Fomapan 100 @ ISO 100 in FX-55

[sufnturf]

Hello Photrio community!

First of all I want to say thank you to this greaat community for all the information and discussions I could find in many threads. Reading through many posts brought me back to shooting on film again.
I stopped shooting film when I was around 16 and the first digital cameras got affordable. But I always wanted to start shooting film again, especially B&W.
Now I got back thanks to this forum, John Finch at Youtube and of course my interest in chemistry.
Developing film in Rodinal is one thing. Spice it with ascorbate made it more interesting. From reading Pat Gainers recipes and seeing what FX-55 might offer, I had to try it for myself.

Hence not being an experienced user of analogue equipment and being gifted a wonderful Minox 35GT (with a lightmeter that was underexposing by 2 stops due to a higher battery voltage (which shouldn’t be the case – I learned it the hard way that it was)) I tried to shoot and develop Fomapan 100 @Iso 100.

The thing is:
EI 80 was documented on MDC @ 9 minutes.
I gave it a try @ 13 minutes and ended @ 15 minutes @20°C; Ilford agitation .

I attached some “mugshots” of my negs to my post.
At the moment I do not have the time for wet printing – I scanned the negs with a “gifted” Canoscan 5600F (came without negative holders so I’m still in the process of improvising to get sharp scans out of it). Scans look good from my point of view.
Has anyone some experiences with Fomapan 100 in FX-55? Is my development time to excessive?

Thank you all in advance for your input and feedback

 

[Paul Howell]

From what little I can guess from a scan it does look like you have blocked highlights in a couple of the frames. In other frames, what I assume is a treeline not much in shadow details. But hard to say until you can print. In the old days it was common to judge a negative by placing it over new print, can you see the type though the darkest part of the negative, the highlights, and holding up to light see detail in the thinnest part portion of the negative the shadows.

 

[koraks]

Welcome to Photrio!

It's always hard to judge scans, but the film looks underexposed and overdeveloped to me. So yes, I think you developed too long, or maybe made a mixing error when preparing the developer.

 

[sufnturf]

From what little I can guess from a scan it does look like you have blocked highlights in a couple of the frames. In other frames, what I assume is a treeline not much in shadow details. But hard to say until you can print. In the old days it was common to judge a negative by placing it over new print, can you see the type though the darkest part of the negative, the highlights, and holding up to light see detail in the thinnest part portion of the negative the shadows.

To clarify: The image attached is not a scan - its a photo taken from my lighttable.
I included some scans. Sorry for the "unsharpness" - this will be fixed once i figured out the right scanning distance

 

[koraks]

At least on the scans, the highlights appear to be all blown out. Going by how the negatives look, they're really dense. You could probably eek some differentiation out of those highlights, but knowing what fomapan 100 does at high densities, you'll end up with a flat, muddy, grainy mess.

I'd really recommend increasing exposure by a stop (expose at 50 or so) and cutting back development quite significantly. This film is capable of producing quite fine results, but when it's underexposed and overdeveloped, it tends to get very harsh, and not in a good way.

 

[sufnturf]

At least on the scans, the highlights appear to be all blown out. Going by how the negatives look, they're really dense. You could probably eek some differentiation out of those highlights, but knowing what fomapan 100 does at high densities, you'll end up with a flat, muddy, grainy mess.

I'd really recommend increasing exposure by a stop (expose at 50 or so) and cutting back development quite significantly. This film is capable of producing quite fine results, but when it's underexposed and overdeveloped, it tends to get very harsh, and not in a good way.

So general advise would be not to develop to such high densities and going back to around 13 mins of development time?
Has anyone had success with Fomapan 100 @ 100 ISO in FX 55?
I tried the "newspaper method" of reading through the densest part of the image - there was no problem in reading through this part.
Maybe also my problem was that my first film i ever developed was PanF in Rodinal with a fairly dense look - maybe I'm biased by that.

 

[Paul Howell]

I think you need to test a roll of film to find your personal E.I or personal ISO. Without a densitormer you need to set up a scene with dark cloth with texture, white cloth with texture, a 18% gray card, a model with light skin tones, in open shade, Shoot ISO 25, 50, 100, 200 and then some real world scenes bracketed again at 25, 50, 100 and 200. I would reduce development time by 20%.

 

[koraks]

I tried the "newspaper method" of reading through the densest part of the image

I've never found that approach to be very dependable. It depends too much on how much light you throw at the newspaper and what you still consider as 'readable'.
One of the more accessible ways of determining real densities is using a step tablet. You can purchase a Stouffer tablet through e.g. FotoImpex. https://www.fotoimpex.com/films/sto...ray-scale-t2115-21-step-12-inch-x-5-inch.html
You can scan this step tablet along with a strip/sheet of film and then compare the densities between the steps (of known density) and areas in your negative. This will tell you with more than sufficient accuracy what kind of actual densities you're working with. Wet printing also works; you can contact print the step tablet together with the negatives to approximate densities.

For now we're guessing as to what you're dealing with; to my eye, your negatives look way overcooked, but maybe it's just unfortunate scan settings. As said before, scans are difficult to interpret. If your negatives are as overdeveloped as I think they are and this was a development time of 15 minutes, I would cut back development to around 10 minutes and see what you get.

And, again, give more exposure. @Paul Howell's suggestion is a good one, although if you're lazy (which I admit I usually am myself), just expose this film at 50-64 or so and call it good.

 

[Ian Grant]

The negatives are clearly underexposed by around a stop, and also over-developed. Foma emulsions are quite different to other manufacturers films, they build up contrast very quickly.

I've used a lot of 120 Fomapan 100 & 200 since around 3007 with excellent results, half box speed and 75% of the dev times of the Ilford films I use.

Ian

 

[GregY]

Yes... there are a few things going on. You need to find out exactly where the meter readings lie on your camera w moden batteries. As mentioned you have both issues with exposure and over development. And testing is the only way to find the ideal ASA setting on the camera....& the corresponding proper development time.

 

[pentaxuser]

sufnturf, John Finch whom you mention has 2 videos on ascertaining film speed and development time. This combo of your camera, Foma film and FX55 looks as if it requires the use of John Finch's methods

pentaxuser

 

[sufnturf]

Thank you all for your feedback and for pointing out the obvious flaws which I foolishly ignored.
My conclusions at the moment are:

• Take the faulty light meter out of the equation: I do own a Canon AV/AE-1. I know that the light meter on them works as expected.
• Make a test roll with greycards (I got some for free) and 25, 50, 100 ISO in real world scenarios.
• Cut down development times to a proven 12 minutes (https://filmdev.org/recipe/show/13200)

I’d start using the Minox again when I sorted out the development times. I tried to compensate for the underexposure by 2 stops (apparently, the ISO-setting just goes to 25) where the measurement “matched” (the meter needle has a wide range and thus is to small to be exactly match with an external light meter). So sorting out the issue will be a job for some time in the future (as much as I love the camera, it does inherit a lot of sentimental value).

I’d like to try out John Finch’s method – hence time is sparse I’ll do this when I get to it.

I’d love to see a well exposed and developed Foma-negative to identify how it should look at the end.

 

[Ian Grant]

12 minutes will be too long a development time, for Fomapan 100. The link you posted shows lack of shadow detail and is quite contrasty, I would expect the correct dev time to be 7,5 to 9 minutes in FX-55.

Ian

 

[koraks]

I’d love to see a well exposed and developed Foma-negative to identify how it should look at the end.

This is what I generally like to see, although development on these was already on the brisk side. Note that there are no big open spaces on the negatives. The deepest shadows are allowed to remain blank, but they're generally small bits of the scene. Unless there's a good reason to have big open spaces on the negatives of course, such as a low-key portrait against a black backdrop. In terms of development, it's a bit of a matter of taste since scanning and variable contrast paper allow you to go pretty much wherever you want with a negative. It doesn't hurt to aim for a decent print at grade 2 from a typical daylight scene.

 

[albireo]

View attachment 385319
This is what I generally like to see, although development on these was already on the brisk side. Note that there are no big open spaces on the negatives. The deepest shadows are allowed to remain blank, but they're generally small bits of the scene. Unless there's a good reason to have big open spaces on the negatives of course, such as a low-key portrait against a black backdrop. In terms of development, it's a bit of a matter of taste since scanning and variable contrast paper allow you to go pretty much wherever you want with a negative.

I don't know about papers, but most consumer scanners, and the scanning tools they are shipped with, do really poorly with overdeveloped negatives.

Most scanning tools in auto mode will sacrifice highlight detail to spread the bulk of the midtones over the available bit range and ensure 'readability' of what is usually the large majority of the image content at the expense of precious highlight detail (which is one of the main reasons to shoot film for hybrid photographers).

This tends to give the typical look wet lab printers which are relatively unexperienced with scanning get when they try to digitise their negatives and share them online.

Or the look people get when they surrender contrast control altogether by doing stand development and then scan their negatives.

eg

or

or

or

 

[sufnturf]

Thank you all for your knowledge and your support – it helped me a lot.
I eliminated the faulty camera out of the equation and took my AV-1 with a fresh battery for a test-drive.
I reduced the development time to 11 minutes in FX-55 at 20°C (took the middle road).

I’m quite happy with the negatives at ISO 100 – the scanning part does need some improvements.

Edit: I stepped up ISO 25 - 50 - 100

 

[albireo]

Thank you all for your knowledge and your support – it helped me a lot.
I eliminated the faulty camera out of the equation and took my AV-1 with a fresh battery for a test-drive.
I reduced the development time to 11 minutes in FX-55 at 20°C (took the middle road).

I’m quite happy with the negatives at ISO 100 – the scanning part does need some improvements.

Those negatives are significantly overdeveloped if the purpose is scanning. Some of them appear to be underexposed, too, which is also going to result in poor scans.

Exposure and development issues can't be fixed post-scanning if you are after excellent results.

Why not start with one of the developers recommended by Foma for their film? The development curves shown in their datasheet are actually pretty good.

A good starting point would be to use D76 or ID11 stock interpolating for a target gamma of about 0.6. Derive EI and development time from the curve and refine from there.

 

[sufnturf]

Those negatives are significantly overdeveloped if the purpose is scanning. Some of them appear to be underexposed, too, which is also going to result in poor scans.

Exposure and development issues can't be fixed in scanning if you are after excellent results.

Why not start with one of the developers recommended by Foma for their film? The development curves shown in their datasheet are actually pretty good.

A good starting point would be to use D76 or ID11 stock interpolating for a target gamma of about 0.6. Derive EI and development time from the curve and refine from there.

These where the test-negatives - I stepped up from ISO 25 - 50 - 100 and developed in FX-55. Sorry that i have not mentioned this it in my added post.
This was for testing purposes only.
The other issue is that I need to find a way of getting better shots from the light table - as the negative looks way better in real live than it does on this poor man’s mugshot via cell phone camera.

 

[MattKing]

Those negatives are significantly overdeveloped if the purpose is scanning. Some of them appear to be underexposed, too, which is also going to result in poor scans.

I agree - and not just for scanning.
Negatives that look "pretty" to the eye are usually more dense than they should be.

 

[koraks]

This was for testing purposes only.

So you've now been able to determine that the time of 11 minutes is still far too long. Please see post #13 and try something like 8 minutes next time for EI=100.
Note also that your EI=100 negatives show significant underexposure of shadow areas. See e.g. here:

Note how there's very little detail in the tree trunk and no detail in the passage between the grave marker and the tree. In your EI=50 shot you have printable density in that area. Your other shots show a similar pattern. As pointed out earlier, 50 or so gives better results. You could further cut back the development time to ca. 6 minutes if you expose at 50. Your negatives will be softer and you'll have more possibilities for deciding where you want to take the final scanned image or enlarged print.

TL;DR: useful experiment that still shows underexposure + overdevelopment for EI=100.

 

[sufnturf]

So you've now been able to determine that the time of 11 minutes is still far too long. Please see post #13 and try something like 8 minutes next time for EI=100.
Note also that your EI=100 negatives show significant underexposure of shadow areas. See e.g. here:
View attachment 385744 View attachment 385745
Note how there's very little detail in the tree trunk and no detail in the passage between the grave marker and the tree. In your EI=50 shot you have printable density in that area. Your other shots show a similar pattern. As pointed out earlier, 50 or so gives better results. You could further cut back the development time to ca. 6 minutes if you expose at 50. Your negatives will be softer and you'll have more possibilities for deciding where you want to take the final scanned image or enlarged print.

TL;DR: useful experiment that still shows underexposure + overdevelopment for EI=100.

Noted. The problem I try to understand is: I shot PanF 50 developed in Rodinal and did not encounter any issues regarding underexposure or lack of shadow detail. Is this caused by using Fomapan 100 @ ISO 100 (giving it to little light for more shadow detail) or is it something else? Sorry if I'm posting dumb beginner questions but that is what bothers me at the moment.

To conclude: next time: middle way is round ISO 80 and time als given @mdc?

 

[koraks]

I shot PanF 50

Which 'PanF 50'? Ilford Pan F Plus or the anonymous 'Pan F' copy film stock that was also rated 50 but didn't have anti-halation etc?
Either way, how and what you measure makes a difference, and yes, the film as such, too. Ilford are generally a little more conservative in rating their film speeds than Foma is, although PanF+ in Rodinal is often argued to be 25-32 at best, too.
The main variable that has likely changed, however, is how you metered, what you metered with, what kind of subject matter you photographed etc. I can meter something at EI50 and get the same exposure as the same scene metered at EI400, with the only difference being where I pointed the light meter at.

To conclude: next time: middle way is round ISO 80 and time als given @mdc?

EI=64 and 8 minutes. See what you get.

 

[sufnturf]

Which 'PanF 50'? Ilford Pan F Plus or the anonymous 'Pan F' copy film stock that was also rated 50 but didn't have anti-halation etc?
Either way, how and what you measure makes a difference, and yes, the film as such, too. Ilford are generally a little more conservative in rating their film speeds than Foma is, although PanF+ in Rodinal is often argued to be 25-32 at best, too.
The main variable that has likely changed, however, is how you metered, what you metered with, what kind of subject matter you photographed etc. I can meter something at EI50 and get the same exposure as the same scene metered at EI400, with the only difference being where I pointed the light meter at.



EI=64 and 8 minutes. See what you get.

Pan F 50 was what i ment - Got an old bulk roll of it and was still pleased with the results.

Thank you for this input - I should dig out my fathers AE1as a "manual camera" and not let me guide by the aperture value mode.

 

[koraks]

Pan F 50

Which...? Anyway, doesn't matter.

AE1

Like most cameras from that era, it has a center-weighted average metering system. These metering systems are prone to being fooled by small, bright highlights especially if they happen to be close to the center of the viewfinder. Contrasty scenes can be hit & miss and you never really know for sure what you're going to get. Common practice with such metering systems is to point the camera downward so that skies, light sources and reflections are not in view and take a reading on a shaded foreground, then compensate for this and recompose for the shot. I think it would make more sense to pick up a more recent Canon EOS with partial or even spot metering, or a similarly-equippend Nikon. It'll give you more control over what happens.

Whatever you do, read up on how metering works. You can experiment with film development and "personal EI's/ISO's" until hades becomes a very cold place, but you'll only ever be able to make sense of anything if you understand how to meter a scene, and how the meter you happen to be carrying (stand-alone or inside the camera) reads what you point it at.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, the original AE1 is slightly frustrating if you intend to use it manually, but would like to get the benefit of the built in meter.
In order to do that, you need to start with it in auto mode, note the aperture showing in the viewfinder, turn the camera to manual mode which turns off the meter, and then manually set the remembered aperture on the lens.