Fomapan 400 anti-halation (lack thereof)?

@albireo all of your examples above are 'easy' compositions in terms of halation with a limited SBR and no drastic transitions between very high values of illumination and deep shadows. I agree the film works fine in this respect if you go easy on it. But that does mean choosing not to shoot certain scenes, which I imagine some people (me included) would not want to consider just to suit the quirks of a lower-grade material.

Edit: to illustrate, these are absolutely fine, halation-wise, but it's purely due to scene selection/subject matter, not because the film is somehow better at it - these were taken from the same rolls as the examples posted earlier:

koraks said:

@albireo all of your examples above are 'easy' compositions in terms of halation with a limited SBR and no drastic transitions between very high values of illumination and deep shadows. I agree the film works fine in this respect if you go easy on it. But that does mean choosing not to shoot certain scenes, which I imagine some people (me included) would not want to consider just to suit the quirks of a lower-grade material.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, I don't do film photography to 'stress test' the consumables, that's true. Though I'd argue that one man's 'lower grade' is another man's 'creative opportunity'. I don't really enjoy dramatic whitewashed skies and point light sources in my photography so Foma 400 suits me just fine

albireo said:

Though I'd argue that one man's 'lower grade' is another man's 'creative opportunity'.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, I agree with that. For me, it's lower grade.

And not to nitpick, but my examples above were not 'stress tests'. They were just snapshots taken on a trip to Lisbon. The halation issues were entirely unintentional - and I'm afraid also undesirable in my view. Of course, as stated before, not much is lost on those images, so I never lost any sleep over it.

koraks said:

Edit: to illustrate, these are absolutely fine, halation-wise, but it's purely due to scene selection/subject matter, not because the film is somehow better at it - these were taken from the same rolls as the examples posted earlier:
View attachment 349295
View attachment 349296

Click to expand...

Sorry - I had missed these examples as I was typing as you were probably posting them. I think these are really not a good case in support of your argument. If I interpret the light correctly, these seem to have been taken in dull overcast conditions, with your exposure+dev choices aiming to increase contrast.

So completely different situation from the examples I posted, all in full sun, all of them featuring items at least minimally reflecting the sun.

Several degrees of possibilities as you can see (extreme point light sources, full sun with point light sources, full sun without point light sources, overcast). And Fomapan 400, a 4 Euro product, seems to perform more than acceptably in at least 3/4 of them. Fine by me.

albireo said:

with your exposure+dev choices aiding to increase the contrast

Click to expand...

Same roll as the alleyway shot and some others, exposed ei400, all developed the same (same roll after all). Some contrast adjustment after scanning, probably. What those examples show is that there's no halation depending on the scene. Your scenes are likewise easy in this respect, so they don't show halation. It doesn't mean the film isn't sensitive to it, it just means that you unwittingly evaded the issue.

koraks said:

Same roll as the alleyway shot and some others, exposed ei400, all developed the same (same roll after all). Some contrast adjustment after scanning, probably. What those examples show is that there's no halation depending on the scene.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Your scenes in the last post are under cloudy overcast conditions. Nobody would expect halation in those cases.

My scenes all features elements of direct sunlight. I would expect at least some halation. There is close to none.

Ergo the 'halation' issue is (as far as I'm concerned) bloated and limited to scenes with extreme contrast and direct point light sources.

koraks said:

Wait, are you saying here that you're shooting medium format? In that case, it's obvious that you're not running into this problem. The 120 and sheet film formats of Fomapan 400 have a quite effective anti-halation protection built in. The 35mm version of the film does not have this. It's also mentioned in the datasheet. I've shot quite a bit of Fomapan 400 in 4x5" and it's not particularly problematic in terms of halation.

Click to expand...

I shoot Fomapan 400 in 135, 120 and 4x5. The examples I showed earlier here were from 135 film and what I just finished developing a few minutes ago were 135 negatives that were exposed with strong sunlight directly in the frame. The strip of negatives are hanging to dry. I will scan some of the negatives tomorrow and post those scans.

I do not typically expose a lot of shots that include direct sun in the frame so these are certainly out of the norm for me.

What I was trying to say earlier, though obviously not very clearly, was that I have not noticed big differences between the three formats of Fomapan 400 film during my normal use. But based on what I have seen here it seems fairly clear that halation IS occurring under certain circumstances for others.

albireo said:

My scenes all features elements of direct sunlight.

Click to expand...

Your scenes aren't prone to halation issues. That they were shot on sunny days doesn't change that. I'm sorry, we can argue about this until hell freezes over, but it's not going to change my mind. I've dealt with halation issues many times on many sorts of film. I know what the issue looks like and when it occurs. It's not in the kind of scenes you posted. Fomapan 400 in 35mm is rather prone to this problem; not as much as, say, double sided x-ray film, to name a particularly problematic type, but it's up there.

Pioneer said:

I shoot Fomapan 400 in 135, 120 and 4x5

Click to expand...

Ah gotcha, thanks for clearing that up. I see significant differences between 35mm and 4x5 on this film, as would be expected based on what the datasheet tells us about it. I never shot much 120 of it.

koraks said:

I'm sorry, we can argue about this until hell freezes over, but it's not going to change my mind.

Click to expand...

There is a misunderstanding. I wasn't trying at all to change your mind.

I decided to participate in the thread to share with OP my opinion on the matter, and did not directly attempt to address or criticise yours.

In summary, I'm quite happy with how the product behaves, given its technical limitations, and I find its shortcomings tolerable, or even interesting, for my photography.

Perhaps OP finds this data point useful for their own purposes.

Alright, fair enough. The decision whether the characteristics a film are acceptable or not are ultimately a personal choice. My participation in the thread was mainly to confirm to the OP that I recognize the problem he experienced. I think he also acknowledged that it doesn't occur in all cases, which is also my experience. How he evaluates that, is up to him to decide. I, personally, chose to move away to other products, but halation was not the only reason for this.

albireo said:

Ergo the 'halation' issue is (as far as I'm concerned) bloated.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Since you have not experienced halation with Formapan 400, it is not a problem for anyone else.

koraks said:

Alright, fair enough. The decision whether the characteristics a film are acceptable or not are ultimately a personal choice. My participation in the thread was mainly to confirm to the OP that I recognize the problem he experienced. I think he also acknowledged that it doesn't occur in all cases, which is also my experience. How he evaluates that, is up to him to decide. I, personally, chose to move away to other products, but halation was not the only reason for this.

Click to expand...

Oh I don't think there is any doubt it is happening. That seems fairly obvious based on the examples we have seen and the reporting of others in this thread.

What I found interesting is that I have regularly used this film for over 10 years and have never seen any examples in my own work where it was as obvious as some of the earlier examples posted here. I do like this film and find its' performance characteristics useful in my photography. I am actually more interested in knowing for my own purposes just how strong the light source has to be and what other factors may cause it to be worse or help reduce it.

Besides, though I burn a lot of film I am nowhere as experienced as some of the other participants on this forum. I find their input and experience on this topic and this film very useful.

These might help illustrate the effectiveness, or otherwise, of the antihalation on Fomapan 400. 35mm (bulk loaded) pushed to 1600 as a bit of an experiment into something cheaper than HP5+

I actually think the Fomapan did better than I expected, though HP5+ still wins hands down. This certainly isn't what Foma intended the film for!

Two days ago Lucius posted a couple of photographs here that were shot with Fomapan 400 that showed a very obvious glow around a source of bright light that had bled into and concealed darker portions of his exposure. He found it unusual and wondered what it was. It was described by another member as an example of halation, a common problem that certain Fomapan 135 films appear to be subject to showing if there is a bright light source in the photograph.

At the time this was posted I found the explanation to be odd since I have been using a lot of Fomapan 400 film over the past few years and had not seen examples of halation in my own work that were that severe. So, being the curious sort, I decided to see if I could recreate that same obscuring glow in some of my own photographs. Using my Pentax LX and a Sigma Superwide II 24mm lens I purposely went looking for circumstances that I felt would cause this same sort of halation. The Sigma Superwide II lens is multi-coated but it is subject to flair from very bright light. I did use a hood but since several of these photos will show the sun directly in the frame I doubt the hood was very effective in protecting the lens to reduce flair. The flair can reduce contrast in the photo but, in my experience, it has never out and out obscured details.

The film I am using is relatively fresh Fomapan 400. I bulk load so this roll of film was loaded from a 100 foot roll of Fomapan 400 that has an expiration date of February 2025. I haven't found the can it came in yet so I don't have the Lot #, but if I find it I will post that later. The film was exposed at an exposure index of 800 so some shadow detail will probably be lacking a bit in some of the photos I will be posting. Since we are looking for the bleeding of very bright light sources into dark surrounding of a photo I didn't think that shadow detail was really an issue.

The film was developed in HC110 1:31 for 9 minutes at 68F. This was the recommendation from the Massive Development Chart on DigitalTruth.com. I agitate continuously for one minute and then 3 times every 30 seconds after. This is a bit more agitation than is really necessary but I kind of assumed that it would enhance the appearance of any halation. It was fixed with Ilford Rapid Fixer and hung to dry overnight.

I scanned the negatives this morning using an old Epson V500 flatbed scanner and Epson Scan software using the 16 bit grayscale mode in the Black and White Negative setting. I have not done any sharpening or other post processing beyond what the software my be doing under the hood for a standard scan. No cropping was done but In this case I doubt this will make any significant difference. The scan was processed in Photoshop and resized for the web. No specific sharpening or other post processing was done. I have done no spotting though I did clone a piece of string out of one of the images.

All of these are exposures into bright light sources with darker surroundings at different distances from the light source. You will have to be patient with me as it sometimes takes me a while to get images ready and posted. This first one was one where I definitely expected some halation but, as far as I can tell, it didn't happen. There is a very light glow around the cat's body but, since the ears are pretty well defined and not obscured this actually appears to me to be the reflection of light from the fur, not halation.

More to come.

Another example. There is certainly some veiling flare in evidence here and you can see the flair characteristics of my little Sigma lens. There is contrast reduction where the sun is showing over the roof but it almost seems to be part of the lens flair and not halation itself. The contrast is reduced but the detail is still there. I can't be sure, you tell me.

Pioneer said:

This first one was one where I definitely expected some halation but, as far as I can tell, it didn't happen.

Click to expand...

1: It does, but it's limited. It's especially apparent along the left edge of the blinds. It's also there in the window frame just to the left of the cat, and generally in the entire highlight area, but because it sort of looks natural there - it feels natural to have some 'sunny haze' in that area, even if it's actually caused by the film. This is essentially our psychological response to the scene 'fixing' the issue.

2: the intensity of the light in this image and the contrast transition between that highlight and the shadow areas is a far cry from the examples posted before. Just like in albireo's images, we're looking at reflected light. This is different from shots directly imaging bright skies.

3:

Pioneer said:

The film was exposed at an exposure index of 800

Click to expand...

Underexposure will suppress the problem since halation is associated with absolute exposure.

4:

Pioneer said:

This is a bit more agitation than is really necessary but I kind of assumed that it would enhance the appearance of any halation.

Click to expand...

There's no logical relation between agitation and halation. It's an optical effect.

5:

Pioneer said:

I can't be sure, you tell me.

Click to expand...

You aptly point out methodological issues that make this one problematic to interpret. I think most of what we're looking at here is flare. However, halation likely contributes in areas like the leaves over the bright cloud along the top edge of the frame.

I don't see anything here that somehow disproves the film's propensity towards halation, nor do I see anything inconsistent with my experiences with this film. What I do see is significant difference in scene selection and brightness levels which in my view perfectly explain why halation is more apparent, more present and more problematic in some examples than in others.

The sun is above the ridge but just out of the frame here. It is still very bright and we certainly veiling flair in evidence but I still can't tell for sure if this is halation. Maybe so and I certainly would not call this photo a keeper but it doesn't seem to be exhibiting that same level of glow we see in Lucius example at the beginning of this thread.

Fomapan 400 is sensitised up to 700nm, putting it in the same league as Delta 400. With its lack of AH layer, I'd be making exposures through a 720 (I've done that successfully with Delta 400) for Wood Effect. I think I have a box of 4x5 in the freezer...

Thanks Koraks, your observations are certainly appreciated here since is certainly not my area of expertise.

This last one has the sun coming out behind the cloud directly over the ridge and is probably the best example where halation could be present but I still have trouble isolating flair from halation. I may even have to clean my lens as well. It still doesn't seem to show as much glow as comes from Lucius example photo.

By the way, thanks for putting up with my attempts to recreate this halation effect in this film. I don't think I did a very good job but part of the reason was that every time I turned around this is what I would see. It was a beautiful day. Please enjoy your day.

I appreciate the examples and I think they are quite useful in exploring the nature and extent of halation. Your photos demonstrate that on many 'common' scenes the problem doesn't manifest itself strongly - it's in very specific cases only.

I might root around tomorrow for some more examples in my files. I no longer have any of this film, or otherwise I would attempt to rig up a little test.

koraks said:

I appreciate the examples and I think they are quite useful in exploring the nature and extent of halation. Your photos demonstrate that on many 'common' scenes the problem doesn't manifest itself strongly - it's in very specific cases only.

I might root around tomorrow for some more examples in my files. I no longer have any of this film, or otherwise I would attempt to rig up a little test.

Click to expand...

Thanks koraks. I look forward to seeing any examples you may have.

BTW, I am shooting a short roll with an uncoated Elmar 50mm lens to see what effect that has. I am shooting that one at box speed.

Just for the fun of it I may also try one of my more modern Pentax lenses like the 43mm Limited to explore using this film with a lens using more modern coatings.

@Lucius try a modern multicoated lens and the halation will be quite managable. And avoid extreme overexposure.

I think you will find that the Chinon is the culprit here. Or maybe your camera has a very reflective backing plate.

@Pioneer your images match my experience with this film.

Below is a negative scan of an image made with a multicoated lens with ED glass. Direct mid-day sun on the singer and direct reflection in the metal column on the left hand side. No hood. I don't find the halation objectionable.

I've shot quite a lot of Fomapan 400 in 35mm and it does have halation problems as demonstrated above. However, I do agree that in the case of the OP's photos, the lens is exacerbating the issue.