Fomapan 400 in Ilfotec DD-X Dev Time

[yossi]

Hello all,

Recently I bought some Fomapan 400 and shot it at box speed. I use Ilfotec DD-X to develop it using MDC recipe (1+4, 9 min at 20 deg C). The result was grainy with blown highlight, far from satisfactory!

Has anyone here used DD-X to develop Fomapan 400 at box speed with success? Appreciate any sharing of experience/info. here. TIA.

yossi

 

[pentaxuser]

yossi, assuming this is the first time you have used Fomapan 400 so are not comparing your recently bought film with Fomapan 400 that you previously developed OK then Fomapan 400 is quite a grainy film

Take a digital picture of the negatives and show us them so we can see what might have happened

Have you used other film types with DDX and found them OK? If so tell us what films there were

pentaxuser

 

[yossi]

yossi, assuming this is the first time you have used Fomapan 400 so are not comparing your recently bought film with Fomapan 400 that you previously developed OK then Fomapan 400 is quite a grainy film

Take a digital picture of the negatives and show us them so we can see what might have happened

Have you used other film types with DDX and found them OK? If so tell us what films there were

pentaxuser

Hi there,

Yes this is the first time I use Fomapan 400. Previously using TMY. (Oh so that may be the reason..)

One example image: (sorry about the dusts and scratches, I only started learning DIY developing recently.)

A 100% crop:

Are the coarse grains normal?

 

[pentaxuser]

Well it is not a film I have ever used but based on seeing other people scans of reversed negatives or prints the grain looks as it should to me and yes TMY film is a much better

By the way is this a reversed scan of the negative or darkroom prints. If is scans of the negatives then the best way of to judge the negatives is to take a digital picture of the negatives so they appear as negatives

I can't see any blown highlights, where are these?

pentaxuser

 

[miha]

Fomapan 400 in 135? It looks fine to me.

 

[albireo]

Yes this is the first time I use Fomapan 400. Previously using TMY

They're completely different films. Were you trying to replace TMY with Fomapan 400 because it's cheaper? If so, that is the wrong approach and will likely lead to disappointment. You use Foma 400 because you like Foma 400 IMO.

For starters, Foma 400 is much for red-sensitive than TMY. Are you aware of what this means in terms of how the tones will be rendered in the negative? You will not be able to achieve comparable results with the two films from a tonal point of view.

Here is a pretty good TMY vs Foma 400 comparison. He develops both in D76 and compares the density curve and the spectral response. You can even see his comments on the grain from a magnified section of the two prints.

 

[Tomro]

That s a comparison of Foma with Tri-x, not TMY

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

TMY is probably the most expensive black and white 35mm film out there, but if you look at it cost per frame, it's still within the realm of affordability. Sheet film, on the other hand... I still stock 120 TMY. It's such a lovely emulsion.

 

[albireo]

That s a comparison of Foma with Tri-x, not TMY

Thanks and apologies for the mistake. Overall, the point still holds, I feel.

 

[yossi]

Fomapan 400 in 135? It looks fine to me.

Yes, Fomanpan 400 in 135.

Oh well, think my expectation of it is not realistic

 

[pmargolis]

I rate my 35mm Fomapan 400 at EI 200-250 and process in 1:9 DD-X for 12 minutes at 75 degrees. Your results may (will?) be different, given the variables of water, thermometers, agitation techniques, etc., etc., but I get reasonably fine grain and nice tonality. This is for wet printing; if I scanned I would probably shave a minute or so off of the processing time.

 

[yossi]

Thanks for the tips. That’s very useful. I’ll give it a try. (I don’t do wet print yet, just scan the neg with a Minolta 5400 scanner. )

 

[miha]

Two nights ago I developed a roll of Fomapan 400 (shot at 200) together with 3 rolls of Ilford Pan 400 (shot at box speed) in the same Kinderman SS tank, DD-X, 7:30, 21°C, negatives look really nice. They were all shot with the same camera/lens. Will see how they print tonight.

 

[Pigsonboy]

I use Foma 400 and the same times as you for DDX. I think your results are normal for this combination. To be honest Fomapan is not the best but is pretty cheap. I often get anomalies that seem to be the film emulsion and not me.

 

[miha]

Apart of problematic Fomapan 200 in 120, I love Fomapan 200 & 400 in 135 and 100 in 4x5. Fine film.

 

[yossi]

Two nights ago I developed a roll of Fomapan 400 (shot at 200) together with 3 rolls of Ilford Pan 400 (shot at box speed) in the same Kinderman SS tank, DD-X, 7:30, 21°C, negatives look really nice. They were all shot with the same camera/lens. Will see how they print tonight.

Hello miha,

Yesterday I shot half a roll of Fomapan 400 at ASA640~800 and "stand" developed it in DD-X for 45 mins. Can you take a look at the attached sample picture and compare it with what you got. Let me have your comment on grains, contrast, dynamic range etc. TIA.

Data: Leica M6+ 35mm Summaron. Probably f11, 1/125 s. Scanner: Coolscan 9000ED.

yossi

 

[Paul Howell]

I use Foma 400 as my every day walk around film, I develop in a number of developers, D76, Clayton F76+, MCM 100, had not tired DDX, still your negatives looks pretty good, the highlights on the building in the background looks like they are somewhat blown out, not that unusual considering the lighting. I shoot Foma 400 at 320, based on testing for shadows in Zone III and highlights in Zone VII. I get best grain with MCM 100, better shadows with D76 or Clayton. If you like grain, I did try a roll in Dk50 1:3, too much grain in 35mm for my taste, really nice in 6X9 or 4X5. If you can live the grain I think your on the right path.

 

[miha]

Hi yossi, difficult to compare an optical print to a scanned negative but as Paul wrote above you sample looks pretty good. my I ask (a) why did you choose to underexpose the film by one stop (even more actually, as Fomapan is more of a 200 film) when the light was sufficient based on your stated exposure parameters, and (b) why did you use stand technique with DD-X? You did two things that go against of what I think should be considered as an optimal technique: enough exposure and intermediate agitation. I guess you were just lucky and saved by the huge tolerance of today's material.

 

[yossi]

Hi yossi, difficult to compare an optical print to a scanned negative but as Paul wrote above you sample looks pretty good. my I ask (a) why did you choose to underexpose the film by one stop (even more actually, as Fomapan is more of a 200 film) when the light was sufficient based on your stated exposure parameters, and (b) why did you use stand technique with DD-X? You did two things that go against of what I think should be considered as an optimal technique: enough exposure and intermediate agitation. I guess you were just lucky and saved by the huge tolerance of today's material.

Hi miha,

To answer your questions:
For the test sample picture, the lighting was certainly strong enough to even shoot with an ASA100 film. I took that shot basically just to see how this stand development would render the brighter and darker part of the image. I like to take street shots so can encounter very different lighting situations, and most of the time I stop down to f8 or f11 and scale focus, and so even with ASA400 film, I often get too slow a shutter speed that I end up getting a blurry picture. I used to shoot Tri-X which is great, but its current price has become so high recently (about US$14/roll, and often unavailable locally) and so I look for a cheaper alternative high-speed film to use. The cheapest I could find is Fomapan 400, about US$5.5/roll. I shot it at box speed and DIY developed it normally, but was not all that satisfied (too grainy for me). Btw I also just started learning B&W film processing using DD-X which is the only developer the shop here has. Then I chance upon an YouTube video (don't laugh pls) that shows a stand development of Foma100 in DD-X with great results at +2 stops. So I just try my luck with Foma400, using the same dev recipe more or less.

The experiment was not fully successful but from the results, I think if I shoot the Foma400 at 640 and tweak my recipe a bit, I may get quite useable negative. Way better than the normal development in DD-X could give me. (A few shots did show glowy highlight though. A known issue with Foma400. Below is one example. )

 

[pentaxuser]

This shot looks fine, yossi, but I am puzzled that it should be better than DDX developed at its usual 1+4

pentaxuser

 

[Paul Howell]

I would shoot a test roll, in open shade use a model, light skin zone VI, darker skin zone V to IV, a swath of light cloth with texture for zone VII, dark cloth with texture zone III, a gray card zone V, shoot from ISO 50 to 1600. You will find the ISO with the best dynamic range. I take one shot, then cover the lens and shoot an empty frame, makes it easier to judge later. Develop using you standard dilution and time. Any by the way, it is really hard to avoid blown highlight when shooting lighting fixtures, I think your example is just fine, the lights look natural and your shadow are open with detail. I don't see an issue. If you really want to tame the highlights of the lighting fixtures you need to use a pryro developer or a divided developer. My guess is that will need to make from raw chemistry.

 

[Tomro]

Apart of problematic Fomapan 200 in 120, I love Fomapan 200 & 400 in 135 and 100 in 4x5. Fine film.

Foma 200 in 120 is terrible. Got 10 rolls, not even one was free of little black lines all over the frame. Foma 100/400 are better in that regard, however for what a Foma film gives DD-X is too expensive for me. With Foma I use HC110 or Tanol.

 

[yossi]

Foma 200 in 120 is terrible. Got 10 rolls, not even one was free of little black lines all over the frame. Foma 100/400 are better in that regard, however for what a Foma film gives DD-X is too expensive for me. With Foma I use HC110 or Tanol.

Hello Tomro,

Agreed that DD-X is not a cheap developer. For me, DD-X is the only developer available locally (Singapore). I managed to import a bottle of HC-110 from Taiwan and it costs more than the DD-X. In the long run, I may have to mix my own D-23

 

[Tomro]

Hello Tomro,

Agreed that DD-X is not a cheap developer. For me, DD-X is the only developer available locally (Singapore). I managed to import a bottle of HC-110 from Taiwan and it costs more than the DD-X. In the long run, I may have to mix my own D-23

oh, didn't think that DD-X would ever be cheaper than HC110 Well then, as a developer I like DD-X better than HC110…

 

[albireo]

Foma 200 in 120 is terrible. Got 10 rolls, not even one was free of little black lines all over the frame.

Foma 200 is fantastic, probably their best film. Similar spectral response as Trix, excellent long straight line.

Some batches have been known to suffer from soft emulsion problem. People, sadly, use this film to 'test' their 1950s folders or TLRs with rusty rollers, which don't play well with the soft emulsion.

Newer batches are much improved and make Trix or other overpriced overseas film largely redundant for most amateurs.