If you want to try DYI you can try divided D 23, D23 will tame the grain, in the divided form will also compensate for high contrast situations. From Chatbot but both AA and Minor White provided the forumal as well.
The D-23 developer formula, used in black and white film development, typically involves 7.5 grams of Metol, 100 grams of Sodium Sulfite, and water to make a total of 1 liter.
The 'hard to develop' part is certainly incorrect. It develops fine like any other film. Development times tend to be on the longer side, but this is common for higher-speed films, so nothing special there.Someone told me to stay away from Foma 400 because it's hard to develop, is low quality, and has huge horrible grain.
Do you know of any place where I can get a smaller amount more cheaply?
Yeah. I keep seeing people expressing strong opinions about which film is dull or muddy or contrasty, but when I look photos with those films, they all look fine to me, and honestly I mostly can't tell them apart. I can see grain, but that's it, and right now I don't have strong feelings about grain either way.
Fact: a group of experienced film photographers can view a large, random body of images and not correctly guess the film that was used 95% of the time. Unless you’re viewing a photograph that has very distinctive properties (such as Kodak HIE), by the time the photographer has finished processing the image for presentation - be it a print or a digital image online - it’s not going to be possible to reliably identify the film used.
So, you’ve come to a sensible conclusion on your own. Yes, grain characteristics will tell you something about the film's speed (and negative format) but that won’t be a reliable indicator of film type. Most films can be used to make pretty much any kind of image the photographer wants. Some films are better adapted to making certain kinds of images. For example, people often choose Neopan Acros for night photography because it has very good reciprocity characteristics. The bottom line is that modern films are all - for the most part - excellent materials to work with and in the hands of someone who knows how to handle them, they will deliver excellent images. So choose a film that works for the way you want to work and learn its characteristics and handling requirements: expose lots of film, spend some time doing tests (over and underexposure, increase/decrease development times, etc).
As an aside - speaking of over/underexposure, I recently took a closer look at Tri-X and bracketed a roll of it (120 format) with the maximum overexposure going all the way up to 2.5 stops OVER box speed. This is the finished image from the negative that received 2.5 stops exposure over box speed, and this is the image from the negative that was rated at my normal exposure rating of 200 ASA. The 2.5 over negative was quite dense, but I had no trouble making a good image from it. I wasn't exactly surprised, but this was a good reminder that modern films are far more capable and flexible than they were 50+ years ago.
If I were to make a reasonable recommendation for you, I’d say: try any film you want to try, avoid playing around with esoteric developers and development techniques, stick to basics first and make observations about your results (take notes!) and once you feel you understand the essential traits of any given film, go ahead and poke around the outer edges of what’s possible. I also recommend getting a copy of Henry Horenstein’s “Beyond Basic Photography” - it’s a rich, well written manual for those who want more out of their B&W film work and are eager to explore film media. Copies can be had on fleabay for about five bucks, shipping included. (Used, of course)
And since you’re clearly interested in the chemistry of film/darkroom processes, “The Film Developing Cookbook” by Troop and Anchell is an excellent book to have. It is written in a style that is accessible to both novices and seasoned pros, and is a fantastic manual to teach yourself all about film chemistry.
About sourcing darkroom chemistry: you can buy very small amounts of chemicals from places like Formulary, but it’s a false economy - 100 grams of Metol isn’t that much, and having it on hand will enable you to make up a few simple developers at home. I’d recommend buying what you need to make D-76 and maybe Mytol (home brew Xtol. Recipe #2 is generally accepted as "the right one", but none of the three referenced on that page is "wrong") so that you’ll have good reason to have multiple chemicals on hand. 10 grams of Metol from a supplier isn’t going to be that much cheaper than 100 grams from ArtCraft once you add a pound of sodium sulfite, and maybe some phenidone, etc.
Yeah. I keep seeing people expressing strong opinions about which film is dull or muddy or contrasty, but when I look photos with those films, they all look fine to me, and honestly I mostly can't tell them apart. I can see grain, but that's it, and right now I don't have strong feelings about grain either way.
I shot just about every 35mm film on the Market. TriX, HP5, GAF 500, Foma 500, Fuji, ect ect, in the end once developed printed then turned into a half tone, dont think anyone could what the film was.
Hmmm... Part of me is telling me I should stop collecting developers, but I do enjoy playing chemist. Besides, if I use D23 for Foma 400 from the beginning and stick to that, there's no harm.
I already have sodium sulfite and a good chemistry kit. The smallest amount of Metol I can find is 100g from ArtCraft chemicals for $28 with shipping. Do you know of any place where I can get a smaller amount more cheaply?
Paul, I wonder what the range of answers/reactions to the above will be?
pentaxuser
The 'hard to develop' part is certainly incorrect. It develops fine like any other film. Development times tend to be on the longer side, but this is common for higher-speed films, so nothing special there.
'Huge horrible grain' is a bit of a subjective issue; I wouldn't call Foma 400's grain 'huge'. It's significantly present, which, again, is not really that odd for a high-speed film. There are certainly finer-grained 400-speed films out there, if this is important. But Foma 400's grain can be acceptable or even desirable depending on what you're after.
Concerning the 'low quality', there are two things that come to mind with this particular film. Firstly, the effective film speed. Most people who have used this film tend to agree (and the datasheet also supports it) that its real ISO speed, depending on the developer used, is between 160 and 250 or so. Roughly of what's stated on the box. Will you get an image if you rate it at 400? Sure. But shadow detail will be partly lacking. For some people this is perfectly acceptable.
Another side to the 'low quality' may refer to the rare/occasional defects that can occur on this film. Personally, I've seen image defects on Fomapan 400 in 35mm format that cannot be explained other than as being manufacturing defects. For me, the risk of running into these defects, combined with other characteristics of the product, were reason to move away from using it. However, plenty of people have used Fomapan 400 in several formats and to their satisfaction. So the whole 'low quality' issue is kind of relative to begin with. What may play a role here is that the quality issues of Fomapan 200 in 120 roll film format (that specific combination) reflect on the Foma brand altogether, resulting in people also associating Foma's other products with 'low quality'. However, it turns out that the Foma 200-120 emulsion issue is very specifically that particular combination, only.
As often, reality is more nuanced and I would suggest taking subjective qualifications with a grain of salt.
PS: Several years ago I spent a few days in Lisbon. This is one of my favorite photos from the trip - it was shot on Fomapan 400, 35mm:
.i only wish i could see it in print rather than online.
Crazier is trying to figure out which of them went wrong when something does go wrong.It's crazy that you have seven knobs you can turn that all control one variable (the slope of the D vs exposure curve).
So, you’ve come to a sensible conclusion on your own.
So choose a film that works for the way you want to work and learn its characteristics and handling requirements: expose lots of film, spend some time doing tests (over and underexposure, increase/decrease development times, etc).
As an aside - speaking of over/underexposure, I recently took a closer look at Tri-X and bracketed a roll of it (120 format) with the maximum overexposure going all the way up to 2.5 stops OVER box speed. This is the finished image from the negative that received 2.5 stops exposure over box speed, and this is the image from the negative that was rated at my normal exposure rating of 200 ASA. The 2.5 over negative was quite dense, but I had no trouble making a good image from it. I wasn't exactly surprised, but this was a good reminder that modern films are far more capable and flexible than they were 50+ years ago.
If I were to make a reasonable recommendation for you, I’d say: try any film you want to try, avoid playing around with esoteric developers and development techniques, stick to basics first and make observations about your results (take notes!) and once you feel you understand the essential traits of any given film, go ahead and poke around the outer edges of what’s possible.
About sourcing darkroom chemistry: you can buy very small amounts of chemicals from places like Formulary, but it’s a false economy - 100 grams of Metol isn’t that much, and having it on hand will enable you to make up a few simple developers at home.
I’d recommend buying what you need to make D-76 and maybe Mytol (home brew Xtol. Recipe #2 is generally accepted as "the right one", but none of the three referenced on that page is "wrong") so that you’ll have good reason to have multiple chemicals on hand. 10 grams of Metol from a supplier isn’t going to be that much cheaper than 100 grams from ArtCraft once you add a pound of sodium sulfite, and maybe some phenidone, etc.
EDIT: While I have you here. The Massive Dev Chart has two recommendations for Fomapan 400 with D-23. Do you recommend one of them over the other? Also, am I supposed to use D-23 "one shot" or am I supposed to reuse it?
Fixed it for you.
Although the Moderator in me kind of like the reference to an "acceptance" type developer
OnlineAre looking you on line or optically printed?
Once scanned and processed in LR or other possessing software with AI to help just about film can be moderated, smooth out the gain, increase or decreased contrast. With an optically printed differences between is more apparent.
Dcy,
Since you are interested in different developers and live in the light of the "Land of Enchantment," i'd suggest getting a copy of Gordon Hutchings "Book of Pyro" from the library. Both PMK & Pyrocat HD have a real ease with highlight separation....just saying....
View attachment 399332
Online
I've never actually seen a real-world optical print except for my own beginner attempts.
That makes sense. I'm also sure that as I gain experience the differences will start to become more apparent. There is a YouTube channel --- "The Naked Photographer" --- where the guy does a comprehensive comparison of every B&W film he was able to buy, comparing an identical scene + identical camera settings, and then he compares every film to Tri-X. In that controlled setting the differences between films really stand out. Even then, half of the time I feel that both photos look pretty good. One exception is Fomapan 100, which turns out really contrasty. Even then, you have to account for the fact that he shot & developed each film according to the manufacturer's instructions. Perhaps if he had overexposed-and-pulled Fomapan 100 the result might have looked better.
You mentioned PCTEA and chemicals, so perhaps you have some phenidone and ascorbic acid on hand?
they can also be used to mix some soft developer.
There are two reference points. First is Gainer's original PCTEA formula: 40g TEA, then (3.6g ascorbic acid and 0.2g phenidone), diluted to 1L(1:25). The second is Martin Levy's POTA formula: 30g anhydrous sodium sulfite, 1.5g phenidone, diluted to 1L.
PCTEA is a relatively "ordinary" formula, similar to standard developers like D76, while POTA is a very low-contrast developer that requires long development times (and degrades quickly, intended for one-time use).
Reducing the proportion of phenidone in PCTEA will enhance contrast (for example, 4.5g ascorbic acid and 0.125g phenidone), while increasing the proportion of phenidone (20~30g sodium sulfite, 1g ascorbic acid and 1g phenidone/0.5g ascorbic acid and 1g phenidone/0.4g ascorbic acid and 1.6g phenidone) will reduce contrast, making its characteristics closer to phenidone-only POTA. Michael R has some experiments on this, and I recently tested a few based on his results.
Comparing the same scene developed with standard D76, PCTEA, and modified formulas can reveal the differences among them.
D, Are you anywhere near Santa Fe....?
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?