Developing times for Fomapan 200 @800

[Kresado]

Curious if anyone has any Dev times for Fomapan 200 pushed 2 stops at 800
Massive Dev chart doesn't list anything except for HC110 and Xtol times, both of which I don't have on hand. I only have D76 and Rodinal as of now but I do have a bit of spare metol and other generic chemistry so I could pretty easily brew up any mq developer
Anyone have any experience with pushing this stuff?

 

[koraks]

Go with something like 75-100% more development time than box speed. Shadow detail will of course be rather dissatisfying/absent.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

That film is closer to 100, and it was not designed for pushing.
It doesn't reach a real 200: you can only use a speed enhancing developer, and then get higher contrast than normal extending development, as workers at Foma did.
If Foma200 was decent at 800, nobody would buy good films.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Not sure if it is good idea. Foma 400 is basically 200. @400 it is making any sharp lens as soft . I doubt Foma 200 is any different.

 

[richyd]

Check the thread on www.largeformatphotography.info/forum - in the Image sharing (LF) subject - and under that there is a thread for Fomapan (100/200/400) images. Look in that thread for images by the member: Deardorffuser and you will see some great images by him using Fomapan 200 @800 developed in HC110. Also on that forum look at the past year monthly portrait threads for more examples. He has an instagram profile you could also look at.

 

[Rudeofus]

Not sure if it is good idea. Foma 400 is basically 200. @400 it is making any sharp lens as soft . I doubt Foma 200 is any different.

Fomapan 200 is a T grain type emulsion and therefore a very different animal from Fomapan 100 or Fomapan 400. Their box speed may, of course, be equally optimistic.

 

[NB23]

Go double time for iso 800.

 

[koraks]

Fomapan 200 is a T grain type emulsion

As I understand it's hybrid grain; a mix of t-grain and cubic. Probably due to less controlled process parameters during emulsion making than proper t-grain films. It's still a completely different animal from foma 400 though.

 

[lantau]

The datasheet claims that you can underexpose two stops without change in processing. While this may be optimistic for the high expectation of most members here, I'd still try that first.

I hope you have tested that film at 200 to see if you get good negatives. I don't know to this day why, but one of my first rolls of this film came out with quite thin negatives. They still worked, though. But I'm using it as my main film for 4x5 and have no problems anymore. I'm developing in X-tol at E.I. 160.

The E.I. 160 dev time for D76 is 5 minutes. Maybe you want to increase that a little for more robust negatives and see were it'll get you. Phenidone based developers will be a better choice, though.

 

[koraks]

The datasheet claims that you can underexpose two stops without change in processing. While this may be optimistic for the high expectation of most members here

That's putting it mildly, I'd say. Yes, two stops underexposure may give a printable image especially in high contrast scenes, but I'd at least extend development by 50% or so to get more manageable contrast. Of course sacrificing substantial shadow detail, but that may be acceptable for some. I personally see little benefit in underexposing by 2 stops, developing normally and then expecting usable negatives. We're talking about giving the film 75% less light than it really needs for a good image, assuming that it even reaches box speed in the first place, which it doesn't.

 

[Kresado]

I just got it out the tank after running it in D76 1+4 for 21 minutes and a half. Negatives look near perfect. Not thin but not god awful dense. I'll throw up some scans when I get those done in a few hours.

 

[lantau]

That's putting it mildly, I'd say. Yes, two stops underexposure may give a printable image especially in high contrast scenes, but I'd at least extend development by 50% or so to get more manageable contrast. Of course sacrificing substantial shadow detail, but that may be acceptable for some. I personally see little benefit in underexposing by 2 stops, developing normally and then expecting usable negatives. We're talking about giving the film 75% less light than it really needs for a good image, assuming that it even reaches box speed in the first place, which it doesn't.

Personally I wouldn't do it. I avoid pushing when I can. And then I prefer to use the two P3200 films, which were designed for it. Still, if I'd consider adding Foma 200 to the pushables, I'd do a test like I wrote and see what it'll get me and extend development time from there. The film works great at EI160, as promised in the Xtol graph of the datasheet. I haven't exposed a step wedge, yet. But I'll do that 'real soon now'(tm) and feed it to the densitometer. Then I'll see how good the shadows really are, though in practice I haven't had much reason to complain.

I just got it out the tank after running it in D76 1+4 for 21 minutes and a half. Negatives look near perfect. Not thin but not god awful dense. I'll throw up some scans when I get those done in a few hours.

Perfect. Let us know if you think it recorded all the information you want to have in there.

 

[Agulliver]

Firstly I say ignore anyone who says fomapan is "not good film". Just ignore them. Fomapan is lovely film, though it's strengths do not always match with those of competitors' products - but that's the beauty of having different films available.

Secondly, while my experience with Fomapan 200 is not extensive, I *have* pushed Fomapan 400 to 1600 in 120 format and with success. Based on what I did with Fomapan 400, I would suggest double the development time for box speed with the 200 pushed to 800 and give it a try. Which I see is what you've done....so now when you have time it would be great if you share your results and then perhaps report to the MDC people.

 

[Rudeofus]

Before one declares a film to have some ISO speed or whether that ISO speed actually matches box speed, we have to be clear:

1. which developer do you use? Nope, Rodinal and D-76 will not necessarily exploit a film's full potential, even if they do that with others.
2. What kind of light meter do you use? How old is it? Are you sure it is accurate enough to reliably distinguish between ISO160 and ISO 200?
3. How do you measure light? Do you spot meter? Do you measure standard gray?

I am quite confident, that exposing Fomapan 200 at EI 200 will give acceptable negatives in most circumstances, and I am equally convinced, that some people will get better results if they fine tune their EI.

PS: Films with a long, round toe are certainly better suited for pushing, and for these films pushing will actually give a speed advantage. Fomapan 200 may well have a short, sharp toe, which would make it rather unsuitable for pushing.

 

[koraks]

Secondly, while my experience with Fomapan 200 is not extensive, I *have* pushed Fomapan 400 to 1600 in 120 format and with success.

No doubt.
I also shot a fair bit of Fomapan 400 but never got acceptable results at 400, let alone higher. YMMV.

 

[FotoD]

You can shoot fomapan 200 at EI 6400 and get great results. All you need is a shutter that is six stops too slow...
It's a beautiful film by the way, with nice tonality. It does however want enough light or the shadows will be empty.

 

[Don_ih]

I don't know to this day why, but one of my first rolls of this film came out with quite thin negatives.

I had 5 120 rolls of Foma 200, all from the same batch, and they were virtually dead. Probably dropped to iso25 - and there was no shadow detail. I contacted Foma and they, apparently, examined their sample from that batch (who would have expected that they'd have one?) and said that the emulsion speed had degraded unusually (the film was not expired).

Good Foma likes a bit of overexposure. If anyone's getting good results pushing Foma by 2 stops, he needs a new light meter.

 

[pentaxuser]

As I understand it's hybrid grain; a mix of t-grain and cubic. Probably due to less controlled process parameters during emulsion making than proper t-grain films. It's still a completely different animal from foma 400 though.

That's two references of Fomapan 200 being different and the grain difference is not one that I have heard of. The two references were one from you and one from Rudeofus. In the latter's case he mentions a T grain type and in your case a hybrid mixture of Tgrain and cubic.

Any idea as to how this occurred? Was it deliberate on the part of Foma for this one particular film and in what ways does it differ from, say, 400 and 100? Is the grain noticeably finer, any effect on film speed in comparison to the 400 which by general consensus is not a 400 film except as Richard Gould has said in the likes of Microphen?

If I were to look at a series of prints would the one from the 200 film look different enough that most viewers would be able to pick them out?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

Any idea as to how this occurred? Was it deliberate on the part of Foma

Yes, it was apparently engineered this way. Although I suspect their original intent was to engineer a true tabular grain film to compete with tmax and delta, but decided the emulsion manufacturing process would become too complicated or necessitated too many fundamental changes to their manufacturing plant, so they settled for a sort of in-between emulsion.

 

[lantau]

I just returned from my darkroom. I printed three sheets of Fomapan 200 (4x5). I don't have much experience, because I only started 4x5 a year ago and I installed this 4x5 enlarger only three weeks ago.

The prints on 24x30 cm2 Fomabrom Variant 111 paper look very sharp. Especially on of a detail of a vintage mountain bike. I photographed the chainrings/crank/pedal and surrounding area with an Apo-Ronar 240mm. Very sharp and detailed, very smooth greys. I guess that is why we make the effort to use a view camera.

The shadows held up. Execpt in one print, which I printed too dark. That was an operator error. But I kept it. It has a nice mood like that and I moved on to the next. One thing I noticed with Foma and large format is that grass, especially last years at the end of winter, looks like an interstate median in Oklahoma. I wonder if that is the spectral senstivity. I'll have to make a direct comparism with either HP5 or CHS100-II. But probably next winter.

 

[Kresado]

Pardon the dust. Definitely heavy contrast and quite strong grain. I was definitely surprised by how much detail I could bring back from the shadows although still not very great it definitely surpassed my expectations. I don't think I'll go over 400 with this stuff but it is possible at 800 if you don't need serious negs (then again why would you be shooting Foma for serious work)

 

[FotoD]

Well, that's what underexposed Fomapan 200 looks like.

I like your photo of the fishing man. (Still think it would have improved with adequate exposure)

 

[Rudeofus]

That's two references of Fomapan 200 being different and the grain difference is not one that I have heard of. The two references were one from you and one from Rudeofus. In the latter's case he mentions a T grain type and in your case a hybrid mixture of Tgrain and cubic.

Here is what Foma themselves says:

FOMAPAN 200 Creative is panchromatically sensitized, black and white negative film of the speed ISO 200/24°. It is the film of new generation, making full se of outstanding properties of hexagonal core/shell tabular silver halide grains.

I would ask everyone at this point to give me a similarly authorative source of information regarding mixed cubic and tabular. Core/shell can be, but does not have to be cubic in shape.

PS: Foma does not provide any hint about tabular grains with any other photographic film product in their lineup.

 

[FotoD]

I would ask everyone at this point to give me a similarly authorative source of information regarding mixed cubic and tabular.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotohuisrovo/556599703/

I have no idea how accurate this is.

 

[Autonerd]

Not sure if it is good idea. Foma 400 is basically 200.

Well that explains why the roll of 200 I developed incorrectly came out so well...

Aaron