My oh my what happened to Foma 400?

[relistan]

About 2/3 to 1 stop in my experience and also according to most sources. I.e. Foma 100 is ca. 64, the 200 is really around 125 and the 400 is around 200-250 for most people. "Several stops" really is excessive; I never observed that with any Foma film.

This matches my experience exactly.

 

[koraks]

If you check the Foma data sheets for all 3 pan films, 100, 200, and 400, Foma posts times and curves for a variety of developers. . Foma 400 comes close to 400 with ILford Microphen, with Fomadon a bit slower but still close to box speed and D76?ID 11 200 to 250, Foma 200 is closes to box speed with most developers while 100 seems to exceed box speed with Mircophen and at box speed with others tested

Are you taking into account the fact that the datasheets show a range of G-bars? If you take 0.6 as an approximation of 'normal contrast', you'll find that the Foma 400 product really achieves 200-250. It's not close to 400 in any developer shown in the datasheet. It does peak out at around 320, but this is only for significantly higher contrast; i.e. essentially a push process scenario.

The 200-speed product reaches approx. 160 in 3 out of 4 developers listed, but interestingly for D76 no g-bar 0.6 rating is provided; extrapolating it would arrive at around 125.

Foma 100 reaches, at least according to the datasheet, 80-100.

However, curve shape and tonality IMO should be taken into regard as well, and it turns out that the 100 and 400 speed products produce a linear curve especially if you hold back on development. This drops effective speed a little, which I suspect explains why also the 100-speed film is often regarded as performing best if rated a little lower than box speed. Note that this isn't true for the 200-speed film, which remains linear across a broader range of development times. The 400-speed film shoulders off quite readily and those who have tried to use it for alt. process printing can attest to this; it can be hard to build the required density range for certain UV-sensitive processes (salted paper, carbon etc.)

 

[Paul Howell]

I haven't had time to cross check by processing a roll of Kentemyere in F76+, still not sure what happened or why. I don't think it is the film, no one else has reported a loss of speed. My process has been standardized for decades. I use a dial thermometer calibrated against a Kodak Color thermometer, distilled or deiononized water, for one or two rolls Patterson tank for larger batches Unicolor film drum times adjusted -15%. Times are the same, in the past I found F76+ times are spot on with times for D76. F76+ 1:9 is the same as stock D76, I have used at 1:19 with same times as D76 1:1.

 

[photogear]

I have a fresh roll of Foma 400 iso 100 feet (bought from B&H) !
You have me a bit amazed. Did not check it out yet.

 

[ags2mikon]

I just tried a roll of Arista EDU 400 developer in DK-60a 1:3 at 9 min. 20/68 deg. and it looked like like a 200-250 film to me. I developed it in a tank that had a roll of hp5+ exposed at the same time and it looked a bit over developed and looked like a 400-500 speed film. The HP5+ was a bit dense so I think 7.5 min would have been fine. After the overcast conditions leave I will re try both of them. The emulsion # is 012556-1 exp 5 2028.

 

[Pixophrenic]

I've used Foma 400 off and on for well over 20 years. I've D76, Acufine, DK 50, Clayton F76, MCM 100 and other developers. I have shot at 400, 320, last few years 200 or 250. Then a few months my negative came out thin, really thin. I thought it was camera, then developer. Today I shot a test roll using a Nikon F4, manual mode, Gossen SBC meter, from 25 to 400, developed in Clayton F76+, now it's a 100. I know that a lot of folks have shot Foma at 100, I do not understand why the ISO has dropped from 320 to 100. I may have return to Kentmyer as my walk around film, I see no reason to shoot Foma 400 at 100 when I can get close to 200 with Foma 200 and 320 with Kentmyer 400 and spot on 400 with Tmax 400.

Am I missing something, but re-reading the thread twice, I did not get a straight answer to the question if you ever got EI 250+ from whatever incarnation of Foma 400 specifically in Clayton F76+? IMO, this is a PQ developer, aiming at mimicking D76 and its pH seems too low for some films. If I worked at Foma (I do not), I would ask to develop according to vendor recommendations (i.e. in Fomadon LQN or other developer listed inside the box) and then complain to the world. From my limited experience, this film needs a rapid PQ developer and also an active agitation, like 2 inversions every 30 seconds.

 

[mshchem]

I haven't had time to cross check by processing a roll of Kentemyere in F76+, still not sure what happened or why. I don't think it is the film, no one else has reported a loss of speed. My process has been standardized for decades. I use a dial thermometer calibrated against a Kodak Color thermometer, distilled or deiononized water, for one or two rolls Patterson tank for larger batches Unicolor film drum times adjusted -15%. Times are the same, in the past I found F76+ times are spot on with times for D76. F76+ 1:9 is the same as stock D76, I have used at 1:19 with same times as D76 1:1.

Sometimes weird things happen. Some glitch, a temporal anomaly. That's what I tell the wife when I forget to take out the trash.

 

[PetrL]

According to the manufacturer's technical data sheet, it is evident that fomapan 400 ISO400 does not achieve. It's probably "best" in Microphen, where it reaches about ISO 320 with recommended processing.

https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-400

 

[ags2mikon]

I downloaded that from Foma yesterday and mixed up some ID-68 and am going to go out today and see what I get. I am also going to test Pan-F and HP5 at the same time.

 

[Paul Howell]

Discovered my user error. Latency. All the rolls had be exposed and sat around for a few months before I developed them. The last roll I developed had been in my camera for weeks if not a month maybe longer. I have been neglecting my day book so not sure how long, but the last few frames had more density than the very early frames. I tested a new roll shoot at 100, a stop too dense. My normal practice is not let film sit in the camera or on a shelf, over the winter had medical issues so I fell behind. I have read that Foma 200 has issues with latency, so far I have not found anyone who has issues with Foma 400. Never had this issue Kodak or ILford. I had roll of 120 Kentmere 400 in my Kowa for almost a year, just forgot about it and it developerd just fine.

 

[ags2mikon]

Thank you for the update, and I hope you are feeling better. I have had that problem with Ilford Pan F. I just bought some Fomapan 400 this last month and have been trying to see what it likes and does not like for developer. So far ID-68 has been the best. 320 E.I. at 9 min at 20c/68f. Looks like it will print good on a condenser enlarger. The d-76 roll had real mushy and clumpy grain. Ilfotec HC was ugly and lacked good shadow speed. D-23 looked like D-76. DK-60a 1:3 200 maybe 250 E.I. and needs a diffusion enlarger, and the grain is larger than the ID-68. Since I mixed up the ID-68 I also did some testing with Pan F and I like it! It is real close to E.I. 50. At todays film prices if I can make Fomapan 400 work I can stretch my photo dollar.

 

[Valmidira]

I really recomnmend treating all Fomapans as one full stop slower films. Fomapan 200 is exception at EI160 (it is not classic emulsion). But in this case I guess it is sadly probably a quality issue.

 

[mshchem]

Discovered my user error. Latency. All the rolls had be exposed and sat around for a few months before I developed them. The last roll I developed had been in my camera for weeks if not a month maybe longer. I have been neglecting my day book so not sure how long, but the last few frames had more density than the very early frames. I tested a new roll shoot at 100, a stop too dense. My normal practice is not let film sit in the camera or on a shelf, over the winter had medical issues so I fell behind. I have read that Foma 200 has issues with latency, so far I have found anyone who has issues with Foma 400. Never had this issue Kodak or ILford. I had roll of 120 Kentmere 400 in my Kowa for almost a year, just forgot about it and it developerd just fine.

Fascinating! Good research work here! I tripped getting off my darn ginormous ebike, cracked the tip of my right radius bone (arm) . Getting old ain't for sissies, at least that's what my 'ol Ma used to say
Thanks for the update!
Best Regards Mike

 

[Kino]

Discovered my user error. Latency. All the rolls had be exposed and sat around for a few months before I developed them. The last roll I developed had been in my camera for weeks if not a month maybe longer. I have been neglecting my day book so not sure how long, but the last few frames had more density than the very early frames. I tested a new roll shoot at 100, a stop too dense. My normal practice is not let film sit in the camera or on a shelf, over the winter had medical issues so I fell behind. I have read that Foma 200 has issues with latency, so far I have found anyone who has issues with Foma 400. Never had this issue Kodak or ILford. I had roll of 120 Kentmere 400 in my Kowa for almost a year, just forgot about it and it developerd just fine.

Ah, mystery solved! I'll have to keep that in mind when I find that camera that I loaded in 1996 with 25 of 36 exposures taken!

(in my house it could very well happen)

A week-long stand development in Rodinal 1:10,000? Maybe...

 

[Paul Howell]

Like many I have developed exposed film that was decades old, 60s vintage Pan X, GAF 80, Plus X. Most of the high speed film like TriX or GAF 500 was fog, yet there was faint image. I know that ILford Pan F and Foma 200 lose latent image but a full stop in just a few months. I will only buy Foma 400 in 24 exposures.

 

[Chromium VI]

A nice experiment for who has time to spent: get a "test" scene w/ consistent lightning. Load a roll of FP400 (or other film at your choice) in a camera that you don't use much. Shoot one picture per month at the test scene, and develop, you will get 36 months of difference between the 1st and last shot so you can test the limits of latency.

 

[mshchem]

Like many I have developed exposed film that was decades old, 60s vintage Pan X, GAF 80, Plus X. Most of the high speed film like TriX or GAF 500 was fog, yet there was faint image. I know that ILford Pan F and Foma 200 lose latent image but a full stop in just a few months. I will only buy Foma 400 in 24 exposures.

I miss 20 exposure rolls! That was perfect for me. I started doing a bit of bulk loading again just to have convenient lengths.

 

[mshchem]

A nice experiment for who has time to spent: get a "test" scene w/ consistent lightning. Load a roll of FP400 (or other film at your choice) in a camera that you don't use much. Shoot one picture per month at the test scene, and develop, you will get 36 months of difference between the 1st and last shot so you can test the limits of latency.

For the really dedicated, get out your 250 exposure back!

 

[Chromium VI]

For the really dedicated, get out your 250 exposure back!

You win...

 

[npl]

I'm not convinced by the latency explanation in only 4 to 5 weeks, which is relatively short. AFAIK only Pan-F can fade that quickly.

Given how widespread Fomapan 400 is and how long rolls can typically sit before being shot completely and then developed, we would heard of this problem much more often.

 

[Valmidira]

Well, you get what you pay for (at 1/3 of the price of Ilford).
I had a few sheets loaded and left in their cassettes for few years (controlled room temperature ). While the FP4+ was fine, the Fomapan 100 really wasn't.
That said, Fomapan films can produce great results - you just have to process them before they expire, expose them at half the sensitivity , and unless intended do not pushing them for high contrast. I personally recommend Atomal and Rodinal 1+50 or 1+100 as very suitable developers.

 

[Pixophrenic]

Discovered my user error. Latency. All the rolls had be exposed and sat around for a few months before I developed them. The last roll I developed had been in my camera for weeks if not a month maybe longer. I have been neglecting my day book so not sure how long, but the last few frames had more density than the very early frames. I tested a new roll shoot at 100, a stop too dense. My normal practice is not let film sit in the camera or on a shelf, over the winter had medical issues so I fell behind. I have read that Foma 200 has issues with latency, so far I have not found anyone who has issues with Foma 400. Never had this issue Kodak or ILford. I had roll of 120 Kentmere 400 in my Kowa for almost a year, just forgot about it and it developerd just fine.

Not that I blame you, but I was going to ask you earlier if there was something you did not tell "the world"? Now, did the film or developer go past its best before date while this storage happened? Because Foma LQN developer has an official expiration date printed on the bottle, but I doubt Clayton F76 does. BTW, Foma 200 may have issues with latency, but I used it for a year past expiration date shooting at EI 100 and it came out very well.

 

[Paul Howell]

Clayton does not have a long shelf once opened, I used a freshly opened bottle that I bought less than a year ago. And I got the same results in MCM 100 a loss of a stop a fresh batch as well. I normally shoot Foma 400 at 150 when matched with MCM 100, I was down to ISO 50. When I shoot Kentmere 400 and use MCM 100 I shoot at 200, my one roll of 400 shot at 200 was spot on.

 

[Paul Howell]

Just processed a roll of Kentmere 400, E.I 320, camera Minolta X700 with 28, 50, 100 and 200 primes, developed in Clayton K76+ 7 mints at 68 degrees F. I have not printed the negatives, but they look to be spot on. The only factor that ccould have been a factor was deterioration of the latency image after sitting on my shelf a a few months.