Foma T200

EmilGil · Jul 14, 2007

I understand that EI200 might be a bit optimistic for this film so I thought I'd downrate it a bit, say EI125 or so. Next problem is to choose which developer to use; I got Rodinal, PMK, Diafine and Perceptol available. Looking at the Massive Dev-chart, Foma200 is listed as an EI200 film with Rodinal and Perceptol and as EI250 with PMK (12min 1+2+50 @ 20'C)? I thought Perceptol and PMK were both speed decreasing developers?

So, give me a ballpark figure on what speed you recommend I shoot at and which developer I should use of those mentioned above? Can I trust the Dev-chart numbers for PMK?

TheFlyingCamera · Jul 14, 2007

I use the 200 in Pyrocat at 100. I'd definitely do the same for PMK, which if anything is even more of a speed reducer than Pyrocat.

Roger Hicks · Jul 14, 2007

EmilGil said:
I understand that EI200 might be a bit optimistic for this film so I thought I'd downrate it a bit, say EI125 or so. Next problem is to choose which developer to use; I got Rodinal, PMK, Diafine and Perceptol available. Looking at the Massive Dev-chart, Foma200 is listed as an EI200 film with Rodinal and Perceptol and as EI250 with PMK (12min 1+2+50 @ 20'C)? I thought Perceptol and PMK were both speed decreasing developers?

So, give me a ballpark figure on what speed you recommend I shoot at and which developer I should use of those mentioned above? Can I trust the Dev-chart numbers for PMK?

See Post #2. These are Foma's own numbers...

Silverhead · Jul 16, 2007

I've shot this film in 120 and then lith printed the results. When done with a short exposure time in the darkroom (so as to maximize the image's original detail and not go overboard with the lith effect), the results are beautiful. I got fantastic resolution and sharpness, combined with super deep blacks, and on more than one kind of paper, too. Highly recommended.

juan · Jul 16, 2007

My goodness, this stuff develops like lightning. In my 80F darkroom using constant agitation, Pyrocat PC 1:1:167 gives an SBR 7 negative in three and a half minutes. 1:100 dilution didn't quite make three minutes. It will be interesting to see how real negatives turn out rather than just step wedges.
juan

TheFlyingCamera · Jul 16, 2007

Juan-

that 80F would have something to do with it I normally do mine in 1:1:100 Pyrocat HD, continuous agitation, at 75F, and I get 12 mins for a good Pt/Pd neg (knock it back to 10 for a silver neg). Try cooling it down a bit if you can to tame that speed.

juan · Jul 16, 2007

Unfortunately my water pipes go through my roof, so it comes out at a minimum of 80. The Efke film I have been using can't handle going from cool developer and fix into the warmer wash water, but maybe the Foma can. Tri-X had no trouble with temperature variations. I'll know more when I make some real negatives. Ha.
juan

TheFlyingCamera · Jul 16, 2007

The Foma seems to be pretty durable stuff from my experience. I'd give it a try with one of your step-wedges to see how it handles the warm wash, but if it can handle the warm dev, I'd think it would be ok.

k_jupiter · Jul 16, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
From Foma's own data sheets it's only ISO 200 (and actually not quite that) in speed-increasing developers. Its speed in almost all developers is very, very similar to Ilford FP4, but development times are mostly a good deal shorter because it's loaded with development accelerators.

It's grainier than FP4 plus, and not as sharp, but tonally it's gorgeous in the right dev: my favourite is FX39 but it doesn't keep well.

There's a gallery of Fomapan 200 pics of the Sittingbourne barge museum at www.rogerandfrances.com , but one of them's missing -- time to contact the web-master. Some of the pics in the Zeiss Ikon Spain gallery were shot on Fomapan 200 too, including the Baronchely Records pic.

Cheers,

Roger

Yup, the one with the cross for an achor.

That film looks like it's crying out for WD2D+. While the tonals are beautiful, it looks like it needs something on the bottom end. Perhaps it's just my monitor.

Nice work Roger.

tim in san jose

k_jupiter · Jul 16, 2007

TheFlyingCamera said:
The Foma seems to be pretty durable stuff from my experience. I'd give it a try with one of your step-wedges to see how it handles the warm wash, but if it can handle the warm dev, I'd think it would be ok.

I would suggest making up a heat transfer unit using a bucket, a bag of ice and some coiled copper piping. My water here in California is usually about 75F in the summer, I just use ice cubes with distilled water for development and stop. Development at 68F, water stop at 72F, wash at 75F.

tim in san jose

srs5694 · Jul 16, 2007

juan said:
Unfortunately my water pipes go through my roof, so it comes out at a minimum of 80. The Efke film I have been using can't handle going from cool developer and fix into the warmer wash water, but maybe the Foma can.

You could try using a series of temperatures -- say, 68F for developer, 72F for stop bath, 76F for fixer, and 80F for washing. That'll minimize problems with temperature shifts. It shouldn't be too tricky to get solutions at close to the target temperatures by mixing cool (from a refrigerator) and warm (room temperature) water or solutions.

JHannon · Aug 2, 2007

What does this "T"200 designation mean? I have rolls of Fomapan 200 Creative in 120 and there is nothing on the box about "T"200. I also checked Foma's web page and can find no "T" designation anywhere.

Am I am missing something easy?

Thanks,
John

Roger Hicks · Aug 2, 2007

k_jupiter said:
Yup, the one with the cross for an achor.

That film looks like it's crying out for WD2D+. While the tonals are beautiful, it looks like it needs something on the bottom end. Perhaps it's just my monitor.

Nice work Roger.

tim in san jose

Thanks Tim. Probably just scanning/monitor. There is plenty in the shadows in the print.

Roger Hicks · Aug 2, 2007

JHannon said:
Am I am missing something easy?

Probably not. When I look at the electron micrographs I see a very, very good double-jetted emulsion that does not however qualify for 'tabular'. But this is (a) a matter of opinion and (b) a question of Kodak litigation. One might say 'T' for some markets and 'not-T' for others.

JHannon · Aug 2, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
Probably not. When I look at the electron micrographs I see a very, very good double-jetted emulsion that does not however qualify for 'tabular'. But this is (a) a matter of opinion and (b) a question of Kodak litigation. One might say 'T' for some markets and 'not-T' for others.

Thanks Roger.

I am starting to test this and I see a T200 and 200 creative mentioned. I did not want to get things confused. I looked a bit further back in the APUG archives and I guess thay did a name change a while back and it is indicated that it is the same stuff.

I am going to try Rodinal 1+50 since it is on hand and I have a lot of it.

--John

Fotohuis · Aug 2, 2007

Foma had to change the name of their film under Kodak pressure a few years ago. T200 was too close to Tmax and to prevent any int. claims by Kodak they renamed their films:
Fomapan creative 200 is the new name for this T200 film.

srs5694 · Aug 2, 2007

FWIW, I'm pretty sure that I've processed some film that was sold in boxes that say "Fomapan Creative 200" (not "T200"), but the film that came out of the tank had "T200" edge markings on it. I bought a bulk roll a while ago that's got "T200" on the label, but no edge markings whatsoever. I concur with others who've said it's a matter of what's printed on the label, and that "Creative 200" and "T200" are just two names for the same film.

Foma T200

EmilGil

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Roger Hicks

Silverhead

juan

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

juan

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

k_jupiter

k_jupiter

srs5694

JHannon

Roger Hicks

Roger Hicks

JHannon

Fotohuis

srs5694

Foma T200

Membership Council

Membership Council

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency