Foma Fomapan 400 H+D Curve with Replenished XTOL for 8:45 at 24C in a JOBO

[138S]

The toe and shoulder are horrible placed to place important image information.

Yousuf Karsh, for example, used toe extensively to compress shadows in a very controlled way, in a dayly base. This is out of question...

Me, at least, I would not try to teach Yousuf about metering.






______________________

That graph you showed is depicting solarizarion !!!!

TMX won't show solarization even at +10 overexposure, that graph is a nosense in the context we are speaking, man.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I wasn't talking about speed but about halation. That will only get worse if you overexpose.

Wait, halation only gets really bad 10 stops above middle grey? So you didn't show that part of the curve because it got so bad you couldn't measure density that wasn't influenced by highlights bleeding in?
I look forward to the comparison with the other Foma films (which I'm more interested in using). Thanks for sharing the results of all this work!

no, I just haven’t exposed or measured anything above middle grey at box speed. It’s better to figure out the toe speed and dev time before mapping out the highlights since the dev time really affects the highlight density. Given what I’ve seen so far of the other two emulsions, I’m going to hard pressed to give lots of exposure. The maximum light I can go is 2500 watt-seconds, which sounds like a lot, but at lower film speeds, by the time you get it to evenly light a grey card so you can take a picture of it just isn’t a lot of light. I basically have to produce f/64 to f/45 at the grey card at the ISO to map out middle grey up to max density. At iso 160, I barely had enough light to map out the highlights of fomapan 400.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Great post, Mr. Bacon!

I’m presently on a printing spree of about 30 fomapan 400 films that were developed in rodinal (product called Blazinal in Canada).

I must say that I am very surprissd by the beauty of the tones and the grain.
I like my fomapan 400 with a BW 092 filter.

Here is an example, shot of a print soaking in hypo clearing bath


View attachment 248338

nice!

 

[Adrian Bacon]

This has been posted as a resource, please put further discussion there: https://www.photrio.com/forum/resou...plenished-xtol-for-8-45-at-24c-in-a-jobo.427/

 

[albireo]

Thanks OP for taking the time to running this experiment.

I'm not sure what to make of this info. I shoot tens of rolls of Foma 400 every months. It is my main black and white film in medium format. EI is 250-320 (incident exposure via a Sekonic meter) for best results in my setup. EI160 results in massive grain, gross overexposure of zone III shadows and frame bleeding. At 320 in Foma's own Fomadon LQN, and at 250 in Fomadon Excel, this is a wonderful film with tonality that is unparalleled for my taste. Yes: I prefer this to HP5 and Tri-X by a country mile.

Here's a screenshot of Foma's development curves for the two products above, from Foma's datasheet found here
https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-400

A few thoughts for OP which might shed light on the mismatch between their results and Foma's specs, which I agree with based on my experience with this film.

1. format. Did OP test the 35mm variety? Could there possibly be differences in film stock across formats. I only shoot the 120 version. Could OP test the 120 version?
2. Replenishment regime- how does this affect OP's results? Could OP test stock or 1+1.
3. Is OP testing Fomapan 400 or Arista 400. The two are NOT the exact same product.
4. Xtol. I would recommend using Foma's own developers. Fomadon Excel works wonders with Foma 400. Fomadon Excel is said to be a clone of Xtol, though it is not clear which generation of Xtol and if/how were the specs adapted. Was the product adapted somewhat to Foma's film range? Fomadon LQN: other little know product which deserves to be used and give incredibly printable negatives at EI320.
5. Replication of OP's experiments. Foma have been know to be somewhat erratic and show low consistency across batches. How many replicates across batches of the film have been employed by OP for the tests above.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Thanks OP for taking the time to running this experiment.

I'm not sure what to make of this info. I shoot tens of rolls of Foma 400 every months. It is my main black and white film in medium format. EI is 250-320 (incident exposure via a Sekonic meter) for best results in my setup. EI160 results in massive grain, gross overexposure of zone III shadows and frame bleeding. At 320 in Foma's own Fomadon LQN, and at 250 in Fomadon Excel, this is a wonderful film with tonality that is unparalleled for my taste. Yes: I prefer this to HP5 and Tri-X by a country mile.

Here's a screenshot of Foma's development curves for the two products above, from Foma's datasheet found here
https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-400

A few thoughts for OP which might shed light on the mismatch between their results and Foma's specs, which I agree with based on my experience with this film.

1. format. Did OP test the 35mm variety? Could there possibly be differences in film stock across formats. I only shoot the 120 version. Could OP test the 120 version?
2. Replenishment regime- how does this affect OP's results? Could OP test stock or 1+1.
3. Is OP testing Fomapan 400 or Arista 400. The two are NOT the exact same product.
4. Xtol. I would recommend using Foma's own developers. Fomadon Excel works wonders with Foma 400. Fomadon Excel is said to be a clone of Xtol, though it is not clear which generation of Xtol and if/how were the specs adapted. Was the product adapted somewhat to Foma's film range? Fomadon LQN: other little know product which deserves to be used and give incredibly printable negatives at EI320.
5. Replication of OP's experiments. Foma have been know to be somewhat erratic and show low consistency across batches. How many replicates across batches of the film have been employed by OP for the tests above.

I’m aware of their data sheet.

1. 35mm
2. This is specifically for replenished xtol at 24C and continuous agitation. You should not expect the same results with stock or 1+1. I provided this information so that others who use replenished xtol have a guidepost.
3. Yes they are. I’ve tested this extensively. Fomapan 400, Arista.EDU 400, and Holga 400 are the same. Foma does not make 3 different 400 speed emulsions. Arista and Holga are re-badges.
4. For a home user, this is fine. If you’re a lab that has standardized on replenished xtol, not so much.
5. I both sell and shoot Foma film quite extensively. This is not new information that I’ve just discovered.