Arista/Foma 400 Developer for Maximum Shadow Detail

Zathras said:

This sounds strange. What is your method for testing film and developer combinations?

Click to expand...

Alex Benjamin said:

Something's wrong with your methodology. Getting 32ASA with a 400 film in DD-X makes no sense.

Also, amount of sodium sulfite has an effect on grain, but has none on film speed.

Click to expand...

Dan Rainer said:

With 35mm:
1. Point the camera at a flatly lit white surface.
2. Focus to infinity.
3. Meter for Zone V at box speed.
4. Take a exposure with the lens capped.
5. Close down four stops to get to Zone I.
6. Make a serious of exposures opening up 1/2 stop each time. Ending with Zone III.
7. Open up the camera and expose for Zone IX.
8. Develop film.
9. Print a test strip of the lens capped shot. Determining minimum time to maximum black (MTMB).
10. Print each exposure for my MTMB time. The first one where I see a clear separation between Zone I and pure black is my new EI rating. The Zone IX exposure I print on a half-covered strip. If I see the slightest line between the two halves, I know my dev time is spot on.

With 4x5:
1. Load a 4x5 holder with a Stouffer transmission wedge (photo attached) on top of the film on Side A.
2. Point the camera at a flatly lit white surface.
3. Focus to infinity.
4. Meter for Zone V at box speed.
5. Open up five stops, expose.
6. Develop both sheets, including the unexposed one.
7. Print a test contact strip under the blank sheet. Determining minimum time to maximum black (MTMB).
8. Contact print the 4x5 sheet with the Stouffer wedge exposure at the MTMB time.
9. Analyze the print. Ideally, Zone I should be around step 19. Zone IX should be around step 3. Each step represents 1/2 stop. Adjust EI and development time accordingly.

In chapter 10 of The Film Development Cookbook (2E) Troop and Anchell discuss the merits of DD-X for extreme push processing, specifically attributing this to potassium sulfite. While I'm not pushing the film, I had some DD-X in my darkroom and figured it was worth trying after my frustrations with XTOL. I agree that the result is nonsensical. Hoping to figure out what's wrong

Click to expand...

Dan Rainer said:

I recently picked up some AristaEdu 400 in 4x5 and 35mm bulk load. I've really settled into XTOL as my standard developer with HP5 and figured that it would work great with the Arista 400 as well. I was banking on either the grain reducing solvent power of replenished XTOL to tame the grain, or the speed boosting power of diluted XTOL to tame the shadows.

However, as I've since read on this forum, XTOL struggles with Arista/Foma 400. Using a mixture of Stouffer wedge and 35mm testing, I'm getting a rating of 25ASA in replenished XTOL, 25ASA in XTOL 1:1, and 50ASA in XTOL 1:2.

I also tried DD-X 1:4, hoping the potassium sulfite would render a more usable speed. I got a rating of 32ASA.

Am I missing something? Or doing something wrong? My methodology has been solid for dialing in speed/time for other film/dev combos in the past. Is there a solvent developer that's able to render a full range of shadow values in Arista/Foma 400, preferably at a speed over 160ASA?

Click to expand...

Dan Rainer said:

Or doing something wrong?

Click to expand...

Dan Rainer said:

In chapter 10 of The Film Development Cookbook (2E) Troop and Anchell discuss the merits of DD-X for extreme push processing, specifically attributing this to potassium sulfite. While I'm not pushing the film, I had some DD-X in my darkroom and figured it was worth trying after my frustrations with XTOL. I agree that the result is nonsensical. Hoping to figure out what's wrong

Click to expand...

• Sodium sulphite, anhyd. 85 g.
• Hydroquinone 5 g.
• Borax 7 g.
• Boric acid 2 g.
• Potassium bromide 1 g.
• Phenidone 0.13 g.
• Water to make . 1L

Dan Rainer said:

With 4x5:
1. Load a 4x5 holder with a Stouffer transmission wedge (photo attached) on top of the film on Side A.
2. Point the camera at a flatly lit white surface.
3. Focus to infinity.
4. Meter for Zone V at box speed.
5. Open up five stops, expose.
6. Develop both sheets, including the unexposed one.

Click to expand...

Dan Rainer said:

I recently picked up some AristaEdu 400 in 4x5 and 35mm bulk load. I've really settled into XTOL as my standard developer with HP5 and figured that it would work great with the Arista 400 as well. I was banking on either the grain reducing solvent power of replenished XTOL to tame the grain, or the speed boosting power of diluted XTOL to tame the shadows.

However, as I've since read on this forum, XTOL struggles with Arista/Foma 400. Using a mixture of Stouffer wedge and 35mm testing, I'm getting a rating of 25ASA in replenished XTOL, 25ASA in XTOL 1:1, and 50ASA in XTOL 1:2.

I also tried DD-X 1:4, hoping the potassium sulfite would render a more usable speed. I got a rating of 32ASA.

Am I missing something? Or doing something wrong? My methodology has been solid for dialing in speed/time for other film/dev combos in the past. Is there a solvent developer that's able to render a full range of shadow values in Arista/Foma 400, preferably at a speed over 160ASA?

Click to expand...

Milpool said:

The Foma literature suggests this film has a speed of approx. ISO 250 in Microphen (which will be very similar to DD-X from a speed perspective), somewhere between ISO 200 to 250 in XTOL. These would translate to Zone System methodology EIs of approx. 160 and 125 respectively. I’d have to look at your methodology in more detail but something is wrong.

XTOL or most other general purpose developers should work fine with relatively minor speed differences.

Maybe try EI 200 to kind of split the difference on all the above numbers, and make some test pictures to evaluate whether you need to set your meter lower or higher.

Click to expand...

Alessandro Serrao said:

With Fomadon Lqn 1+10 at 20°C, gamma=0,62, we have an ISO of about 270...

Click to expand...

Zathras said:

Dan,
Your method seems to be sound. I am assuming that you are using the method described by Ansel Adms in his book The Negative. I’m wondering if you’re having a spectral sensitivity issue with the Foma film. How are you lighting your test target? Are you using daylight or artificial lighting on your target? Foma film might have a lower sensitivity to red light than to daylight. Film manufacturers used to rate films at different speeds for daylight or tungsten lighting.

Years ago, I used ORWO NP22 film that was made in East Germany. It worked fine in daylight until the until about an hour before sunset, when the light was more red in color. I lost up to three stops of film speed under those conditions. I shot the film at EI 80 in daylight or with flash. But in very late afternoon light, I had to rate my film speed at EI 15 because of the light being more red in color. The same thing may be true for your situation with the Foma 400.

Click to expand...

albireo said:

Hi Dan, are you using Arista 400 OR Foma 400?

It is unclear what Arista 400 really is. Is it Foma 400? Most likely. Which batches of Foma 400 get sold to Arista for repackaging? Unclear.

Could be old-stock, expired stock, b-stock. Arista boxes, at least in 35mm and 120, do not track Foma batch numbers so we have no way of knowing.

Your issue with measured low sensitivity could partially depend on the above.

I'd purchase some official Foma 400, source a tested, alternative meter and repeat the test.

Also, the official leaflet instructions are pretty good. I'm using Fomadon LQN and getting an EI of 250 for a CI of approx .6. I'm also getting, in my chain an EI of roughly 200 with Fomadon Excel or Xtol at the same contrast index.

This is with Foma 400. Would I be able to reproduce my chain with Arista 400? Unclear.

Click to expand...

koraks said:

Evidently.

How about this - shoot a roll or a few sheets of this film at 200 or 400, whichever you prefer. Then develop according to the manufacturer's guidelines in XTOL, or lacking such guidelines, glean a reasonable middle road from e.g. the massive dev chart. Take your negs to the darkroom and make prints. Evaluate the results. I suspect that if you exposed the film at 200, you'd be content with the negatives in terms of the shadows. Exposed at 400, you may find the shadows (too) weak. But don't take my word for it - try it for yourself.

Try not to forget what this is about - making pictures.

PS:
in your testing methods, you've not specified what paper you use, how you expose it and how you develop it (although the latter is of secondary importance). I suspect you're printing on VC paper and you're ending up with a higher grade than you believe, effectively lopping off part of the tonal scale of your negatives. If you want to do the technical stuff instead of "just go out and shoot", I'd start by comparing your negatives to the densities on a Stouffer step tablet and plot the curve you're getting. This will surely tell you something about what approximate CI you're hitting. If you have a scanner, you can scan your negatives and a step tablet side by side and take measurements that way. Lacking a scanner, photograph your negatives + step tablet against a bright surface (e.g. light table) and use that as a basis for some measurements. If you have a densitometer, that would be easier still, but I gather you don't have one.

PPS: Foma 400 does fine in XTOL.

Click to expand...

Alex Benjamin said:

My bad. I read "sodium sulfite" when you wrote "potassium sulfite".

Found the quote in FMC: "DD-X is a concentrated ID-68 or Microphen, the main difference being the use of potassium rather than sodium sulfite."

The formula of ID-68 is:

• Sodium sulphite, anhyd. 85 g.
• Hydroquinone 5 g.
• Borax 7 g.
• Boric acid 2 g.
• Potassium bromide 1 g.
• Phenidone 0.13 g.
• Water to make . 1L

This might be an interesting thread for you, especially Ian Grant's comments on speed and grain:

Ilford Microphen/ID-68, origins and replenishment?

Hello all, Frequent lurker, very rarely post. Anyway, I was wondering if anyone knows when the Ilford ID-68 formula was first published, and if Ilford recommended top up or bleed replenishment for it? Given that it is a PQ developer, I'm guessing at top up. I've recently started using it as my...

www.photrio.com

Click to expand...

Alex Benjamin said:

As others mentioned, your process is right. I just did it with HP5+ (4x5) in Barry Thornton's two bath developer. I rated it at my usual 250, and testing showed very slight over exposure, so I'm moving to 320 for that developer.

Did you put an opaque dot sticker on your step wedge? It's essential to the test.

Click to expand...

pentaxuser said:

Dan, in terms of what speed test to carry out and how to do it, I have always found that seeing it being done with a clear explanation at the same time of what is being done is better than simply reading what to do

Here's 2 videos I particularly like on this subject



pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Zathras said:

Dan,
Your method seems to be sound. I am assuming that you are using the method described by Ansel Adms in his book The Negative. I’m wondering if you’re having a spectral sensitivity issue with the Foma film. How are you lighting your test target? Are you using daylight or artificial lighting on your target? Foma film might have a lower sensitivity to red light than to daylight. Film manufacturers used to rate films at different speeds for daylight or tungsten lighting.

Years ago, I used ORWO NP22 film that was made in East Germany. It worked fine in daylight until the until about an hour before sunset, when the light was more red in color. I lost up to three stops of film speed under those conditions. I shot the film at EI 80 in daylight or with flash. But in very late afternoon light, I had to rate my film speed at EI 15 because of the light being more red in color. The same thing may be true for your situation with the Foma 400.

Click to expand...

AZD said:

I am not a super technical photographer, so take this all with a grain of salt.

I have used Arista 400 in 8x10 with replenished XTOL and had no problems whatsoever getting acceptable results with good shadow detail. I start with EI 250 as a baseline, then meter for the shadow areas without making any further compensation other than bellows or filter (if used). This assumes subjects with large areas in lower light. For bright sunlight I’ll pretty much just take the average reading, maybe a stop over.

Other qualifiers: contact prints only, using common multigrade papers. I’ve been aiming for grade 3 and have begun getting used to developing by inspection.

I bought another box of Foma-branded 400 when it was discounted, but haven’t used it yet. FWIW, the packaging is identical except for the name on the box.

Fun fact: the developer turns a brilliant emerald green after developing, but about 24 hours later it has turned a brilliant sapphire blue. That’s a neat trick.

Click to expand...

Dan Rainer said:

Sounds like a nice workflow. I've heard some photographers mention that they presoak Foma/Arista films before using XTOL-R so that the green anti-halation layer doesn't build up in their developer. Obviously you don't, but do you find that you need to filter your developer regularly? Are there any floating globules?

Click to expand...