Foma films in Tanol

[removedacct2]

I wanted to see if Tanol makes a difference on Foma films. Wolfgang Mörsch provides no data for these films, so I extrapolated some possible times, and tried Fomapan-100 with 16 mn @20C, regular agitation (30s then 2 inversions every minute) and it gave results similars to Fomadon Excel.

But in order to compare I am now shooting in double, one negative processed in Excel for 6mn, the other in Tanol 16mn. These are 4x5, scanned at 2400dpi on Epson V700, inverted with ColorPerfect, Fomadon Excel on the left, Tanol on the right:

comparison is of course also complicated by the fact that optimal time in Excel is not easy to set, 5 or 6 mn...

a 200% Excel/Tanol detail of the 1st image:

a 50% part of the 2nd image:

then for Retropan-320 I shot in triple, one picture for reference in Retrodev, another in Tanol 15mn, another in Tanol for 18mn, need to bracket in order to find out, yet 15mn or 18mn didn't make much difference...

Retrodev vs Tanol 15mn:

Retrodev and Tanol for 18mn. Retrodev was freshly mixed and times given by Foma are 4-5 mn, I went to 5mn and maybe it was a little bit longer than optimal... Very sunny late evening, snow smelted couple days ago so the grass there is brownish/yellowish.

in fact I am not sure which one was 15mn in Tanol, which 18mn: I developed both in the same tank, took out in the dark one after 15mn and dumped it in a stop bath, while the remaining in the tank was left until 18mn. After the stop bath I dumped the negatives each in a different tray for fixing, and that's when I am not sure I mixed the labels taped on the side of the trays...

so side by side, one was 15mn in Tanol, the other 18mn and I'd say the 18mn is on the right...

100% of the crane area, Excel vs Tanol-18mn:

Fomapan-100 and Retropan-320 are stained brownish, Tanol on the left:

well hard to tell how much, if possible can be gained in this case, with Tanol, but at least I have some reference for playing further. Foma in 4x5 is cheap, so can afford to waste some film.

 

[koraks]

scanned at 2400dpi on Epson V700

That won't allow you to see the difference in grain structure between the developers for this film. You'd need at least 3200dpi from a less fuzzy scanner (I.e. a dedicated film scanner, not a flatbed).

 

[albireo]

That won't allow you to see the difference in grain structure between the developers for this film. You'd need at least 3200dpi from a less fuzzy scanner (I.e. a dedicated film scanner, not a flatbed).

Not sure what you mean. Even a cheaper flatbed scanner like a V550 resolves the grain of 120 foma film (6x6 to 6x9 in my experience - not 6x4.5) if used correctly (film sits on optimal plane). Based on this the grain will be resolved in the 4x5 tests above.

OP, thanks for these very interesting comparisons - I've been mulling over this and had been considering testing staining developers to see if there's any improvement over my foma chemistry-based workflows. Based on your results I will stick to Excel and Fomadon P.

One minor question: do you think that the choice between grayscale vs RGB scanning will influence the impact of the stain on the scan? May I ask if you

1. scanned in grayscale, and if so which channel did you choose
2. scanned in RGB and what was your procedure to turn into a grayscale image.

 

[relistan]

What I'm noticing here, to my eye, is that Tanol contrast is lower and shadow detail is a little better, so achieving a slight speed bump?

 

[koraks]

Even a cheaper flatbed scanner like a V550 resolves the grain of 120 foma film (6x6 to 6x9 in my experience - not 6x4.5) if used correctly (film sits on optimal plane).

Not in this case, that's for sure.

 

[Lachlan Young]

That won't allow you to see the difference in grain structure between the developers for this film. You'd need at least 3200dpi from a less fuzzy scanner (I.e. a dedicated film scanner, not a flatbed).

Very much agree - it's a good demonstration of how badly the Epson mushes visible granularity though. Most consumer grade 'film scanners' aren't terribly good either at this sort of thing - a well set up DSLR/ mirrorless isn't a bad starting point. Mind you, once you get above a suitable qualitative threshold, you can also see that staining developers aren't worth the potential toxicity.

 

[pentaxuser]

What I'm noticing here, to my eye, is that Tanol contrast is lower and shadow detail is a little better, so achieving a slight speed bump?

Me too and in all cases I prefer to Tanol shot but am I seeing what is accounted for by the difference in the two negatives and even if I am is it the kind of difference that could be corrected by an alteration in print grade or by alteration in development time?

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Very much agree - it's a good demonstration of how badly the Epson mushes visible granularity though. Most consumer grade 'film scanners' aren't terribly good either at this sort of thing - a well set up DSLR/ mirrorless isn't a bad starting point. Mind you, once you get above a suitable qualitative threshold, you can also see that staining developers aren't worth the potential toxicity.

It's quite nice that a tanned negative can be printed on silver gel papers, alt. processes, and also scans very well.

 

[relistan]

It's quite nice that a tanned negative can be printed on silver gel papers, alt. processes, and also scans very well.

It does look really nice. Not massively nicer than the Excel, but definitely noticeable.

Me too and in all cases I prefer to Tanol shot but am I seeing what is accounted for by the difference in the two negatives and even if I am is it the kind of difference that could be corrected by an alteration in print grade or by alteration in development time?

pentaxuser

Possibly, but there seems to be a little tiny bit better gradation to my eye.

 

[Lachlan Young]

It's quite nice that a tanned negative can be printed on silver gel papers, alt. processes, and also scans very well.

I think the notional duality of use between silver & UV processes is the one aspect where staining developers may have some advantages - but I also recall that Sandy King was suggesting that even so, it might not be as universally applicable as initially was claimed - ie you still need a longer/ stronger development for UV sensitive processes. I do recall at least one rather disappointed individual who discovered that when run on a high end scanner, dilute Perceptol was at least as sharp as Pyrocat.

 

[removedacct2]

a cheaper flatbed scanner like a V550 resolves the grain of 120 foma film (6x6 to 6x9 in my experience - not 6x4.5) if used correctly (film sits on optimal plane).

my experience too, and in the case of Retropan-320, sharp grain in sky is the sign that scanning was sharp ... (if grain "melts", scanner is out of focus, in case of Retropan).
Anyway I know of no 4x5 dedicated desktop scanners excepted the Hasselblad/Imacon and they are not for my wallet...

I've been mulling over this and had been considering testing staining developers to see if there's any improvement over my foma chemistry-based workflows. Based on your results I will stick to Excel and Fomadon P.

by now my feeling too. Probably the reason they aren't listed by Wolfgang Mörsch. I was lucky I guess that I found developing time ~16' that seems to be adequate, but I guess I will play a bit more with this. Yet it seems staining doesn't improve sharpness in this case, only of interested maybe on the contrast ...

One minor question: do you think that the choice between grayscale vs RGB scanning will influence the impact of the stain on the scan? May I ask if you
1. scanned in grayscale, and if so which channel did you choose
2. scanned in RGB and what was your procedure to turn into a grayscale image.

I use Vuescan, image acquisition in 48bit RGB but save as 16bit Gray, so I just let Vuescan inner routine do the color space conversion.

What I'm noticing here, to my eye, is that Tanol contrast is lower and shadow detail is a little better, so achieving a slight speed bump?

yes i see too a bit better shadow details on the Tanol ones. But also the Foma devs ones were a bit overdeveloped I think, Foma gives times with 1' variation, and 5' or 6' with fresh developer, depending the exposure used, can make quite a difference. In fact when I opened the negative in ColorPerfect for inversion, I had to pick an emulation of 00 grade paper in order to have a usable positive without post-processing, and I did use the same grade emulation for the Tanol negative, for comparison (CP has a setting providing full grades emulation by half-steps).

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

yes i see too a bit better shadow details on the Tanol ones.

There's a variant of Tanol called Tanol Speed which gives small speed boost over Tanol and Finol. It's discussed here.

 

[FotoD]

Even a cheaper flatbed scanner like a V550 resolves the grain of 120 foma film (6x6 to 6x9 in my experience - not 6x4.5) if used correctly (film sits on optimal plane).

With the risk of jeopardizing the delicate truce in the Scanner Wars; that is certainly not my experience.

But I think the test is interesting, thanks for posting it.

I would like to ask the experienced tanners if the dual use works in practice? If you develop a negative in a tanning developer for a CI of 0.5, to be used in silver printing, does it work equally well for a platinum print under UV light, which would like a CI of 0.8? Or even a salt print that could use a CI of 1.0?

 

[koraks]

Or even a salt print that could use a CI of 1.0?

Certainly not in my experience. The dual purpose feature is somewhat limited in its actual usefulness. It ain't no magic bullet.

 

[removedacct2]

That won't allow you to see the difference in grain structure between the developers for this film. You'd need at least 3200dpi from a less fuzzy scanner (I.e. a dedicated film scanner, not a flatbed).

ok, so in other to inspect this closer, I have a Reflecta Proscan 10T I use for 35mm scans. It's marketed 10.000dpi but it's double extrapolation of its actual resolution which is measured by ScanDig GmbH/Patrick Wagner as ~4100 if I recall well with a Dmax in the ~4.
I took the first shot on this post, the whitish gable wall with an uneven cement coating and "om; arbeidermuseet" on it, backgroung some brick buildings, I cut a strip 35mm wide on each 4x5 negative and scan that in the Proscan set at 5000 dpi multiexposures multipasses.

Excel left, Tanol right. For these in ColorPerfect I used the default emulated paper grade 2:

here i had to use the lowest paper grade 00. I think I metered on the wall, because I recall I was interested how the structure ot the coating could render, but for this test I had better metered for the darker brick buildings background...

100% of of chunk of the roof, Excel on the left, Tanol on the right, there we see grain difference and more ...

if someone wants to play with the raw negatives in TIF, I have put them in this folder, the two 4x5 are in the ~150mb, the cuts in 24x35 of them in the ~56Mb:

https://disk.yandex.com/d/PkjzOVIcT5ODPA?w=1

 

[removedacct2]

these more detailed scans are for Fomapan-100. I remind that the developing time of 16mn is something I "found" with some rough comparisons and extrapolations, W. Mörsch doesn't list Foma in his instructions.
I will scan closer the Retropan-320, but well just out of curiosity, its unusual tonal distribution together with its grainier structure is part of its personality.

 

[koraks]

, so in other to inspect this closer, I have a Reflecta Proscan 10T I use for 35mm scans

Yes, I think that shows a much clearer picture indeed. Your example also shows IMO that you have to get down to the dirty details in order to really see differences between developers with regards to image structure.