Another Foma 200 thread

[John Wiegerink]

I didn’t want to highjack the recent Foma 200 thread so here goes. Years ago I tried Foma 200 in 120, but had all the problems talked about. Never tried it again. Now I’ve bought a bulk roll of Foma 100 and Foma 200 and need some advice on the 200 Foma. I’m want to run a roll of 200 Foma through my old, but excellent Contaflex Super B. I’m at my cottage and only have three developers to play with. Rodinal, Pyrocat HDC and a new bottle of Adox FX-39II. I have never used FX-39II, but have used my own homemade FX-37, which is supposed to be similar. I’m thinking that FX-39II should be close to ideal for Foma 200 since it’s a sharp, speed increasing developer. I’ve search for info on the combination, but not much returned. Has anyone here tried Foma 200 in FX-39II? I know Rodinal will work with Foma 200 and I’ve used Xtol-R when I tried the 200 in 120, but I would like a starting point for FX-39II and Foma 200. Actually any info on using FX-39II with any film would be welcome. JohnW

 

[destroya]

I use foma 200 a lot in 35mm and 4x5 and use pyro-m with it. great results. since you have pyro-hdc, I would give that a try as well. I shoot it at 100, develop for 11 min at 72 degrees, 1 min initial agitation, then 10 seconds every 2.5 min.

john

 

[John Wiegerink]

I use foma 200 a lot in 35mm and 4x5 and use pyro-m with it. great results. since you have pyro-hdc, I would give that a try as well. I shoot it at 100, develop for 11 min at 72 degrees, 1 min initial agitation, then 10 seconds every 2.5 min.

john

John,
That’s my intention to try Pyrocat HDC, but will also try the new bottle of FX39II also. If I don’t get any starting suggestions for FX-39II I’ll just wing it, so to speak. I’m not new at this so I think I will be able to come up with a fairly reasonable starting point. JohnW

 

[Paul Howell]

I've used many developers, MCM 100, Rodinal, D76, to name a few. All work well, as Foma 200 is a hybrid Tmax film, grain is fine, Rodinal at 1:50 would be my choice. Most shoot Foma 200 at ISO 100 or 125, with my newer Minolta A mount bodies box speed is spot on, with an older camera then you might to shoot ring around to find the optimum ISO for you camera and meter.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Paul,
The roll I try in Pyrocat-HDC I’ll just rate at iso 125 and the one roll I do in FX39II. I’ll run several test exposures from iso 100-250 or so. Should tell me about what I need to know as far as shadow detail goes. JohnW

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've had best results in various pyro brews shooting it at 100.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I've had best results in various pyro brews shooting it at 100.

Thanks Drew. I figure an EI of125 should be a good starting point with pyro. I’ve used Pyrocat HD, MC and now HDC and they all worked great. Before that I liked John Wimberly’s pyro formulas. I have heard folks say that the different Pyrocat versions gave them a speed increase, but I have never seen it myself. I like Pyrocat HDC, but when this batch is gone I’m going back to Pyrocat MC. I’m trying FX39II just because I have never used it and thought that before they bury me it might be worth trying. Just seems not many people here have used it. Maybe it’s more well liked on the other side of the ocean? JohnW

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, Fomapan 200 is perhaps the most unrealistically box speed rated film I've ever encountered. The horrible reciprocity long exposure characteristics only exacerbate that issue. But it does have a very long straight line capable of handling an exceptionally long contrast range. Interesting product, for sure. I hope the quality control has significantly improved since the last time I tried it. I like PMK pyrogallol with it, but the normal development time was very short, something like 6 minutes if I recall correctly.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hi John,
More than a speed enhancing developer, FX-37/39/39II is an acutance developer.
I found it produces great tone with TMY at EI1000, for soft overcast light, of course, but I have not used it on Foma200.
As all acutance developers it makes sharp visible grain. I'd say Foma200 (35mm) will give notorious grain in any of the three developers you named. I wouldn't use Rodinal unless your goal is very present grain.
Recommended times for FX-39 are a mess. Some sources have times that produce too much contrast, and Scarpitti's times (real condenser, it seems) are low contrast, so it's better to do personal tests first with a few frames.
Some info here:
https://www.21gradi.it/post/Paterson-FX-39
Apart from 1+9 and 1+14, I've used 1+6 for better grain control in 35mm.
There's a time for Foma200 at la pirate (France):
FX-39 1+9, 20C, 6 minutes at EI160.
What would I do?
I'd load half a roll, do the same scene at 125, 160 and 200 repeating that 'till the end, cut it in three, and develop for 5, 6, and 7 minutes, and make one contact print of the three strips of 3 frames with filter 3. I'd use the same mix of developer for the three strips.
All in one hour, possibly, but really worth it.
Foma200 is a peculiar film, and FX-39 is a peculiar developer, so I can't imagine a faster way to see reality.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Just in case, Rodinal 1+25 5 minutes, 1+50 10 minutes, same French source, also EI160 and 20C.
I'd say except Microphen, TMaxDev and very few others, 160 is a slight push.
The film should work better at 100 for normal contrast in most developers, and possibly at 80 in Rodinal.

 

[otto.f]

All I can tell is that FX39 ii has a longer shelf life than FX39. There's nothing on the ADOX site that suggests that times have changed, although I agree with Bob Dylan about the opposite in a more general sense. Mass Dev Chart says 10' for Fomapan 200, but I always add 15 or 20% time for my enlarger. 6 minutes seems awfully soft to my mind

 

[John Wiegerink]

Just in case, Rodinal 1+25 5 minutes, 1+50 10 minutes, same French source, also EI160 and 20C.
I'd say except Microphen, TMaxDev and very few others, 160 is a slight push.
The film should work better at 100 for normal contrast in most developers, and possibly at 80 in Rodinal.

Juan,
I rather figured I’d have to do my own testing since I found about zero info when I searched the web. I have seen a few shots where Foma 200 in Rodinal looked pretty nice. I’m going to run a test between Pyrocat and F39II and then scan the results. I can’t use my enlarger since my home darkroom is now torn down and everything will be moved up to our cottage this Summer. Scan only for now I guess, but that should tell me what I want to know anyway. JohnW

 

[John Wiegerink]

All I can tell is that FX39 ii has a longer shelf life than FX39. There's nothing on the ADOX site that suggests that times have changed, although I agree with Bob Dylan about the opposite in a more general sense. Mass Dev Chart says 10' for Fomapan 200, but I always add 15 or 20% time for my enlarger. 6 minutes seems awfully soft to my mind

Otto,
Extended shelf life is always a plus and I welcome it. I’m not a big fan of the Massive Development Chart since I’ve been fooled by some listed times from there before, but I have to start somewhere I guess. JohnW

 

[otto.f]

Otto,
Extended shelf life is always a plus and I welcome it. I’m not a big fan of the Massive Development Chart since I’ve been fooled by some listed times from there before, but I have to start somewhere I guess. JohnW

Agree!

 

[John Wiegerink]

Well, when in doubt go to the source! I checked the Adox site and guess what? They had times for Delta 100 souped in FX-39II. I developed my roll for 7min. @ 70F and the negatives are drying now. I looked at them from a small distance with a lope and I think they look great. i won't be able to scan them for a couple of days since my main PC crashed and that's attached to my scanner. As soon as I do I'll through a couple up on the Santard Gallery. JohnW

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hi John,
Delta100 & FX-39II are a terrific combo!
Some say there's no better developer for Delta100.
Good for you!

 

[John Wiegerink]

Hi John,
Delta100 & FX-39II are a terrific combo!
Some say there's no better developer for Delta100.
Good for you!

Juan,
I couldn’t find hardly anyone that had used the combo. If you go to filmdev.org you won’t find much on FX-39II. I can’t wait to scan the negatives, but from what I can see, grain will not be a problem. JohnW

 

[Murray Kelly]

John, I would suggest the FX39 1+9 normal agitation and temp for 13 min as a starter.

 

[John Wiegerink]

John, I would suggest the FX39 1+9 normal agitation and temp for 13 min as a starter.

Hi Murray,
I just used Adox’s suggested time and dilution, which was 1+9 for 7 minutes at 68f. Except I developed at 70f instead. The negatives look great, but according to “MY” exposure meter it looks like about ISO 100 is right on. My densitometer is not here to check for sure on that one. So, FX-39II doesn’t seem so “speed increasing” for me with Delta 100. JohnW

P.S. Murray, I’m still filling those wine bags and I hope you’re still enjoying emptying them. Ha-ha!

 

[Murray Kelly]

Sounds good. I was extrapolating from my experiences with FX37 and DK-50 and my times are longer. Horses for courses.
Yup . Stil soldiering away at the bladder emptying. I have a red in front of me right now
Cheers

PS I was expecting box speed. The film in the box that is.

 

[gone]

I had one roll of Delta 100, and that was amazing in F76+ at 1:9 for 6.15 minutes and shot w/ an IE of 64. W/ a yellow filter, I got this. Glad you found a good developer for yours. The Delta 100 has some tight grain and is plenty sharp. A very "clean" film.

 

[John Wiegerink]

momus,
I wasn't really looking for a developer for Delta 100 since I've used other developers and liked almost all I tried with Delta 100. It's just that I had Delta 100 in a Rolleiflex I just repair as a test roll. I also had a brand new bottle of FX39II that I have never tried with any film. So, I naturely thought to test all three at the same time. I must say that I'm happy with all three so far, but scanning and wet printing will tell the truth. JohnW

 

[Tim Stapp]

John, here is a quote regarding Foma (Arista Edu) 200 in Rodinal. It's copied from a private message that I got from Jiri Vasina on the Large Format site. I really liked the look of his work and asked about his times/agitation using Rodinal. Due to multiple moves in the last two years, cameras and darkroom are still in storage. In the eventual darkroom, but stored nonetheless. BTW, his were 4x5.

"in my case, I shoot Fomapan 200 @ EI 125. My N development with R09 (Rodinal variant) in 1:50 dilution is 18min with continuous agitation on motor base.

If you are going to use Rodinal, do test and adjust your routine. My times might not work perfectly for you..."

Jiri

 

[otto.f]

John, here is a quote regarding Foma (Arista Edu) 200 in Rodinal. It's copied from a private message that I got from Jiri Vasina on the Large Format site. I really liked the look of his work and asked about his times/agitation using Rodinal. Due to multiple moves in the last two years, cameras and darkroom are still in storage. In the eventual darkroom, but stored nonetheless. BTW, his were 4x5.

"in my case, I shoot Fomapan 200 @ EI 125. My N development with R09 (Rodinal variant) in 1:50 dilution is 18min with continuous agitation on motor base.

If you are going to use Rodinal, do test and adjust your routine. My times might not work perfectly for you..."

Jiri

I don't think you can generalize the usefullness of a developer for 4x5" to 35mm (with any film btw) and especially not with Rodinal, which is quite grainy and often muddy in 35mm.

 

[albireo]

"in my case, I shoot Fomapan 200 @ EI 125. My N development with R09 (Rodinal variant) in 1:50 dilution is 18min with continuous agitation on motor base.

That goes to show how operator- and setup- dependent exposure and development really are, I guess.

I routinely develop Foma 200 in Adox Rodinal 1+50 and if I did 18min I'd have negatives good enough to comfortably observe a solar eclipse through.