Can I develop 2 of these 3 films together?

[gone]

I have: 1 roll of Tri-X that was shot at EI 640, then halfway through was switched to EI 1250. Besides that, there's 1 roll of Foma 200 shot at EI 200, and 1 roll of Foma 400 shot at EI 250. I want to develop 2 of the 3 films together. Tthe Foma 200 is the ringer, I've had zero luck w/ that so far.

The Foma 400 is nice using F76+ for 7.40 minutes (see pic below), so one of those 2 other films is probably going into that same soup. Will that scheme work w/ either the Tri-X or the Foma 200? There's also Rodinal here, but the Foma 400 looked pretty bad in that the one time I tried it.

 

[AgX]

3 days ago you posted this:

"I'm going to stop developing more than 1 roll of film at a time. Too many times, one roll is fine, one roll has issues, and w/ 2 rolls, it just confuses things."

 

[otto.f]

In the meantime you could have done three separate developments

 

[250swb]

I think one of the key things about film photography is to make decisions and have a plan before walking out the front door with your camera.

 

[AgX]

Well, I rather go out with different films, and on location decide with film to use, and, if applcable, decide how to expose and develop it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

In the meantime you could have done three separate developments

Or looked up dev times on Massive Dev Chart to confirm which films have "close enough" developing times.

Offhand, you're going to want to develop the Tri-X to EI 1250 and live with "overexposure" of the portion that was only underexposed 2/3 stop (else the portion that was underexposed 1 2/3 stop will be too thin to read, scan, or print). Foma 200 is rumored to be a tabular grain, so likely needs different handling (and maybe a different developer) than the others.

Generally, unless you're doing something like Foma 400 and another roll of Foma 100 exposed at EI 400 (which I recall having the same dev time including the push for the 100), you should just develop different films separately.

 

[gone]

Thanks. I do realize that this is a pretty strange thing to do, but so was shooting Tri-X at those high EI's, that's something I've never done w/ Tri-X or any film. Well, not on purpose anyway. I'm going to put the Foma 200 in w/ one of the other films and key the development to that one other roll.

The 200 can like it or lump it, it will just be along for the ride. It's gonna look weird no matter what I do from past experience. It's very tempting it is to just bin it, forget about it and move on. In fact, I'll do it, that's the one of the better ideas that I've had. Love the Foma 400 and 100, I don't need the 200.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Can't say I've ever used Foma 200, but I wouldn't go so far as to bin it. You said you have Rodinal? I'd mix that 1:100 and give the 200 a one hour stand development (invert first 30 seconds after filling, then come back in an hour, drain, stop/rinse, and fix). That will get an image from virtually anything.

BTW, I used to develop Foma 400 and 100 in Parodinal 1:50 (homebrewed work-alike made from acetaminophen/paracetamol) and got very good results. Didn't seem excessively grainy (no worse than the Tri-X I had back in the early 2000s).

 

[gone]

I went to the Massive Development Chart and decided on developing the Foma 400 and the Tri-X together: F76+, 1+8 for 8 min w/ gentle agitation, probably around 75-80 degrees.

They look great, especially the Tri-X at 640 and 1250. Who knew? I missed the focus on Eileen, she wouldn't sit still, but otherwise the keepers should print nicely. Elvis looks rough because he was taped to the inside of the donut case at the donut store (no surprise there, it a was fitting place for him).

Truly, the stuff looks real good, the tonality and grain look fine. I don't know which is which film w/o looking at the print sleeves, except for the dog. He and the first 9 other frames of the Foma 400 were shot at EI 400, just to see what that looks like. I prefer it at 200.

 

[gone]

The Foma 200 also found where it belonged :]

 

[Agulliver]

I feel for that Foma 200. I don't get the hate at all.

 

[bags27]

Wouldn't you want to use a compensating divided developer like Diafine?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Stand development at high dilution gives most of the same benefits as a two-bath with little or no development in Bath A.

 

[albireo]

I feel for that Foma 200. I don't get the hate at all.

Which hate? Actual photographers like it very much. Some incredible work being done with it. If you're on facebook, check out Vegar Moen's large format portrait work on Foma 200. Absolutely breathtaking.

Not surprising really, given it has a beautiful straight line in many developers and the most traditional spectral response of all Foma products. Check out the Naked Photographer, he has a nice comparison of Trix vs Foma 200 in D76 (35mm only though)

Min 3.33 for the curves
Min 4.14 for the spectral response comparison

 

[gone]

Looking at my old negs, the Tri x film likes this development, it has a very old school look to it. For the Foma, this was basically my usual development.

The Tri X shots (first one) can look pretty neat if the light is halfway decent, this was taken inside an an apt and I was shooting thru the doorway. It's duped here, I can't figure out how to redo the thread.

The other 2 are the Foma 400. This is a great film, very different than TriX. The sun was literally directly in the frame on one shot too. Grain is tight on the Foma and the Tri X is grainier but I like it. It will likely disappear on a print.

This stuff is scanned on a toy Wolverline "scanner" w/ no PP, and the Tri X was anything but flat. The negs look better w/ a loupe.

 

[Agulliver]

Which hate? Actual photographers like it very much. Some incredible work being done with it. If you're on facebook, check out Vegar Moen's large format portrait work on Foma 200. Absolutely breathtaking.

Not surprising really, given it has a beautiful straight line in many developers and the most traditional spectral response of all Foma products. Check out the Naked Photographer, he has a nice comparison of Trix vs Foma 200 in D76 (35mm only though)

Min 3.33 for the curves
Min 4.14 for the spectral response comparison

Sorry if I got the wrong impression, I understood you thought it belonged in the bin.