:50 for 11min. It appeared over-developed so a drop to 10 min would be right I am not sure of the effective speed when R09 is used with Foma 400. I will have to try these process times. Edited June 5, 2009 by Neil Purling Extra comment Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted June 6, 2009 Share #12 Posted June 6, 2009 Fp4+ does not come anywhere near the SPEED of 200 in ID11 and as Foma 200 and FP4+ are basically the same speed in anything I have tried (rodinal, Xtol, Xtol mixed with Rodinal, Xtol, FX-39), the Foma 200 is no way a 200 speed film. Maybe in Diafine... ID11 stock knocks off a touch of speed compared to dilute ID11, so I would not expect Foma 200 to come anywhere near 160-180 in neat D76/ID11, regardless of what Foma says. Rate it the same as you would FP4+ and you will be on the money. There is nothing more misleading than that fcititious 200 speed name. I get 1/3-2/3 stop more speed with Foma 200 than their 100 and their 100 does not hit full speed even in Xtol either. Close, but not quite. The 400 is supposed to be very slow and unpushable, but I have not used it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Purling Posted June 6, 2009 Author Share #13 Posted June 6, 2009 If a film is rated above it's natural speed and given extended developement would I be correct in thinking the whites would tend to lack detail and the shadows would also be lacking detail too. Over-developement: Does the state of the film edge printing make a reasonable guide? It should be dark, but without any smudging. Correct? A reasonable test of the Fomapan would be easiest in 120 format on my Graflex 4x5. I can then load one Super-Rollex film holder with Foma. If I were tesing F400, the other could be charged with HP5 or Tri X. Bulk 35mm film (of any brand) is unobtainable locally. I gotta go online. The place I usually use just didn't sell enough bulk 35mm to justify keeping it, hence my efforts towards obtaining some Foma T200. I don't think I would purchase any bulk Foma 400 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted June 7, 2009 Share #14 Posted June 7, 2009 yes, if the film is underexposed and overdeveloped (ie pushed) you get more contrast, which in the cse of foma 200 will mean limited shadow detail and hot highlights. I would not use the edge markings as a guide for anything as they vary wildly. Its bets to print negs and see what looks good. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Purling Posted June 7, 2009 Author Share #15 Posted June 7, 2009 I don't have a wet darkroom any more.... Actually I blacked out the bathroom and threatened to leave a bucket outside if anyone dared interrupt me too often........ A long time ago... The local professional I took my work to has given up wet printing because it simply wasn't worth him charging his processing equipment with chemistry. There wasn't the work coming in. So I have a neg scanner..... I wasn't 100% sure if the effect I noted was a imperfection in the scanning process. I have shot all speeds of Foma now, the effect being particularly noticeable on Foma 400 and on the 200, perhaps to a lesser degree. I can play around with the histogram in the scanning process and make the best of the negative. Why advertise the film as 400 if it clearly isn't? Other films may not quite reach the box speed. Is Foma 400 a particularly acute case? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Purling Posted June 10, 2009 Author Share #16 Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) Test of Foma 400 exposures made as 200 and 400 of the same scene, on the same clip test. Developed in D76 stock for 7 min at 20 C as per the Foma data inside the film box. http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h25/Primus96/Photography/Fomapan400Test.jpg Edited June 10, 2009 by Neil Purling Added URL Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted June 10, 2009 Share #17 Posted June 10, 2009 I have not used the 400, only the 100 and 200. I have heard the 400 is rather like APX400 in that it struggles to make the speed for most users and is not really very pushable. I think the 100 and 400 are fantasic, esp as Arista Edu Ultra - cheap and good old school look. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Purling Posted June 13, 2009 Author Share #18 Posted June 13, 2009 As you see from the test in my last post it falls well short of the supposed speed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted June 13, 2009 Share #19 Posted June 13, 2009 Tomasis: The last time I used any 35mm Tri X Pan was in the late eighties, because what they used at my local rag.I looked at the cost of a 30 M can of Tri X, About fifty GB £. I should try some to compare with the Foma 400. The Tri X is about 22GBP more than the same length of Foma 400. How does the Foma 400 compare with Tri X? In any category but speed that is. I use trix because it is easily pushable to iso 3200 or more. I noticed that fomapan is hard to push and I used only max 800. I think that the look of fomapan reminds more of older style rather than Agfa newer ones like Retro, Apx. The lack of antihalation layer makes the images a bit different. so if you compare fomapan to apx, apx looks much more modern but it is still thin negative as foma. So Fomapan and Trix are more comparable imho. It doesnt stop me buying both fomapan and trix. Foma for daylight and Trix for dark times I sometimes use 6x6 rolleiflex so foma is useful as cheap source for learning. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Purling Posted May 25, 2017 Author Share #20 Posted May 25, 2017 Has anyone done a test of the Fomapan 200 vs FP4 in D76 or ID11? For doing a comparison I can't imagine a more general purpose fine-grain developer. I am wondering about contrast and rendition of detail. Looking at the official Foma information suggests that it might be wiser to use D76 diluted 1+1 as it looks like the contrast builds rather fast in stock solution. Thinking of 8 min as a start for the Fomapan 200. Is Fomapan 200 going to be very inferior to FP4 Plus in detail rendition? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.