Fomapan 400 anti-halation (lack thereof)?

[Lucius]

I've been mostly shooting Fomapan 100 (in bw), but I tried a roll of Fomapan 400, and got extreme glow around bright highlights (examples in the first comment), much more than I got with the 100. If understand it right, the glow results from the lack of an anti-halation layer, but why is the 400 worse than the 100? Does the lens coating contribute (the 400 I shot with a cheap 28mm Chinon lens)? And finally, is there anything one can do about it (other than avoiding high-contrast scenes), e.g. would a red/yellow filter help?

 

[Lucius]

Here are a couple of examples:

 

[koraks]

I don't think either fomapan 100 or 400 have anti-halation measures built-in in 35mm. It's different for 120 roll film and sheet film.

The best way to avoid this issue is to use different film. For instance, halation is far less of an issue on HP5+. It's more expensive, but in this case, you do get what you pay for!

 

[Lucius]

I don't think either fomapan 100 or 400 have anti-halation measures built-in in 35mm. It's different for 120 roll film and sheet film.

The best way to avoid this issue is to use different film. For instance, halation is far less of an issue on HP5+. It's more expensive, but in this case, you do get what you pay for!

Thanks! That's a reasonable solution, I just wanted to check if there is anything I can do to minimise the effect with the stock I already have... And to see if there is an explanation for why 400 is worse than 100.

 

[koraks]

And to see if there is an explanation for why 400 is worse than 100.

I can't answer that; perhaps someone else will. I shot two 100ft wheels of Fomapan 400 before I gave up on it for various reasons, the poor antihalation behavior being one of them. But I never found Fomapan 100 in 35mm to be very stellar in that respect, either.

 

[Lucius]

I can't answer that; perhaps someone else will. I shot two 100ft wheels of Fomapan 400 before I gave up on it for various reasons, the poor antihalation behavior being one of them. But I never found Fomapan 100 in 35mm to be very stellar in that respect, either.

Here's a similar (in terms of lighting) shot on Fomapan 100 (with a 55mm Takumar) -- it's not perfect, but not nearly as extreme as the 400...

I was moderately happy with my 100ft of Fomapan 100 (for what it is), and got myself 55ft of Fomapan 400, and was rather disappointed.

 

[koraks]

Here's a similar (in terms of lighting)

Well, if you want to compare these films reliably, it would be necessary to make not just similar photos, but virtually identical ones. If it matters to you, of course.
To elaborate: the alley shot you posted on Foma 400 shows a bright sky and a presumably very dimly lit alley. The contrast between the sky and the alley was likely far greater (several stops) than between the relatively well-lit rose bush (etc.) and the sky in the Foma 100 shot. So based on these frames, I'd be hesitant to conclude that Foma 100 does so much better than 400.

Mind you, I wouldn't be surprised if in a more rigorous back to back comparison, 100 does a little better than 400. But neither film is particularly good in this respect, if you ask me.

 

[Lucius]

Well, if you want to compare these films reliably, it would be necessary to make not just similar photos, but virtually identical ones. If it matters to you, of course.
To elaborate: the alley shot you posted on Foma 400 shows a bright sky and a presumably very dimly lit alley. The contrast between the sky and the alley was likely far greater (several stops) than between the relatively well-lit rose bush (etc.) and the sky in the Foma 100 shot. So based on these frames, I'd be hesitant to conclude that Foma 100 does so much better than 400.

Mind you, I wouldn't be surprised if in a more rigorous back to back comparison, 100 does a little better than 400. But neither film is particularly good in this respect, if you ask me.

It's a valid point that this isn't a scientifically accurate comparison, but I've shot several 100 rolls, and not a single exposure seems to have such sever glow as many shots do on my single roll of 400. It could of course be the case that it was shot in exceptionally harsh lighting, but if it could be down to the properties of either this particular emulsion or the lens, this would help me decide what to do with it next... I'm actually starting to wonder if the 28mm Chinon could be the culprit -- could such glow be produced, or exacerbated, if the lens had haze or impurities in the glass? (I know that haze can produce glow, I just don't know if it is, visually, the same kind of glow that is caused by the lack of anti-halation, if that makes sense.)

 

[faberryman]

A Google searchs show plenty of reports of halation with Fomapan 400, so you are not alone. If you are seeing halation problems with Fomapan 400, maybe don't shoot Fomapan 400.

 

[Lucius]

A Google search show plenty of reports of halation with Fomapan 400, so you are not alone. If you are seeing halation problems with Fomapan 400, maybe don't shoot Fomapan 400.

I have another 10 rolls or so of Foma 400, and rather than throwing them away, I want to know if the problem can be mitigated in any way (say, with a filter), or whether it is actually caused by the lens more than the film itself.

 

[koraks]

could such glow be produced, or exacerbated, if the lens had haze or impurities in the glass?

Well, the lens can certainly matter, yes. Some lenses are better than others and especially older, budget wide angle lenses certainly weren't all that phenomenal much of the time. Not so much an issue of impurities, but just coating and lens design technology far from where they are today. Longer lenses have always been easier to manufacture as well for SLR's; well-performing retrofocus designs (wide angles on 35mm SLR's) were historically rather challenging.

The simple answer of course is: try a back to back test and see what it gives you. Shoot the 28 Chinon on Foma 100 to see if it does any better on that film, and shoot a known-good lens on the Foma 400 to see how that combination performs. That way you can tell fairly well which part of the problem is due to the film.

PS: filters don't fix lens quality issues. On the other hand, they can make matters much worse when it comes to halation and contrast issues.

 

[Lucius]

The simple answer of course is: try a back to back test and see what it gives you. Shoot the 28 Chinon on Foma 100 to see if it does any better on that film, and shoot a known-good lens on the Foma 400 to see how that combination performs. That way you can tell fairly well which part of the problem is due to the film.

I don't think I want to bother with the 28mm Chinon -- I've since then acquired better lenses in this focal length. But I should probably give the Foma 400 another try with a better (both quality and condition-wise) lens.

PS: filters don't fix lens quality issues. On the other hand, they can make matters much worse when it comes to halation and contrast issues.

Aren't yellow and haze/skylight filters able to cut through atmospheric haze, and a polariser can help with contrast, no? If it is a lens issue, then a filter won't fix it, but if it is down to emulsion, I thought there might be some trick.

 

[faberryman]

I have another 10 rolls or so of Foma 400, and rather than throwing them away, I want to know if the problem can be mitigated in any way (say, with a filter), or whether it is actually caused by the lens more than the film itself.

The cause of the problem is an ineffective anti-halation coating on Foma films. It is a known issue. Avoid lighting conditions which give rise to the problem. If you want to eliminate the Chinon lens as the problem, shoot a few frames with the Chinon lens and a few frames with another lens in problematic lighting, and compare them.

 

[koraks]

Aren't yellow and haze/skylight filters able to cut through atmospheric haze, and a polariser can help with contrast, no? If it is a lens issue, then a filter won't fix it, but if it is down to emulsion, I thought there might be some trick.

A yellow filter will cut out all blue light. This will alter the way the greyscale image is rendered and it may or may not suit the photographer's taste. Many people like it because it tends to make skies a little less bright in B&W images. A skylight filter will does something similar, but less pronouncedly. A polarization filter will only allow light through that's polarized in the same direction/angle. This can help cut out reflections on glass, water, foliage etc.

All these filters can indeed affect contrast, but none of them do so by preventing halation in the film. Halation occurs when (bright) light that hits the film surface is scattered through the emulsion and/or the film base, creating unintended exposure around these bright areas. Since it's an effect that occurs in the film itself, the only way to fix it is also in the film itself - apart from avoiding scenes with high contrast transitions, of course.

If there were a simple trick to fix halation issues, film manufacturers wouldn't have bothered doing something about it.

 

[Lucius]

The cause of the problem is an ineffective anti-halation coating on Foma films. It is a known issue.

I know that, but looking through my rolls shot with Foma 100 and 400, I noticed that the 400 behaved significantly worse -- so my question was whether it is also known that Foma 400 is more halation prone than 100 -- or if indeed it was likely be due to the lens. Doing more testing should of course give an answer.

 

[Lucius]

All these filters can indeed affect contrast, but none of them do so by preventing halation in the film. Halation occurs when (bright) light that hits the film surface is scattered through the emulsion and/or the film base, creating unintended exposure around these bright areas. Since it's an effect that occurs in the film itself, the only way to fix it is also in the film itself - apart from avoiding scenes with high contrast transitions, of course.

If there were a simple trick to fix halation issues, film manufacturers wouldn't have bothered doing something about it.

Yes, that makes sense of course. I was think along the lines that if halation could be increased by uv light coming off the sky, then by cutting it off with a filter, one could reduce the level of halation. But I probably did use an uv filter with the Chinon to begin with...

 

[koraks]

Cutting out UV will certainly help, but because the halation effect is caused by visible light as well, it won't solve the problem. It may alleviate it somewhat, depending on a host of factors. However, in the kind of scene like the alley, which is tricky in this regard, it's not going to be a solution.

 

[faberryman]

I know that, but looking through my rolls shot with Foma 100 and 400, I noticed that the 400 behaved significantly worse -- so my question was whether it is also known that Foma 400 is more halation prone than 100...

Google is your friend.

 

[Lucius]

Google is your friend.

Google is my friend, but truth is friendlier ;-)

 

[Pioneer]

I shoot a lot of Fomapan 400 and I live in a desert with very sunny skies most of the time. Fomapan 400 doesn't have great anti-halation properties but IMHO the exposure caused that problem, especially in the alley. I would have metered the alley alone, with no sky, selected that exposure for the shot, and then re composed the scene to include the sky if I wanted it. The The only film I use that may pull that off successfully would be TMX100 and I doubt I would even try it there.

The Fomapan 100 shot seems much better because you exposure is heavily balanced toward the trees letting the highlights in the sky and building blow out. You still have halation but it isn't as obvious.

 

[koraks]

@Pioneer, given the copious amount of shadow detail in the alley shot, it seems to me that @Lucius did pretty much what you said.
Moreover, I don't see how generous exposure would in any way help with halation issues. If anything, the opposite! Or perhaps I misunderstood your advice?

 

[faberryman]

Google is my friend, but truth is friendlier ;-)

Good luck finding the truth. If you are lucky, you might find a consensus.

 

[Pioneer]

@Pioneer, given the copious amount of shadow detail in the alley shot, it seems to me that @Lucius did pretty much what you said.
Moreover, I don't see how generous exposure would in any way help with halation issues. If anything, the opposite! Or perhaps I misunderstood your advice?

After looking closer you may be right but I would still have given more exposure to the alley. I have glanced through a lot of my Fomapan/AEU 400 exposures and though I tend to avoid that type of exposure I still don't see anywhere near as much glow as shows up in that alley shot. I wonder if development is causing part of the problem?

 

[Pioneer]

Here are a couple examples using Fomapan 400, one recent and one from this winter, which certainly could glow like that but they don't. These were both shot with Fomapan 400 and developed using D-23 1:1. In both cases I based my exposures on the shadows.

 

[Lucius]

After looking closer you may be right but I would still have given more exposure to the alley. I have glanced through a lot of my Fomapan/AEU 400 exposures and though I tend to avoid that type of exposure I still don't see anywhere near as much glow as shows up in that alley shot. I wonder if development is causing part of the problem?

Yes, I did meter off the buildings' walls or the asphalt.

I am inclined to blame the lens. I've taken a look, and it does seem to have some haze (which I must have missed before -- haze isn't always easy to see in a wide lens).

Though both shots were taken in the general direction of the sun, so that wouldn't have helped.

I guess I should give it another chance (not that I have much of a choice, given that I have some 10 rolls lying around).