Eureka! I have just come across a reference by Roger Hicks, late of this parish, on his Roger and Frances site to Fomapan 200 where he categorically states that this film isn't ISO 200 except in a speed increasing developer like Ilford /Harman's Microphen. I'd take that as pretty good evidence.
pentaxuser
Here's Roger & Francis' page on ISO: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps iso speeds.html
Check out the other stuff there as well; lots of good info.
...and another article:http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm
Nobody mentions the necessity of knowing the shutter and f-stop accuracy of the camera. A shutter speed that measure 1/100 second when set at 1/60 or an f-stop that measures f/8 when set at f/6.3, or a combination of shutter and f-stop inaccuracies could convince one that the film is rated too fast. Take such recommendations with a grain of silver chloride until you test them. Errors may be in the recommender's equipment or your own or both. A few test shots with bracketted exposure settings + or - 1/2 exposure unit should help settle the matter.
Directly on that page:
"Many photographers find a gamma of 0.62 or so perfectly satisfactory, but many don't. A lot depends on subject matter, lighting conditions, lens contrast, and enlarger type. Some prefer a higher contrast, typically up to about 0.70. Rather more prefer a lower gamma, 0.56 or lower. Understandably, those who prefer the higher gamma get more speed than those who prefer the lower gamma."
"This sometimes leads those who prefer a lower gamma to say that films are never 'really' as fast as the manufacturers say they are. This is nonsense. The vast majority of films are very close to their ISO speeds under ISO conditions. Some are even above it, though rarely more than 1/3 stop. It is perfectly legitimate to develop to a lower contrast, and you should do so if that gives you the results you like, but as soon as you depart from ISO conditions, you cannot make judgements on ISO speeds. At this point you are dealing with exposure indices (EIs) rather than ISO speeds."
It means that the people posting on the Internet are not getting the density that they want in the darker areas of the composition with the equipment they are using, the way they meter, the way they develop, the way they print, etc.
As you can see, it is quite subjective and variable person to person.
It could just be a very contrasty film. Often people think that very contrasty films need to be rated slower than the ISO in order to fit their idea of what a film should capture.
Others, like me, say, "The film is just contrasty and does not easily capture detail in the darker areas. If that doesn't suit the picture I want, then I will tweak things to change the contrast."
Exactly what I was tryin' ta say!
Of course that won't account for calibrated equipment which would be the only thing that could give us an absolute ISO rating, don't you agree?
Eureka! I have just come across a reference by Roger Hicks .... categorically states that this film isn't ISO 200 except in a speed increasing developer like Ilford /Harman's Microphen. I'd take that as pretty good evidence.
pentaxuser
I'm also a type that utilizes contrast in different ways, depending on scene, subject and feel, rather than endlessly hunting for elusive "shadow detail" no matter what the emphasis.
So I recently bought a bulk roll of 35mm BW Fomapan 200, and have been doing some research on it. Several sites I've come across say things like "This is rated at 200, but I wouldn't use it past 125." What exactly does this mean? Does it mean I set my camera to 125 ISO, and develop normally. Or shoot at 200ISO and pull process to 125? Or something else?
Thanks a lot!
"This sometimes leads those who prefer a lower gamma to say that films are never 'really' as fast as the manufacturers say they are. This is nonsense. The vast majority of films are very close to their ISO speeds under ISO conditions.
The problem with the ISO in this regard is the contrast index at which the norm speed is determined. I don´t have the ISO at hand at hand -but I have it stacked somewhere and read-, but IIRC the speed is rated at a CI of 0,80; as all of us know, a lower CI gives us a lower speed, a higher CI results in higher speed.
Point eight is way too steep for our photographic processes, but it´s the norm. Deal with it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?