Foma 400 Results, XTOL Pentax MX vs. Rodinal Pen FT

I've got two other threads DISCUSSING Foma 400, so I thought I'd amalgamate content and show you what I came up with. My overall comment is that this is a very, very fine film, and I wouldn't hesitate using it BUT . . . . I'm disappointed that I could not get MORE grain. Films these days, guys, are pretty good. I'm going to have to go to push processing and Dektol to get what I want, I think. Putting that aside for now, let's see what I came up with.


Here's the scenario:

1) I shot two rolls, one on an Olympus Pen FT, 70mm f2 Zuiko lens, and it this roll was developed in Rodinal at 1:50, 12.5 minutes, 20 degrees,

2) the other was shot on a Pentax MX, 50mm Pentax-M Macro, XTol Stock, as per manufacturer's directions at 7.5 minutes at 20 degrees

Both of these lenses are amongst the sharpest I have, and have both have produced outstanding results. The differences in the pictures to follow, to my mind, are in the develpers. Both films were developed at BOX speed, ASA 400, not overexposed as most people seem to do.

3) These are scanned 5x7 prints, and the post processing was done EXACTLY the same on each print. The 5x7 was scanned at 3400 dpi.

4) The scanned prints were subject only to minor curves adjustments, spotting, and then EXACTLY the same amount of unsharp mask (25 units), and no other individual compensation or "correcting." In other words, I did not try to optimize each print individually but treated them as close to the same as I could. Including framing and matting procedures. Not completely perfect and scientific, but as close as I could to the same so I could see what I was after visibly.

5) The 5x7 prints themselves were all made on Arista Glossy Grade 3, and processed identically in Dektol. I like this paper for scanning because it is bright, produces great detail in the highlight and mid-tone areas, but has a rather low Dmax so I can use curves to balance minor differences in balancing the blacks, to match the rest of the picture, without affecting overall balance and integrity.

Remember, the half-frame negatives are HALF the size, too. To my eye and taste, they are better, period. Developers make a HUGE difference.


First up, some industrial scenes. I love photographing industrial areas: they are the life blood of a community, well policed (I often get thrown off or out of the areas; adds some excitement), and they usually contain a lot of fine detail that shows off film characteristics well.

Shot #1: Refinery in Prince George, Olympus Pen FT, 70mm Zuiko f2 lens, 1/30th at f8 (overcast, raining, lousy lighting)




Shot #2: Mill site in Prince George, Pentax MX, 50mm f4 Pentax-M macro, (same day, same exposure exactly)




Even on the 5x7 print, the half-frame shot appears sharper and more defined, just clearer. I have enough shots, and took enough shots that day with each, to know that the results are from the developer, NOT from the lenses or exposures. The others I have (which I will post) were also shot under identical conditions, and the results were the same.

Foma 400 full-frame negatives developed in XTOL as per manufacturer's directions AND TO MY TASTE are, overall, inferior to half-frame negatives done in Rodinal 1:50. They are mushy. Nice tonal scale, luminous negs, but they have a lack of sharpness in low lighting conditions I don't really care for.

It is said that Foma doesn't recommend Rodinal; not precisely true. They recommend their own R09 which is the same thing.

In any case, from this point on, Xtol is out for this film for this guy.

Have at 'er, guys.

By the way, here is one more shot with the Xtol/MX combo. Posted it because I rather like it. Same mushy D76 stock quality, though . . . . D:76 needs to be diluted for most purposes IMHO




Thanks for looking in. I'll post some outdoor landscapes and arty-crafty bs with the same hardware/software within this post as I get them done.

That's exactly what I'm doing.

Unfortunately, it's the busy time of the year for me so it'll take a while.

I use both Xtol and original Rodinal; I don't see those kinds of differences. Something else is going on here although it doesn't seem to be a focus error as the entire image looks soft; perhaps a focus plane error (dirty rails/pressure plate problem). Looks almost like a soft focus filter on the MX. Dirty lens/filter? I had very similar results with a filter on my Contax that had some kind of film on it.

When I had a brief run with Xtol I found that I was much happier with the sharpness of 1:2 or even 1:3 dilution. Of course I found the same for Perceptol and ID-11. I never use any of those developers "straight" and they are always diluted. Just me of course and I never messed with Foma 400 so can't say. John W

The data sheet speed is not 400...
I get nice grain full frame Rodinal 1+100 20C 60 mins stand even at 5x7.
Try looking at the negatives with a loope, or use a grain focus aid
Use a heavier tripod /5,6-8
Rodinal 1+25
Or a cassette of Kentmere 400 - that is less grainy or has a different grain signature
ps like the pictures

Fred Aspen said:

I use both Xtol and original Rodinal; I don't see those kinds of differences. Something else is going on here although it doesn't seem to be a focus error as the entire image looks soft; perhaps a focus plane error (dirty rails/pressure plate problem). Looks almost like a soft focus filter on the MX. Dirty lens/filter? I had very similar results with a filter on my Contax that had some kind of film on it.

Click to expand...

I agree, something is really off with your Xtol shots - camera, lens, process, a combination. But those are not normal results for the developer. Does the development density look similar by eye to the Rodinal? The look under developed, but impossible to tell without seeing the negs. And that still doesn't account for the sharpness. I agree with 1:1 or 1:2 for Xtol unless replenishing.

It is very hard to make definitive, reliable, tests and comparisons, and all too easy to draw inaccurate conclusions from them.

Still, nothing wrong with Rodinal for your purpose. If grain is what you want, then Rodinal will definitely suit you better than Xtol.

Fred Aspen said:

I use both Xtol and original Rodinal; I don't see those kinds of differences. Something else is going on here although it doesn't seem to be a focus error as the entire image looks soft; perhaps a focus plane error (dirty rails/pressure plate problem). Looks almost like a soft focus filter on the MX. Dirty lens/filter? I had very similar results with a filter on my Contax that had some kind of film on it.

Click to expand...

I agree . . . I don't think there should be this kind of difference. But there is nothing wrong with the camera, no soft filter . . . I shot one other roll with it after (tri x) and developed it in the same solution. Tack sharp.

And you're right. The entire image looks soft. But how about this one?? Same roll, same lens, same everything . . . . and there are no flies on this one. I'm beginning to get a bit puzzled here.




There are a number of others on the roll that are good, as well. About the only thing I can figure with the other shots is that it was raining fairly hard, or perhaps I moved the camera slightly . . . the shutter speeds were fairly slow. But what I'm seeing doesn't match my experience with EXTOL.


A PS: I mixed the XTOL and poured it into a brown bottle immediately. It was an old 1 Litre package. I poured it out to look at it and there was about a tablespoon of undisolved material in the bottom - I think that's the problem. But there are those good shots . .

I guess it's back to the drawing board. But some success - Foma 400 is a very nice film.

Xmas said:

The data sheet speed is not 400...
I get nice grain full frame Rodinal 1+100 20C 60 mins stand even at 5x7.
Try looking at the negatives with a loope, or use a grain focus aid
Use a heavier tripod /5,6-8
Rodinal 1+25
Or a cassette of Kentmere 400 - that is less grainy or has a different grain signature
ps like the pictures

Click to expand...

Thanks! You've given me a lot of help on this forum!

moltogordo said:

Thanks! You've given me a lot of help on this forum!

Click to expand...

Yeap!
I use Fomapan 400 as well, but I'm worst than Vivian Mayer: I haven't developed any, yet!
Your pictures are nice!

Thanks, Ricardo! While I'm at it, I'll put up the rest of the highlight shots from the test. Just did this one and am just going to crash, so I'll post the others tomorrow. But I did this one because I think it's my favorite, and I got the "look" I was after. Olympus Pen FT, 70mm f2.0 Zuiko lens, 1/125th at f5.6. A swamp freezing up near Vanderhoof, BC

That is very nice. High contrast.
Talking of Olympus Pen cameras, I have an EE that is in need of a good repair: shutter is sticking.

Alessandro Serrao said:

Those pbase pics look soft probably because they are scanned with a flatbed machine. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

You are correct. Flatbets like the Epson V750 give about 2300dpi at best, which is pretty poor compared to what is in the film. Also, the lack of resolution will bring up the problem of grain aliasing: those scans will not reveal the real grain structure on the film.

Apart from that, i'm very happy to see tests of Foma 400. Nice film.

Alessandro Serrao said:

So judging if a developer is better than another one by comparing scans of prints done via a flatbed is a nonsense to me.

Click to expand...

A bit of assumption in the last few posts.

I judged the developer, sharpness and grain by looking at the prints, not only the 5x7's I scanned, but some 8x10s I also developed.

I scanned this with an Epson Perfection 3200 Photo, which resolves up to dpi 12,800. It was marketed as a photo scanner. It's resolution far outstrips any computer screen I'm aware of, although correct me if I'm wrong.

What you see here was for posting only. I doubt one can judge grain on any computer screen, actually. It can only indicate things in the general sense, as most resolve only to about 1.5 mp. Again, correct me if I'm wrong. The final arbitrar is going to be an actual print. Scanning and posting any negative or print no matter the dpi will not reveal completely on a computer screen what is actually present.

The actual neg/print must be examined with a lupe under magnification.

But I think what I posted gives a general indication of my problem. Every photo I posted was subject to the same post-processing and scanning procedures. Some negs are sharp, some are not. On the same roll. So obviously I'm at fault in some manner in my picture taking.

I'm thinking that a couple of the shots, taken from the car, must have had motor vibration problems (some of the industrial shots - I've been kicked off those sites too often for them not to notice me )

My final sense, from viewing the prints, is that Foma 400 is a really nice film and I'll use it again, but I want access to a heavier grain pattern than I got from these two rolls. I'm going to give Dektol 1:4 a try, and have also ordered some Kentmere 400 to give it a whirl.

But believe me, I judge these things from my darkroom work, not from scans.

moltogordo said:

I scanned this with an Epson Perfection 3200 Photo, which resolves up to dpi 12,800. It was marketed as a photo scanner. It's resolution far outstrips any computer screen I'm aware of, although correct me if I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

That's what i mean. Again, you are doing good by looking at the optical prints for judgement. And I agree with your assesment of Foma 400, i like the film.

But the Epson 3200 does not resolve 12800dpi. 12800 is what the maker claims, but it's not reality.

Reality is that such epson flatbeds do not resolve further than 2400dpi, and that figure is for the latest model (V750) using careful height adjustment, etc.

Here, a quick image found on the net comparing a scan from the Epson 3200 @ "6400" dpi versus a Nikon dedicated scanner set at "4000" dpi.



So that's my point -- whenever you use such a scanner, keep in mind that it is discarding a lot of information and potentially introducing the grain aliasing problem.

Okay, that's good to know. But I'm not going to rush out to by a Nikon film scanner. Your post above also indicates that the general differences in sharpness between the shots I posted can be illustrated by my scanned prints, as the differences between the flatbed and Nikon scanners can be indicated by whatever process was used for the comparison you showed above. I certainly don't judge those things for keeps without the prints, negs, and a loupe in my hot little hands. I'd like to do the same with a negative scanned with both units above, with a loupe, but I can't. So I accept what you show above via the low res computer screen I have.

I got back into film and paper because I simply don't like the look of "scanned anything" - there is a quality of a true silver print made in the darkroom on quality paper, that neither digital black and white conversions, or scans of either prints or film, can match on a computer screen.

Color is another matter. Save for Cibachrome, I found digital color processes of today to beat the pants of those of the days of yore, at least for the amateur enthusiast who can't afford a home lab. No chemical mess, no temperature control, and nice results in a framed print hanging on the wall.

Not to negate the color digital shots enhanced by the luminance of a computer screen. I like that. But in B&W, I'll take a silver rich paper any day. And I would think that all of us would agree with the convenience of archiving all kinds of old prints and family papers and heirlooms via a flatbed scanner. Low res screen or not, it sure beats boxes of prints and such in disarray. At least to me.

I normally only use two developers for Foma400

Microphen (or ID68) stock for 0.6 gamma
Rodinal 1+100 60 mins stand

Looking at the negatives with loope or grain focusing aids not much difference.