Fomapan 200 questions

[albireo]

One-shot would also be my preferred way of using it.
Out of curiosity: I’ve read elsewhere that the times for D76 have to be lengthened for D23, not shortened. Did I get this wrong?

You might be right, and it certainly makes more sense as you suggest, I honestly don't remember, will check when I can and report back.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The emulsion seems to be more fragile during development than Kodak or Ilford films. So little bits of grit or whatever during development might get stuck to it. Filter your water and solutions. Water mold can grow in left over dilute solutions. I never re-use dev, stop, fixer, or rinse.

This is a repeat comment, but unless you're dealing with a low contrast scene, Foma 200 is just about the last film you'd want to underexpose. I can't personally imagine rating it any faster than 100. Their box speed is infamously over-optimistic.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Drew is right about Foma being a little optimistic when it comes to film speed. As for reusing fixer etc.? The choice is yours of course, but if you come up with a slight problem I would go down the line with fresh developer and if it is not that then use fresh developer and fresh stop bath (if you use a stop bath other than water) Now your down to the fixer if you still have the problem. Of course it could be wetting agent, but I doubt it. The only two things I reuse are my developer and my fixer. And the only developer I reuse is Adox XT-3 (same as Xtol) The reason I reuse that is because I run it in a replenished system. If I didn't, I would use it one shot to play it safe.

 

[Tomro]

Definition of dirt? Whitish spots, dark spots, lint? I had that with some foam film years ago and started using a pre-rinse and filtered my reused fixer. I honestly think it was from my reused fixer, but never proved it.

Mostly lint, I’d say. Not the infamous Foma needles, I think

 

[Tomro]

The emulsion seems to be more fragile during development than Kodak or Ilford films. So little bits of grit or whatever during development might get stuck to it. Filter your water and solutions. Water mold can grow in left over dilute solutions. I never re-use dev, stop, fixer, or rinse.

This is a repeat comment, but unless you're dealing with a low contrast scene, Foma 200 is just about the last film you'd want to underexpose. I can't personally imagine rating it any faster than 100. Their box speed is infamously over-optimistic.

Thanks for the additional advise. Dev was used one-shot. Used 2 fixer baths, the first one being reused from the last time, the second one being fresh. Wetting always in fresh solution.
BTW, I was using Foma400, therefore exposing it for 250 - which still seems to be not enough.

 

[Tomro]

Drew is right about Foma being a little optimistic when it comes to film speed. As for reusing fixer etc.? The choice is yours of course, but if you come up with a slight problem I would go down the line with fresh developer and if it is not that then use fresh developer and fresh stop bath (if you use a stop bath other than water) Now your down to the fixer if you still have the problem. Of course it could be wetting agent, but I doubt it. The only two things I reuse are my developer and my fixer. And the only developer I reuse is Adox XT-3 (same as Xtol) The reason I reuse that is because I run it in a replenished system. If I didn't, I would use it one shot to play it safe.

Developer was fresh, freshly mixed D23 from the other day (24hours letting it sit, like I read it to be sensible to do).
Fixer one reused, one fresh. Everything else also fresh.
I sometimes think that the amount of wetting agent should be different for different films. But it just could be that sometimes I get lucky while other times all the dust and dirt stick on the negatives

 

[albireo]

With medium format, I really like Fomapan 200 in Rodinal. It has beautiful gradations and tack sharpness.

Completely agree!

 

[John Wiegerink]

Developer was fresh, freshly mixed D23 from the other day (24hours letting it sit, like I read it to be sensible to do).
Fixer one reused, one fresh. Everything else also fresh.
I sometimes think that the amount of wetting agent should be different for different films. But it just could be that sometimes I get lucky while other times all the dust and dirt stick on the negatives

If you mixed the wetting agent up fresh, it should not be a source of dirt contamination. Now, some folks mix wetting agents like Kodak photo-flow and store it in a bulk bottle instead of just using a drop or two in their developing take. After a period of storage like that, it can form all kinds of creatures in the solution. That's why I always use just a drop or two and dump when done. I don't use Kodak brand wetting agent, but when I use my brand, I find the old saying "less is more" works best for me. Also, I always pre-rinse Foma films since I use a replenishment system and don't want Foma's blasted inky anti-halation residue returned to my developer jug.

 

[Tomro]

If you mixed the wetting agent up fresh, it should not be a source of dirt contamination. Now, some folks mix wetting agents like Kodak photo-flow and store it in a bulk bottle instead of just using a drop or two in their developing take. After a period of storage like that, it can form all kinds of creatures in the solution. That's why I always use just a drop or two and dump when done. I don't use Kodak brand wetting agent, but when I use my brand, I find the old saying "less is more" works best for me. Also, I always pre-rinse Foma films since I use a replenishment system and don't want Foma's blasted inky anti-halation residue returned to my developer jug.

I only use wetting agent freshly mixed, once. Always discard it.
Maybe I use too much, but today I developed the second roll of Foma 400 in D23, and today the negatives are basically flawless. Practically no dirt. I did not pre-wash, because I used D23 1:1 one-shot.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I only use wetting agent freshly mixed, once. Always discard it.
Maybe I use too much, but today I developed the second roll of Foma 400 in D23, and today the negatives are basically flawless. Practically no dirt. I did not pre-wash, because I used D23 1:1 one-shot.

That's great to hear. Maybe your problems are over.

 

[Tomro]

probably not
As I said, it seems hit n miss with the dirt on my negatives. Probably how much the room where I let them dry is full of particles…

 

[IMoL]

Foma 200 is just about the last film you'd want to underexpose. I can't personally imagine rating it any faster than 100. Their box speed is infamously over-optimistic.

Agreed. The only developer that has given me anything close to box speed with Foma 200 is Diafine (or in my case, Bellini Duostep). This shows how overrated Foma 200 really is when the same dev is giving me 640 on HP5 and 250 on FP4!

I quite line the results for Foma 200 in Duostep though:

 

[albireo]

https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-200

People should read, and study in detail, the official Foma curves - they're pretty good and they've been published to guide, and not to confuse or deceive, end users.

Foma 200 achieves - easily - 160EI in a range of developers. If ultimate 'effective speed' is a concern, I'd recommend people try it in Xtol 1:1, or the recommended (excellent) Xtol clone made by Foma, Excel, or, even better, Fomadon LQN.

Having said that, it's a shame that every time the name 'Foma' gets mentioned the discussion has to quickly fizzle out (sadly, due to a few members who have never once posted a breakdown of their methods, tools and a sample of their results) towards the dumb 'real box speed or not' discussion.

Plenty of us get excellent shadow detail with Foma using the recommended developers, interpolating the data from the leaflet, aiming for standard target gamma values (.55-.62 depending on final usage for me) and measuring correctly using well calibrated meters (I trust my Sekonic Studio Deluxe 398A III) and - most importantly - using them consistently in a wide range of light settings.

For those lurkers out there contemplating whether to invest or not into understanding Foma's consumables (100, 200, 400, retropan, ortho) do it without hesitation. Their stuff will reward testing and it will not represent the bottleneck in your workflow (apart from Foma 200 in 120 which has had for many people serious batch-dependent issues with soft emulsion and scratches).

 

[Tomro]

^^ is LQN also an XTOL clone or in which regard did you mean “even better”?

 

[albireo]

^^ is LQN also an XTOL clone or in which regard did you mean “even better”?

Sorry - Fomadon Excel is the XTOL clone according to many sources.

Fomadon LQN is a liquid phenidone-hydroquinone based developer that IME exploits Foma films' sensitivity a little more than even Excel.

So my "even better" = "if you really want to squeeze the last drop of sensitivity from the film, LQN is a good choice".

 

[Tomro]

got it, thanks

 

[agentlossing]

With medium format, I really like Fomapan 200 in Rodinal. It has beautiful gradations and tack sharpness. It might be too grainy for 135, though. It's much grainier than you would expect a 200 speed film to be, even disregarding the emulsion containing tabular grain (supposedly). I'll buying a box of it in 4x5 soon, I think, I expect that will render even better. I haven't tried XTOL yet, though, so maybe that will prove the superior developer.

I have the same experience! Sharp, but grainy - surprisingly grainy for 200 speed film.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-200

People should read, and study in detail, the official Foma curves - they're pretty good and they've been published to guide, and not to confuse or deceive, end users.

Foma 200 achieves - easily - 160EI in a range of developers. If ultimate 'effective speed' is a concern, I'd recommend people try it in Xtol 1:1, or the recommended (excellent) Xtol clone made by Foma, Excel, or, even better, Fomadon LQN.

Having said that, it's a shame that every time the name 'Foma' gets mentioned the discussion has to quickly fizzle out (sadly, due to a few members who have never once posted a breakdown of their methods, tools and a sample of their results) towards the dumb 'real box speed or not' discussion.

Plenty of us get excellent shadow detail with Foma using the recommended developers, interpolating the data from the leaflet, aiming for standard target gamma values (.55-.62 depending on final usage for me) and measuring correctly using well calibrated meters (I trust my Sekonic Studio Deluxe 398A III) and - most importantly - using them consistently in a wide range of light settings.

For those lurkers out there contemplating whether to invest or not into understanding Foma's consumables (100, 200, 400, retropan, ortho) do it without hesitation. Their stuff will reward testing and it will not represent the bottleneck in your workflow (apart from Foma 200 in 120 which has had for many people serious batch-dependent issues with soft emulsion and scratches).

Very humbly I agree. Foma has an excellent lineup of b&w material and tailor-made chemistry, that is cheap (but it's not free - cit.) and works very well and it's robust.
Very much underrated are Fomadon LQN and LQR and Fomadon P imho.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have used Foma 200 and after the 1st roll I exposed it at 160 and not 200 because the negatives were a bit on the 'thin' side and needed a bit of a boost to get a full range of tones. ISO 125 may be even a bit better.
As for grain what I used was on 120 film so that was not really an issue. I will be rolling my 1st bulk 200 35mm later this week so will see what it is like

I checked by day book, I don't have a densitometer, I shot a ring around test with 35mm and 5 sheets of 4X5, Gossen SBC light meter incident mode. developer was MCM 100, replenished. Shooting in the field prints looked fine in morning light, in very bright light I could have reduced development time -1. As I no longer use MCM 100 if I were to use Foma 200 I would use Acufine or DK 50. I shot my box of 50 sheets, I did have any QC issues, same with the few rolls of 35mm, but hate the curl of the 120, will use Tmax or PF 4 in 120, or Kenmare in 120. For 4X5 given the price of Tmax I will stick with Foma, right now I have a box of 400 in 4X5 and 100 in 6X9.

 

[albireo]

I have the same experience! Sharp, but grainy - surprisingly grainy for 200 speed film.

I have found Foma 200 in 120 developed in Rodinal 1:50 to be extremely fine grained - which I didn't think was surprising at all, given the hybrid T-grain technology.

Foma 200 in Fomadon R09 1:50 exposed at EI125 in a Rolleicord TLR. This is a resized negative scan - I will post an image of the negative and of the full res raw scan once I'm back home from the holidays.

 

[koraks]

Nice collection of textures, @albireo. I like it.

 

[baachitraka]

I have found Foma 200 in 120 developed in Rodinal 1:50 to be extremely fine grained - which I didn't think was surprising at all, given the hybrid T-grain technology.

Foma 200 in Fomadon R09 1:50 exposed at EI125 in a Rolleicord TLR. This is a resized negative scan - I will post an image of the negative and of the full res raw scan once I'm back home from the holidays.

Nice indeed. Are any of the rolleinars came into play? Can you also share your dev times and agitation schemes please?

 

[albireo]

Nice indeed. Are any of the rolleinars came into play? Can you also share your dev times and agitation schemes please?

Actually well spotted, yes! This was with one of the two Rolleinars, can't remember the model, it's the "less extreme" of the two, I tend to use it for portraits.

I'm afraid I don't have the data with me, currently typing from the beach. I will update the thread once I'm back home with access to my notes.

 

[agentlossing]

Funny how some people will say Foma 200 is grainy while others will say that it's not. Of course shooting larger than 135 format will minimize a lot of grain compared to humble ol' 35mm. The above example looks nice, especially for Rodinal equivalent developer.

 

[baachitraka]

Actually well spotted, yes! This was with one of the two Rolleinars, can't remember the model, it's the "less extreme" of the two, I tend to use it for portraits.

I'm afraid I don't have the data with me, currently typing from the beach. I will update the thread once I'm back home with access to my notes.