Fomapan 200 in HC110

[jseffel]

So... I've just bought 10 Fomapan 200 films. I've deleloped two. The first one I shot at EI200 but I think I used too cold water. The second one I shot at EI160. I used HC110 with dilution 1:63 for 9mins. Agiated during the first 30 secs and then for 10 secs every minute. The first one lacked a lot of shadow detail (unusable), the second one lacked contrast and was grainy.

Should I expose it at EI100, use another dilution / time? Dont use HC110 at all? I am far from impressed... I am comparing the Fomapan 200 to HP5+ and FP4+ which I use regulary - I get waaaay better results with those films.

 

[Lachlan Young]

In HC-110, you're likely to have a better time of it around EI 100-125. It's about the same level of granularity as many 400 speed films & you may need to be up into the 12-13 min range to get 'normal' contrast with that dilution of HC-110 (extrapolating from what I recall of the manufacturer's data I have seen for other Foma films) - that's assuming it doesn't exhaust higher dilutions of HC-110 at an abnormally faster rate. I've had good results with ID-11/ D-76 and Rodinal, but I was prepared for the slower shadow speed & the granularity.

 

[R.Gould]

I can't comment on HC110, I have never used it, but I have developed fomapan 200, exposed at box speed in Rodinal 1/50 for 15 minutes, agitate for first minute, then 2 inversions every 30 seconds, orID11 stock for 7.5 minutes agitate for 30 seconds then 4 inversions every minute, I have also developed it at 150 for the same development times with very good results, plenty of shadow detail I use fomapan either 200 or 400 all the time and like them very much,only films I ever use

 

[DREW WILEY]

It might develop too fast in ordinary HC-110 Solution B. The nice thing about HC-110 is that it works well over a wide range of dilutions. So you could experiment with Dilution F too, or something in between these relative to preferred dev time. I wouldn't hazard a guess with any important shots. And I've never regarded Fomapan 200 as being anywhere near true 200 speed; more like 100.

 

[Mr Flibble]

I don't like my results of the Fomapan 200 or 400, one of the reasons I stick with Fomapan 100 with HC-110
Then I generally go for dilution B for 6:30 minutes or dilution H for 10 minutes at 20C. (30second agitation initially than 3 inversions every minute)

 

[albireo]

So... I've just bought 10 Fomapan 200 films. I've deleloped two. The first one I shot at EI200 but I think I used too cold water. The second one I shot at EI160. I used HC110 with dilution 1:63 for 9mins. Agiated during the first 30 secs and then for 10 secs every minute. The first one lacked a lot of shadow detail (unusable), the second one lacked contrast and was grainy.

Should I expose it at EI100, use another dilution / time? Dont use HC110 at all? I am far from impressed... I am comparing the Fomapan 200 to HP5+ and FP4+ which I use regulary - I get waaaay better results with those films.

So let's recap:

1. You have developed, in total, 2 rolls of Fomapan 200
2. You had never tried this film before, and you had never tried this film+developer combo before
3. You used a developer which, however common in combination with other brands of films, does not appear in the list of recommended developers for Foma 200 provided by the manufacturer here https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-200
2. For at least one of the two rolls, you messed up the development by not being consistent with temperature
4. For another roll, you decided not to stick with the manufacturer's recommended initial ISO rating and went for an arbitrary 160IE

You then go on to compare your results, obtained as above, to the results you get following established practice with your favourite -regular- film/developer combo.

See, I really don't think the film is at fault here

 

[koraks]

See, I really don't think the film is at fault here

Sure, you have a point, but I and many others find this film works best when given a bite more exposure than box speed suggests with most developers. Something like EI125. It may hit 200 or thereabouts in xtol/fomadon excel, but likely not in hc110.
Otherwise it's a fine film, except for 120 format which seems to consistently suffer form emulsion defects.

 

[albireo]

Sure, you have a point, but I and many others find this film works best when given a bite more exposure than box speed suggests with most developers.

This is a different topic and would probably deserve its own thread. In my experience, however that is entirely dependent on how and where you meter. Without knowing how you meter, where you meter, whether you place your blacks in zone III or IV (for creative reasons perhaps) these endless discussions on the 'real EI' of a film make relatively little sense imho.

For me personally, and for many other Foma users who are happily out there shooting the film rather than discussing it on the internet, box speed works fine in most recommended developers. I like Xtol, Rodinal, Fomadon LQN. Foma 200 is fine at 200EI with these developers given my metering technique and preferred placement of grays in my negatives.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

Otherwise it's a fine film, except for 120 format which seems to consistently suffer form emulsion defects.

It's not really a emulsion defects. The emulsion is very soft so it's not suitable for use in all cameras.

It looked terrible in my M645, I think it will look good in my C330. Apart of the cracked emulsion I liked the look of Foma 300

 

[koraks]

It's not really a emulsion defects. The emulsion is very soft so it's not suitable for use in all cameras.

Yes, it is. I correspondent about it with Foma, sent them samples, and they indicated it was a manufacturing defect. I also tried several camera systems to verify it wasn't specific to a particular system. They're not the little cracks that sometimes occur with Foma 100 in e.g. Hasselblad bodies. More like little particulate inclusions. I know about the camera-dependent issue; a friend of mine had it, corresponded with Foma about, I saw the examples etc. It's a different issue.

these endless discussions on the 'real EI' of a film make relatively little sense imho.

No need to discuss endlessly. Foma has published a fairly detailed datasheet for this film. The film only hits 200 with certain developers and only at a fairly high gamma (i.e. long development). For a gamma of 0.65 or thereabouts it doesn't do 200, although it gets close at around 160 depending on the developer used. Rodinal isn't listed, but won't do much better in this respect than Xtol (in fact, quite the opposite).
I'm sure that many people will like this film at 200, but that doesn't say much about EI. It just means that those people don't mind losing a tiny bit of shadow detail. Or, as you suggest, they meter in such a way that they effectively expose at a much lower EI - possibly without even being aware of it, arguing their EI is 200 because "that's what my meter is set to and the pics look good to me". On that basis, EI discussions are indeed a bit problematic.

 

[albireo]

That's it then! I'm burning all my poorly exposed Foma negatives as we speak- the lack of detail in the shadows was just _way_ too unacceptable, and my metering technique clearly sub-par. Can't stand looking at those transparent sections of my negatives anymore.

But I'm a different man now! From now, on instead of relying on my experience, my poor metering and Foma's inaccurate EI specs, I will follow the advice of some dude on some forum with a 50 old out-of-whack densitometer to show me the shadow at the end of the tunnel!

But seriously now @koraks - you're right of course in that the curves at .6 gamma published by Foma for Fomadon Excel and Fomadon LQN hit 160EI rather than 200EI. The difference will be neglectable in practice though unless one operates in tightly controlled lab settings. Other variables such as variabilities in water temperature, processing time, metering are likely to have a bigger effect than that EI difference on the result.

 

[koraks]

What's with the cynicism?

The difference will be neglectable in practice though unless one operates in tightly controlled lab settings.

It's for most purposes not much of an issue under optimal conditions. You pointed out that OP wasn't working under optimal conditions. Any lack of sensitivity of the film can only be made worse, not better, by such conditions. Pointing out that a film struggles to achieve its advertised speed is a reasonable remark to make, in my opinion. Especially if it can contribute to someone's disappointment, in addition to other factors. I'm not at all sure that F200 will even do 160 in HC110. Likely a bit less. Would 125 still be 'negligible'? If 160 is virtually the same as 200, will 125 be still more or less the same? Or 100? Or 64? Where do you draw the line?

Fact of the matter is that nearly all B&W film will easily tolerate and arguably give best results at mild overexposure. Whereas absolutely none at all will perform best when underexposed. The results may still be acceptable or desirable to some, of course. Nothing wrong with that. That doesn't make it universally true, or the best starting point for someone else.

 

[Wallendo]

I love Fomapan 100. I tried a role of 200 and found it much more finicky. When properly exposed and developed it looks great, but I noticed a lot of variability between shots on the same role. In all fairness to the film, I never shot it on any of my more advanced cameras since I came across a scratched bulk roll and was only using it for testing purposes (there was a known issue affecting one batch of bulk film about 8 years ago).

 

[PhotoJim]

I've only shot a handful of rolls of Fomapan 200 myself, too, but I found it hard to get good shadow detail at box speed.

On the other hand, the couple of rolls I did at EI 100 turned out beautifully.

So, if a person is having issues at ISO 200... you're not alone.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

Yes, it is. I correspondent about it with Foma, sent them samples, and they indicated it was a manufacturing defect. I also tried several camera systems to verify it wasn't specific to a particular system. They're not the little cracks that sometimes occur with Foma 100 in e.g. Hasselblad bodies. More like little particulate inclusions. I know about the camera-dependent issue; a friend of mine had it, corresponded with Foma about, I saw the examples etc. It's a different issue.

Aha.
I was writing with them too, the issue I wrote about was a known problem they told me. Not really a defect. I could choose any replacement, Foma 200 in another size or another emulsion in 120. Great service.[/QUOTE]

 

[DREW WILEY]

Foma 200 is quite different from 100 and 400. It's correctly classified as a "straight-line film", which means its characteristic curve has an exceptionally long straight line way down into deep shadows, with very little toe. But it's misleadingly marketed as if a potential substitute for discontintued 200 speed straight-line films like Super-XX or Bergger 200. For one thing, it nowhere near true 200 speed in common developers. Second, it is nowhere near as flexible in development, especially with respect to significant gamma rise. Third, the reciprocity characteristics stink. The net result is that underexposure can result in blanked out lower zones. That fact obviously doesn't make the film unusable or devoid of creative potential, but needs to be recognized for predictable results. And incidentally, the manufacturing flaws I encountered were on two separate batches of 8x10 sheet film. I've never even tried it in 120 rolls; nor do I intend to do so. But the description of such flaws was similar in either case. If Foma ever manages to establish a consistent long track record for this specific product without any such quality risks, I might be willing to try it in sheets again.

 

[albireo]

I've never even tried it in 120 rolls; nor do I intend to do so.

Pity, you're missing out. It's a gorgeous, gorgeous film in medium format! Nothing quite like it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I can't risk something like that. I sometimes travel on foot very long distances in difficult terrain, with crazy high altitude weather. No second chances. TMax films are far more reliable, hold better detail, are way more flexible in terms of development contrast options. That applies whether roll film or large sheet film. But I will readily admit that Foma 200 has a unique look, and have indeed made some very fine prints from it. It's just that, statistically, I can't gamble with either dicey quality control or utterly wretched reciprocity characteristics, which come into play more during the longer exposures of 8x10 small apertures than when using roll-film cameras. But apples to apples, even the 400 speed of TMax is going to deliver grain and definition at least as good as Fomapan 200, and realistically do so two speeds faster, when handholding the camera comes into play. I find TMY400 to be true 400 box speed, but Foma 200 as realistically only 100 speed. But many of my 6X7 and 6X9 shots end up in the same 16X20 print portfolios as my 4x5 and 8x10 work, so I prefer TMX100 for that demanding task whenever possible.

 

[Finn lyle]

I’d try to meter it at 125 and develop for 9 minutes in HC-110 F, as a starting point. I agree with the many finding 200 ASA to be a generous speed for this film. It is a very nice stock if you can make it work right, though that requires both a good developing technique and proper exposure (I’ve found it to be too much hassle for me). Unfortunately Xtol may indeed suit it better, I’ve also had good luck with using Ilfosol-3. I suppose if shadow details are what your after you could try stand or semi-stand development with HC-110 as well, I hear both dil H or 1:74 works well though I haven’t got the faintest idea as to a time. I’m sure the unofficial resource site could help with that though.

 

[albireo]

TMax films are far more reliable, hold better detail, are way more flexible in terms of development contrast options. That applies whether roll film or large sheet film.

Yes Kodak Alaris still makes good film, though the quality standard is very far from the Kodak of yore, I found. I personally stopped using TMAX 400 in medium format altogether when I started getting bad batches whereby the characters printed on the backing paper kept appearing on the negative. Terrible stuff for a film that goes for £8/roll. Nowadays, Ilford FP4+, Rollei RPX and Foma pretty much give me all I need, though I have to keep three separate developing pipelines to get the best (for my taste) out of the three brands.

Can't comment on the reciprocity characteristics of Foma, as I shoot my TLRs mostly handheld or on a tripod at t < 1 sec so I'm happy with that. If I did care about reciprocity I would probably test the new Acros II which appears to be as good as its predecessor in this regard.

For what I do with my Rolleiflexes Foma makes incredibly satisfactory film, but I found after shooting hundreds of rolls that it needs to be treated with respect, and returns arguably underwhelming results if one tries to adapt existing workflows to it. Starting with any of the recommended developers (Foma Excel and Foma LQN give great results) goes a long way IMHO.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I personally stopped using TMAX 400 in medium format altogether when I started getting bad batches whereby the characters printed on the backing paper kept appearing on the negative. Terrible stuff for a film that goes for £8/roll. Nowadays, Ilford FP4+, Rollei RPX and Foma pretty much give me all I need, though I have to keep three separate developing pipelines to get the best (for my taste) out of the three brands.

All the manufacturers have had issues with backing paper faults - the Kodak one was particularly troublesome as it was intermittent, making repeating the fault challenging. It seems to have been solved for several years now. Ilford have had intermittent issues recently too - mainly with slower moving products, and at very low occurrence. If people didn't need back printed numbers on 120, the problem would largely cease.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

All the manufacturers have had issues with backing paper faults - the Kodak one was particularly troublesome as it was intermittent, making repeating the fault challenging. It seems to have been solved for several years now. Ilford have had intermittent issues recently too - mainly with slower moving products, and at very low occurrence. If people didn't need back printed numbers on 120, the problem would largely cease.

I've not had any issues with the newer glossy backed Kodak 120 films. I have experienced backing paper problems with ILFORD, but not recently.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I was lucky with Kodak and never did get a roll of any of their 120 films with the alleged backing issue. It seems that the more responsible dealers caught wind of it and removed any suspect batches from inventory before it got sold. Those batches were readily identifiable once the problem was recognized by Kodak. I find their remaining products are of better quality control and more consistent than ever. That opinion is based on me doing very careful batch to batch densitometer testing of their TMax sheet films, for example, and the fact that for quite awhile now, pro color films have needed no corrective filtration relative to batch differences, but only potentially due to lighting temp variance from spec, etc. Kodak's current color neg films are their best ever, and their sole revived chrome film is a fine product too. I hated it during that decade or two when color sheet film was once mainly on unstable acetate base from both Kodak and Fuji.
... Back to Foma 200. One should logically be getting better deep shadow gradation from this particular film than other currently on the market, because it is in fact the last remaining "straight line" film with characteristic curve steepness all the down to a very minimal toe section. But that is contingent upon the film being sufficiently exposed in the first place. No need to hunt around for special compensating developers; you can't retrieve exposure density and lift up something on the toe that's not there to begin with. Any common developer including HC-110 should work fine after some testing and practice. I happened to prefer a staining formula pyro, but that's more a highlight tweak.
For old timers who prefer Zone System lingo, at ASA 100 I could easily get distinct shadow gradation way down between Zones 0 and 1, at least half a stop lower down than even TMY400. The only other films which did that for me were Bergger 200 and Super XX 200, which I regard as much more versatile films, and miss. But roll film users generally have to develop for the entire roll, and might not want to risk skating on the very edge, so should logically give high contrast exposures even a little more exposure. Moderate contrast scenes are more forgiving with any film. I pity anyone who doesn't know how to use a real light meter.

 

[albireo]

I pity anyone who doesn't know how to use a real light meter.

Amen to that!

 

[jseffel]

So let's recap:

1. You have developed, in total, 2 rolls of Fomapan 200
2. You had never tried this film before, and you had never tried this film+developer combo before
3. You used a developer which, however common in combination with other brands of films, does not appear in the list of recommended developers for Foma 200 provided by the manufacturer here https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-200
2. For at least one of the two rolls, you messed up the development by not being consistent with temperature
4. For another roll, you decided not to stick with the manufacturer's recommended initial ISO rating and went for an arbitrary 160IE

You then go on to compare your results, obtained as above, to the results you get following established practice with your favourite -regular- film/developer combo.

See, I really don't think the film is at fault here

Not blaming the film. But I would like to get good shadows with HC110 and the massive dev chart recipe didn't work out. Next roll I will cut in half and try Paranol S and HC110 with the dilution / time mentioned in the thread and se how it goes. I've taken duplicate shots - one at EI100 and one at EI200 so I can compare.