Fomapan 400 anti-halation (lack thereof)?
-
A
- Thread starter Lucius
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Japanese Wooden Field Camera with Half Plate & 4x5 Backs
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Want to Buy LG: Arkay / Any Roller type print dryer
- Started by juniejun
-
For Sale FS: KANI Soft & Reverse Graduated ND 170x190mm Filters
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Found Kodak /Graphic #1 Flash Supermatic Shutter
- Started by pdccamerqs
Forum statistics
It could be the lens. Like Koraks says to track it down you will need to use identical exposures, and perhaps try different lenses, different exposures and different development techniques. I buy Fomapan 400 in bulk 100 foot rolls but if I were getting results like your alley shot I would not be buying more of it. I actually use it because I like the grain and the contrast, not because of any halation or antihalation effects.
Your recent post of the alley is more what I would expect to see. If you do like to get the sun in your images then, like Koraks has said, you will probably need to be using a different film. But that doesn't mean you can't use the Fomapan 400, just be a bit more discriminating in what you are shooting.
It would be interesting to see what that lens does in a similar situation with Delta 400 or HP5+. I shoot with old, uncoated Leica Elmar 50/3.5 lenses and don't get that kind of effect.
MattKing
Moderator
It would probably be better to refer to the anti-halation properties of Fomapan 400 as being less effective rather than non-existent.
The current Kentmere films also exhibit more halation than their relatively similar Ilford partners.
Anti-halation measures involve expense and manufacturing complexity and/or development complexity - e.g. films using remjet for the purpose.
So there is no surprise that some films resist halation better than others.
The current Kentmere films also exhibit more halation than their relatively similar Ilford partners.
Anti-halation measures involve expense and manufacturing complexity and/or development complexity - e.g. films using remjet for the purpose.
So there is no surprise that some films resist halation better than others.
Yes, but neither of those shots involve strong light sources in the image frame right next to an area in very deep shade. Try photographing up against a north-facing rock face with a strip of bright sky over it at 3pm in summer. I think it'll turn out more like @Lucius' examples.
Check the Fomapan datasheets. No antihalation is mentioned for 35mm, while it's explicitly mentioned (and very apparent during processing) for the other formats. I think it's safe to say that the antihalation measures on these films are really non-existent.
Remjet is an extreme case. The usual approach in still films is to have anti-halation dyes embedded in a layer between the photographic emulsion and the film base, or in the backing/antiy-curl gelatin coat (esp. 120 film).
I was, and still am, more comfortable with standard 50mm lenses. This was (almost a year ago, I now realise) my first attempt to shoot a wide 28mm lens -- and the Chinon just happened to be lying around. One lesson learned is not to try out a new lens and a new film together! I don't think I'll be using the Chinon again: it had rather pronounced barrel distortion, and I've got a couple of nicer 28mm lenses since. But the Foma I should definitely give another try. (Unfortunately I can't experiment with development, as I use a lab.)
Don't worry. They're not responsible for the halation, nor can they do anything about it. It's entirely unrelated to processing.
MattKing
Moderator
You may very well be right.
Or the different wording may be related to the fact that the anti-halation properties are incorporated into the triacetate base material for the 35mm stock - thus the colour - and added as a separate, to be washed off coating to the films on polyester base.
I only say this because of how films that are truly without anti-halation, such as the old Kodak HIE, exhibit far more halation then what I have seen from the Fomapan films.
It's conceivable, yes. In any case, it's still significantly less effective than the alternative anti-halo dye they use for the larger formats.
It would be IMO odd that they explicitly mention anti-halation provisions for some formats, but not for others.
Anyway, it's speculation on our end. What's clear is that halation is significant on these films, even if less severe than in some other materials.
Thanks Koraks, I am always looking for new things to photograph. You are right that neither of those have a bright sun in them. I do have some Fomapan 400 135 loaded up today. Though no longer summer it is a nice sunny day today. I will go out today and try a few shots exactly like that and see what happens. Those two shots were grabbed quickly out of my files as examples because they showed bright against dark and were already reduced for the web.
MattKing
Moderator
My take is that there are no bright colours to wash off the acetate based films, so they don't need to explain them.
I wonder how the datasheets read in the language they were initially written in - if not in English.
Interesting, very much looking forward to seeing if you'll replicate the problem! Keep us posted.
That's a possibility.
I've not done this, but I figure it's easy to fetch the Czech original (I assume) and give it a read, perhaps helped by Google Translate. Something may be lost in that process, but it's pretty decent these days.
I'd appreciate that! Do share your results please.
Yes - Foma 400 in 35mm is a less refined product than Foma 400 in 120 (the latter DOES have an anti-halation layer).
However having shot a fair bit of Foma 400 in 35mm, I've never seen halation as severe as the one shown in the examples in this thread.
Can you take a picture of your lens against a strong point light source? Do you see fingerprints, dust, fungus?
Also, could you show the negatives of your first set of shots. I think halation with Foma 400 might be exacerbated by over-exposure.
However having shot a fair bit of Foma 400 in 35mm, I've never seen halation as severe as the one shown in the examples in this thread.
Can you take a picture of your lens against a strong point light source? Do you see fingerprints, dust, fungus?
Also, could you show the negatives of your first set of shots. I think halation with Foma 400 might be exacerbated by over-exposure.
Last edited:
Uhm. I'm skeptical. Putting it nicely.
I'd gladly be convinced otherwise with convincing empirical evidence.
From a theoretical angle: how do you suppose the developer or the silver grains themselves figure out if they were exposed by stray light (e.g. halation) or the desired-by-the-photographer image-forming light?
And you would be correct in being skeptical! Sorry. I meant over-exposure. I will correct the sentence and add a 'perhaps'. So what I've observed is that on those occasions when I've taken a few different exposures of the same scene, the one with the most generous exposure seems to show the strongest halation. This is visibile in the frame boundaries surrounding bright sky sections. I have a fairly new camera that produces 'sharp' image borders with correct exposure (so I'm sure the pressure plate is pressing just fine) but given a combination of longish exposure and a film with no halation, those borders become blurry and there is exposure beyond the frame boundary.
I had interpreted this as evidence for exposure-dependent scattering of light back and forth across the depth of the emulsion (sort of like light scattering inside fiber optics). Does this make more sense?
Btw, I just dug up some Foma 400 scans lingering around on a network share.
Background top right part of the cityscape totally obliterated by halation; note also severely degraded contrast around the gutter on the building left of the alleyway.
Pretty much the same, just mirrored. Note building in background at the end of the alley, notably the roof. Also higher levels of the buildings left and right of the alley.
Note entire top area of the frame with the roof structure blown out by halation.
Note halos around all lamps. They're even shaded lamps, so that should logically block much of the problem since the actual light source is kept out of the image, but even then, the film exhibits strong halation effects.
Note halos again around highlights; the neon sign top left, the specular highlights in the foliage of the tree.
Same principle; note strongly compromised contrast along tree branches in the upper half of the image.
Sorry about the overall abysmal quality of the photographs in pretty much every sense. They're picked from two rolls I somehow managed to label correctly, so they were easy to find.
The main differentiator in terms of the severity of the halation is the brightness of a highlight area or light source in combination with the scene contrast range, particularly adjacency between the two of these. But that's pretty much the definition of halation...
Background top right part of the cityscape totally obliterated by halation; note also severely degraded contrast around the gutter on the building left of the alleyway.
Pretty much the same, just mirrored. Note building in background at the end of the alley, notably the roof. Also higher levels of the buildings left and right of the alley.
Note entire top area of the frame with the roof structure blown out by halation.
Note halos around all lamps. They're even shaded lamps, so that should logically block much of the problem since the actual light source is kept out of the image, but even then, the film exhibits strong halation effects.
Note halos again around highlights; the neon sign top left, the specular highlights in the foliage of the tree.
Same principle; note strongly compromised contrast along tree branches in the upper half of the image.
Sorry about the overall abysmal quality of the photographs in pretty much every sense. They're picked from two rolls I somehow managed to label correctly, so they were easy to find.
The main differentiator in terms of the severity of the halation is the brightness of a highlight area or light source in combination with the scene contrast range, particularly adjacency between the two of these. But that's pretty much the definition of halation...
Yes, yes, that makes much more sense indeed! And I agree that overexposure will indeed exacerbate the issue, since halation tends to correlate with absolute exposure. Hence, overexposing the same scene by a stop will make a noticeable difference in halation, even if the contrast range in the final print or scan ends up the same.
hmmm I don't know what to say - I don't see those effects in my examples. I will find some scans once I'm home. How long ago have these images been taken?
I'm wondering whether Foma has been introducing undocumented changes and what I've been shooting is a somewhat different emulsion than the above? I've only ever used Foma 400 in 35mm (I'm much more familiar with their 120 product) in the past 1-2 years. Perhaps they've introduced minimal halation? How old are the rolls shot by OP?
Last edited:
It looks like you’ve got two variables, the lens and the film. The composition is really difficult technically, because of the contrast and a sharp edge between the bright sky and shaded side of the building. Neither the lens or that film are the best out there and this is one of those situations where the problems can really become obvious.
I’d try shooting more of the Foma 400 on a shot with a similar scenario, a couple with the Chinon and a couple with the other lens. Then try the same thing with another film, maybe the T-Max 100 that was suggested. That’ll tell you the differences with each. I’d be curious to see how it compares.
Well, we can never know for sure about such things of course, but I'd be very surprised if they did. The ones I posted were shot in 2017. I think the film was probably 6-12 months old by that time. This particular bulk roll ultimately gave me problems because of a coating defect, with a distinct minus-density band running lengthwise along the film. Started somewhere halfway that roll and continued right up to the end. That, combined with its tonality, coarse grain, poor halation and low effective speed made me abandon the product. All considered, it was just too much trouble.
I have some from 2008. These are from a roll of Foma 400 I used in my Fed Mikron. For the first one, you can see I obeyed basic rules and kept the sun behind my shoulder. It's grainy, because it's half-frame and in Rodinal, but has no haloes.
On the same roll, I shot into the light and got haloes:
and later, streetlamps and headlamps also gave me haloes:
Very poor technical quality, but it recalls a dark, wet autumn evening in Leeds quite well for me.
This one is medium format Foma 400, so has no haloes:
I think what you're seeing is straightforward halation, and the solution if you don't like it is to buy different film. That's also cheap and easy to try.
On the same roll, I shot into the light and got haloes:
and later, streetlamps and headlamps also gave me haloes:
Very poor technical quality, but it recalls a dark, wet autumn evening in Leeds quite well for me.
This one is medium format Foma 400, so has no haloes:
I think what you're seeing is straightforward halation, and the solution if you don't like it is to buy different film. That's also cheap and easy to try.
Some of the pictures I am seeing here are certainly examples of halation in action but they do not remind me at all of my own results with this film. It is certainly possible that my own techniques are keeping contrast lower but if that is true I am not aware that I am purposely adjusting my technique to reduce halation. I am now looking forward to my own results.
I am actually quite amazed and intrigued. I routinely work with Fomapan 400, Ilford HP5+, Ilford Delta 400, Kodak TMX100 and Adox CMS 20 II Pro. Of all of them I probably use Fomapan 400 the most because it is inexpensive but my use of Kodak TMX 100 is a real close second. Each of these films certainly has a different response and look but none of them show anywhere near this much halation. My reality is closer to the last example that Dustin posted that came from a roll of 120.
I finished the roll yesterday with a number of exposures directly against the sun with dark cliff faces or trees in the scene. I will be developing in a couple of hours and should be able do a few quick negative scans tomorrow. I hadn't planned on warming up my enlarger and making prints until later this month or the first of next month when I have more time. However straight scans should certainly show any halation as major as what we are seeing here.
As for differences in antihalation coating between medium format and 135 film I don't remember any egregious examples where one responds more poorly than the other under similar situations. I know that it is very unlikely but my initial response yesterday was to wonder if you are actually using the same film that I am. It certainly doesn't seem to respond the same but, like I said, now I am really looking forward to seeing my own results.
I am actually quite amazed and intrigued. I routinely work with Fomapan 400, Ilford HP5+, Ilford Delta 400, Kodak TMX100 and Adox CMS 20 II Pro. Of all of them I probably use Fomapan 400 the most because it is inexpensive but my use of Kodak TMX 100 is a real close second. Each of these films certainly has a different response and look but none of them show anywhere near this much halation. My reality is closer to the last example that Dustin posted that came from a roll of 120.
I finished the roll yesterday with a number of exposures directly against the sun with dark cliff faces or trees in the scene. I will be developing in a couple of hours and should be able do a few quick negative scans tomorrow. I hadn't planned on warming up my enlarger and making prints until later this month or the first of next month when I have more time. However straight scans should certainly show any halation as major as what we are seeing here.
As for differences in antihalation coating between medium format and 135 film I don't remember any egregious examples where one responds more poorly than the other under similar situations. I know that it is very unlikely but my initial response yesterday was to wonder if you are actually using the same film that I am. It certainly doesn't seem to respond the same but, like I said, now I am really looking forward to seeing my own results.
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.
Here is some from 2022. Fomapan 400 in 35mm, mint 50mm lens and a variety of Foma developers. I think this is fine and that what people are seeing is perhaps a combination of a) some halation b) some overexposure c) tricky extreme light in the frame (eg point sources like a street pole at night or direct sun reflected by a mirrored surface) and especially d) mold or dust on the lens.
Aside from that I wouldn't exclude undocumented changes in the material.
Aside from that I wouldn't exclude undocumented changes in the material.
Last edited:
One from 2023 so super recent batch.
Fomapan 400 in 35mm in D23 1+1. As above - inversion from linear raw scan with a 3200dpi dedicated film scanner - no edits, no grain reduction etc. Strong mid-afternoon sunlight on the flowers, bench, metallic bits of the barrel, blackboard rim...
Fomapan 400 in 35mm in D23 1+1. As above - inversion from linear raw scan with a 3200dpi dedicated film scanner - no edits, no grain reduction etc. Strong mid-afternoon sunlight on the flowers, bench, metallic bits of the barrel, blackboard rim...
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |