Fomapan 400

[dxphoto]

Any thoughts on this film? I think I saw a few posts once a while.... but I am not able to find them now....

I tried them in rodinal (1+50). soup it for 11 min at 20C.. The time was copied from Massive Dev Chart. Result wasn't so good.

BTW, it was shot at EI320.

 

[dxphoto]

a 100% scan from canon 8400f at 2400DPI, not manipulated.

Shot as 320
http://picasaweb.google.com/dxphoto/FOMA/photo#5008998762423490018

orginal...
http://lh4.google.com/image/dxphoto.../CjJXtZ1hr_I/foma400_rodinal_1_50.jpg?imgdl=1

 

[Fotohuis]

Fomapan 400 in Rodinal is loosing film speed heavily (iso 200) and you will have rather excessive grain.
That's why we do not recommend this film in Rodinal (empty column):
Dead Link Removed

If you have studied the film data sheet you can also see it will hardly reach the full film speed:
Dead Link Removed
(Even not with Microphen).

We have good experiences on iso 320 with the semi-compensating developer of Amaloco AM74 and this film.
You can also use the Rollei High Speed (RHS) developer for it (USA). Same type developer.
Dilution: 1+7; 6 minutes, or 1+9; 6:45 minutes.
Best Foma alternative:LQN,
http://www.foma.cz/Upload/foma/prilohy/Lazne_filmy_en.pdf

Best regards,

Robert

 

[Neal]

Dear dxphoto,

In general, my results were similar to yours (I also used 35mm). Using Xtol, exposing at box speed and slightly overdeveloping (by mistake, not by plan) the film is grainy but not sharp. I have a few rolls left so I hope to improve my technique enough to be fair, but it doesn't appear to be a replacment for the Fuji/Ilford/Kodak products. This might be a very nice film in mf or sheets, or when the look of the film is desired.

Neal Wydra

 

[wirehead]

I've been doing Rodinal 1+100 and metering down at 200, sometimes 400 and accepting the lack of shadow detail.

I've also used HC-110.

 

[srs5694]

Personally, I like it a lot, mostly because of the subjective quality of the grain and tonality. I generally develop it in PC-Glycol or XTOL. I don't think I've ever tried it in Rodinal, but as has been said, Rodinal probably isn't the best choice of developer for this film. One caveat: Fomapan's anti-halation characteristics, at least in 35mm, are poor. This isn't an issue for most shots, but if you've got bright highlights (street lights at night, reflective chrome in bright daylight, etc.), they'll have halos. Usually this is bad, but sometimes it's good. One of my favorite personal photos was shot with Fomapan 400 and is, I think, enhanced by the halos around a couple of bright areas.

FWIW, the first link you provided comes up with no photos on my browser. The second shows a photo, but I'm not sure if it's the full frame or a cropped view. I suspect the latter, and if so, the grain certainly looks mushier than what I usually see -- but it could be your scanner isn't focusing correctly. If it's full-frame, then the grain is definitely excessive and extremely mushy, and it looks like the photo as a whole is out of focus. If that second link is to a full-frame photo, it's definitely not representative of what Fomapan 400 does for me.

 

[dxphoto]

Thanks for the replies... I used forte 400 also and I feel foma 400 is not bad at all. Maybe D76 would be a better choice compare to Rodinal.

 

[don sigl]

I did a test recently with this film. My film spped for 120 was 200. Development was in pyrocat 1:1:100 for 11 minutes. I got a zone V density that was about .65 +B+F. The film has a blue base that will not wash out. In my opinion the film is a little softer than HP5 with slightly larger grain. Overall not a bad film. Certainly worth the price. Its probably a little too soft for my liking.

 

[srs5694]

The blue base to which don refers applies to the film in 120 (and I believe larger) format. In 35mm, it has no blue base color; it's a very neutral gray.

 

[zenrhino]

I shoot quite a bit of this (because as arista.edu ultra, it's cheap) and have pretty good luck souping it in Sprint. I'm sure I can find some examples done in Rodinal 1:50 semi-stand (DF Cardwell's method), too if you need.

Here's an example done in Sprint,[/URL] per whatever time/temp it says on their website -- I forget right off what that is.

http://static.flickr.com/82/250603617_7396e29359_b.jpg

 

[dxphoto]

Hi,

That's right, the 400 film doesn't have any tint. Also, the base of the film is on the thick side, not like other cheap film, it doesn't curl at all.

zenrhino, The result with Sprint looks very nice. Did you shoot at the box speed?

A little bit off the topic, is rodinal not a good develop for high speed film?

Thanks again for all the posts.

 

[srs5694]

A little bit off the topic, is rodinal not a good develop for high speed film?

Most people recommend avoiding Rodinal with high-speed films, particularly in smaller formats (such as 35mm), because Rodinal isn't a fine-grain developer, and most people prefer fine-grain developers with fast films to keep the grain from becoming objectionably large. Some people who don't mind large grain use Rodinal for high-speed films, though, even in 35mm.

 

[dxphoto]

Hi,

That's right, the 400 film doesn't have any tint. Also, the base of the film is on the thick side, not like other cheap film, it doesn't curl at all.

zenrhino, The result with Sprint looks very nice. Did you shoot at the box speed?

A little bit off the topic, is rodinal not a good develop for high speed film?

Thanks again.

 

[Metroman]

I'm sure I can find some examples done in Rodinal 1:50 semi-stand (DF Cardwell's method), too if you need.

Can anyone point me to DF Cardwell's method and/or any sites covering stand and semi-stand development?

I have been playing with a couple of receipes with mixed results but would really like to to get to understand the method and effects on different films. I currently shoot with Classic Pan, Efke, Adox and Rollei Retro. Devs include APH09 and ATM49.

TIA

 

[rwyoung]

Thanks for the replies... I used forte 400 also and I feel foma 400 is not bad at all. Maybe D76 would be a better choice compare to Rodinal.

YMMV, but with D76 @ 20C in a Jobo I found that for me, the speed was more like 250 under daylight. This may be partly because I like a bit more density and partly because my meter/shutter speeds are a bit whacked. But 250 is only 1/3 slower than the 320 suggested by others.

Indoors, tungsten lighting, I haven't run any film speed tests. But I can attest to its minimal anti-halitation layer characteristic. This was especially apparent when I decided to try pushing it 3 stops. Interesting, any maybe only capible of about 2 stop push with D76... Still, fun to use the old Retina IIc, no flash, indoors during a gallery talk. Just stood in the back, camera zone-focused and hold it up over my head...

 

[Jordan]

FWIW I've found that the 120-format Fomapan films (and by extension, Arista.EDU Ultra) have a blue-tinted base, while the 35mm do not. I think this is consistent throughout this line of film.

In addition, I find that the 120-format material curls severely on drying, while the 35mm stuff does not.

The films all have an "old-school" look to them. I like Fomapan a lot (for certain subjects) in 35mm, but the curl of the 120 stuff makes it not worth the inconvenience IMO.

 

[zenrhino]

Can anyone point me to DF Cardwell's method and/or any sites covering stand and semi-stand development?

I have been playing with a couple of receipes with mixed results but would really like to to get to understand the method and effects on different films. I currently shoot with Classic Pan, Efke, Adox and Rollei Retro. Devs include APH09 and ATM49.

TIA

Metro, here's what Don sent me one fortuitous night and where Rodinal is concerned, I consider him the chief theologian of the Church of Rodinal.

Without further adeiu:

Back in my Jobo days ( oy ! ) i was always irritated and befuddled by what Rodinal deleivered. Since I had 15 years of Rodinal behind me, I finally figured out there were some problems with constant agitation.

1. You get over developed highlights
2. You get under developed shadows
3. You get a lump around Zone IV

No dilution, no nothing will alter this. You get a weird, though sometimes useful, response from Rodinal.

HOWEVER, everything gets fixed when you take Rodinal OUT of the JOBO.
Even better, agitate once every fifth minute.

1. You get full shadow speed with whatever toe charecteristics the film wants to make.

2. You get a straight line through the shadows.

3. You get the highlights designed into the film.

AND you get brisk acutance, with well modulated grain.

It isn't witchcraft, just suitable technique.

My notes say 18' to 22', 1+50, agitation 5 seconds every 5th minute. EI 400.

don

 

[Metroman]

Metro, here's what Don sent me one fortuitous night and where Rodinal is concerned, I consider him the chief theologian of the Church of Rodinal.

Zen, many thanks. I do get bored listening to my Jobo CPE-2 whirring around. As I now have loads of time to experiment this will give me a good starting point. Many thanks to you and DF Cardwell!

 

[dxphoto]

Just follow up this topic....

I am in the second 100' roll of this film... based on what I got from last 100' (some in rodinal and some in d76 1+1), i keep shooting them at EI320 and developed them in D76(1+1) for 13min at 68F.

During the actual shooting, I even actually over-exposed the film 1/3 or 1/2 stop (as I always set the f at 8 and the shutter goes on whole stops). During the developing, I invert 6 times in 5 sec for every 30 sec (the film looks a bit contrast.. I am thinking should I reduce it to every 60 sec).

Now I found the file is not slow (as foma suggests the best in D76 stock is just over 250 http://www.digitaltruth.com/store/foma_tech/Fomapan_400.pdf). There is difference between the last 100' and this one.

I bought the as arista edu ultra. I am not sure if it possible that two different batches of the same kind film actually have different speed (somewhat 1/2 stop). It's a bit strange. Also, the 100' roll does not have frame count on it.

Overall, I am happy with this film. Solid film base, no curl at all, fairly good speed (compare to other non big brand films). Since tri-x is pretty expensive now, I am using this film as my everyday-casual-shooting film.