Arista/Foma 400 Developer for Maximum Shadow Detail

[Dan Rainer]

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?

 

[Paul Howell]

Over the years I have used many different developers with Foma 400, in 35mm, 120 and 4X5 and 2 1/4 X3 1/4, MCM 100, D 76, HC 110, Ansco 17, currently Acufine and Diafine. With D76 and MCM 100 I normally shoot at 320, I seem to get zone III shadows with detail. But maybe for zone II with texture I would drop to 200. With Acufine replenished and Diafine I shoot at box speed. Kodak, ILford, Kentmer 400 films I shoot at 800 in both. Diafine is fine grain while Acufine has better edge sharpness. Most seem to find that Foma 400 is best at 200. Have no idea why you are getting 25 and 32, that low even for a Foma film.

 

[Zathras]

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

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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.

 

[Dan Rainer]

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

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.

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.

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

 

[Zathras]

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

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.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I'd be checking my meter settings or maybe the meter itself. Something is not right! I use Xtol-R (Adox XT-3 R same thing), which is equal to Xtol 1+1 and I know I'd be getting an E.I. much higher than what you got. Double check your gear.

 

[albireo]

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?

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.

 

[koraks]

Or doing something wrong?

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.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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

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

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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.

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.

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

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?

I'd suggest you to try Fomadon Lqn.

 

[pentaxuser]

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

 

[Milpool]

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.

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

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.

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

 

[Milpool]

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

I haven’t ever tried any Foma films but their speed labelling has always seemed a little strange to me. I don’t know what’s in the box but on the website and in the technical documents they do indicate ISO 400 whereas the graphs don’t seem to support that rating. Maybe the film reached ISO 400 in some special whiz bang low contrast concoction not listed, which would technically allow them to use the nominal ISO 400 rating. Who knows. This would need to be disclosed if requested.

 

[Dan Rainer]

Thanks for all the helpful replies. This thread has opened up several avenues for further testing.

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.

I my method is similar to AA, but I believe he called for a transmission densitometer which I don't own.

Your comment on lighting made me think about a variable I hadn't considered before. I'm metering off of white seamless paper lit with a Quasar Crossfade LED tube set to 5600k and controlled by a homemade dimmer. While the light is cinema-grade and claims to be 95 CRI and fully dimmable, I know that some white LEDs have "spiky" color spectrums, sometimes exacerbated with dimming. Combined with Fomo/Arista 400's notoriously weird spectral sensitivity, that might just explain my issue! I'll take my camera outside and replicated my last test with natural light and a white wall.

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.

I'm using AristaEDU 400. I'll try to replicate my test as mentioned above before sourcing a few rolls of Foma 400 for comparison.

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.

Makes sense. I've also worried that I've gotten a bit too tunnel-visioned on the testing. I might get out to a park and shoot a test roll of actual subjects at 200ASA. I'm beyond convinced that the issue lies somewhere in my testing process, so it might be nice to bypass all of that and have some fun with actual photography

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

I'll definitely give it a read! I have no experience with Microphen or ID-68, but I have heard it mentioned often as a nice pairing with this film.

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.

I do have a sticker on my step 21, as well as hole punched out over step 1

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

I love John Finch! I actually learned much of my testing routine from these exact videos And I learned the Stouffer wedge method from Mat Marrash's video:

 

[Paul Howell]

You can shoot a ring a round, in open shade set up a test with a light skin model, Zone VI with a swath of black cloth with texture Zone III, a swath of white cloth with texture Zone VII, holding a gray card zone V. Shot a blank between each frame, start with ISO 25 and move up to 1600. Develop at recommended time and scan or contact print. I would a roll of 35mm as it is the emulsion as in 4X5. Then compare with your current tests.