Fomatol/Fomadon lqn paper developer. misclick at ordering.

RowanBloemhof · Mar 12, 2014

Hi there guys,

First of all let me start with saying i have recently started working with analog film. So far my main experience has been in shooting with a digital canon slr.
As a bridge in between for a while i have been using film camera's after which digitizing the negs. However i feel it is time for me to start working with real paper.

So last night i made an order at fotoimpex.de. I ordered some fomatone paper, and fomadon lqn developer. So this morning i had another peek at the data sheet given out by Foma. And it was not until then that i found out there is a developer called Fomatol lqn and fomadon lqn. Ofcourse i placed an order for the wrong type, that being fomadon.

As far as i can tell, they both are phenidone/hydroquinone developers. Now to get to the real question. Is it a no go to use this fomadon developer for my fomatone paper?
I just received word that my order has been shipped, so correcting this issue is no longer possible. And il therefore have to work with what i got:S

One way or another, thanks in advance for thinking with me.

darkosaric · Mar 12, 2014

Hi,

Welcome to APUG .
Never used Foma developers, but I did used many paper developers with Foma papers, and also film developers like Rodinal and D76 (for playing and testing). They all worked fine.
My guess is that this developer you have will work just fine.

RowanBloemhof · Mar 12, 2014

Alright. Thanks. I do got some rodinal. So that shouldnt be a problem for that matter. I also ordered some Xtol. So in that case im sure i can come up with something usable. And besides, perhaps the dilutions with the fomadon lqn will be somewhat different. I supose il have to run some tests on smaller pieces of paper first. Once i have tried the fomadon lqn with the paper, il report back how it worked. As im sure there will be others with a similar question.

Also let me note that so far i mainly have been using Rodinal. A great developer if you ask me. I was quite astonished when i first saw the excellent sharpness and adorable grain. However after switching from fomapan to ilford hp5+ i find that developing in rodinal gives some issues with hp5. The negs seem to lack detail in the highlights. From what i understand Xtol should yield better results with this film. And hell, in time i might even try the more daring approach of combining the 2 developers.

Once again thanks.

darkosaric · Mar 12, 2014

I use Rodinal as well for 95% of my work. With HP5+ I use HC110. But Xtol is awesome developer (look on http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...wFilmProcessing/selecting.jhtml?pq-path=14053 ).

Most important --> have fun, and don't hesitate to ask whatever here on APUG

RowanBloemhof · Mar 12, 2014

Yeap. Well you hear very mixed messages about Rodinal on the interwebs. Some people love it, some people hate it. So far my conclusion is that it has its uses. In my opinion, not with hp5+. The results as said with fomapan are great. http://www.flickr.com/photos/rowanbloemhof/sets/72157640328043305/ Here's a link to my first results with rodinal and fomapan.

What i find sort of suprising is the results you get with cheap c41 color film. http://www.flickr.com/photos/rowanbloemhof/sets/72157641182513234/. some examples there. I used the cheapest film i could get. Agfa vista 200/400. Very nice and contrasty results. However the grain was a bit sharper with this film. Main issue i found is the dreadful base the film is produced on. Its very thick and brown. Making "scanning" the negs with my dslr a hell. When making it positive it leaves you with a very bright blueish result.

Xmas · Mar 12, 2014

RowanBloemhof said:
The negs seem to lack detail in the highlights. From what i understand Xtol should yield better results with this film. And hell, in time i might even try the more daring approach of combining the 2 developers.

Once again thanks.

If the highlights are more dense than the scanners DMax you won't see any details in them...

People who do hybrid film/scanning need to avoid dense negatives.

In the past there were two development times one for condenser enlargement one for ground glass/opal lamp so that one printed on normal paper grade 2 in either case.

Now there needs to be three times.

HP5 should have highlight details it is a long scale film, if you want less dense highlights you need to reduce development time or dilute more.

If you need repeatability you need to control the whole process, mixing developers won't necessarily help.

RowanBloemhof · Mar 12, 2014

Hmm good one. But in this instance i wasnt so much talking about density. but more in terms of detail. The shadows and midtones contain rather much detail. But the highlights seem to lack this. Take this foto for instance. The detail in the darker parts of the image are very articulated. All the leaves and stuff can be seen fine. But the same thing can't be said for the highlights.

Now i am fully aware that i cant expect all parts of the image to be perfectly exposed. But even when chosing a shorter exposure time, details like clouds etc seem to vanish under the grain. And tend to become a greyish plaque. Where as with foma the clouds are very articulated and detailed. click example.

Sorry if i use the wrong jargon here and there. But i hope my explanation is clearer now.

note: so far my work has been all arround digitized negatives by using an enlarger w/o lens and a dslr hooked up to it. The noted issues could have to do with this. But i reckon i would have had the same issue with the foma film in that case.

darkosaric · Mar 12, 2014

Rowan, which filter(s) are you using? Do you have yellow filter on the lens?

RowanBloemhof · Mar 12, 2014

@darko, Nope. Cant say i have been using filters so far. Just an uv filter as guard for my lens. But nothing besides that.
I btw utilize a Canon Eos 300 with an 18-50 sigma lens. The lens is officially made for cropfactor camera's. But the only issue that gives is some nasty vignette at 18mm. This as it has no protruding elements on the mount side. But its a cheap mans solution for wide angle photography.

RowanBloemhof · Mar 12, 2014

I do however have some yellow and red filters for the 50mm. But those dont fit on the sigma lens as it has a diameter of like 67mm:S

R.Gould · Mar 12, 2014

I use Rodinal as my mainstay film developer, and I find that with HP5 you need to increase the time in the developer by at least 2 minutes, when I used Hp5+ ( I very rarely use the HP5 now prefering Fomapan 400) I would develop it for at least 17 minutes at 1/50 to get a reasonable negative, in fact I find that with all Ilford film I needed more time in the developer

gone · Mar 12, 2014

My fling w/ Rodinal and HP5 did not work out. Sadly, we have agreed to part. But the Tri-X/Rodinal relationship is very strong. Not as strong as the Tri-X/D76 marriage, but it's really an apple and oranges comparison. The two developers often result in different "looks". Unlike others here, I use Rodinal at 1:25, and if I nail the exposures and development it's just what I want.

darkosaric · Mar 12, 2014

No details in sky and lack of clouds are because you don't use yellow, orange or red filter. Use yellow K2 filter and problem will be gone.

RowanBloemhof · Mar 12, 2014

Interesting theory. I have used the hp5+ and rodinal combination as 1:50 as well. However i have used only 12/13 minutes developing time at 20 deg celsius. fyi about 68 deg fahrenheit.
Still got some undeveloped hp5 lying arround. Tonight i shall attempt the 17 mins time at 1:50.

And yea i got a thing for fomapan as well. Well priced and as stated earlier, i love the sharp and contrasty pictures you get in rodinal with it. But for that matter, i managed to get my hands on a big roll of hp5+ for a very low price. I couldnt let that one get away.

@darko, this weekend il go out and work with some yellow/red filters. See how that works out.

37th Exposure · Mar 12, 2014

Fomadon vs. Fomatol

No, they are not interchangeable unless you know what you're doing. FomaTOL is for paper. If used for film as is, you will get incredibly dense contrasty negatives. FomaDON is for film. Used for paper you will get extremely low contrast and very long developing times.

RowanBloemhof · Mar 12, 2014

Hmm, that does sort of suck. I supose i will go to the local photo store then tomorrow. And see if they have some sort of a substitute or alternative paper developer.

But on another note, you dont by chance know what the difference between the two is? Chemicly speaking that is. perhaps its possible to use something to completement the fomadon with?

37th Exposure · Mar 12, 2014

RowanBloemhof said:
Hmm, that does sort of suck. I supose i will go to the local photo store then tomorrow. And see if they have some sort of a substitute or alternative paper developer.

But on another note, you dont by chance know what the difference between the two is? Chemicly speaking that is. perhaps its possible to use something to completement the fomadon with?

Still here? I am not a chemist but from reading darkroom texts, it has something to do with the strength of the accelerator which may be stronger in a paper developer and the amounts of the phenidone and hydroquinine. Also, the restrainer may vary. You can modify a film developer into a paper developer and vice-versa but that would better be left to someone with more expertise than I'd ever have. There should be some people on APUG. And some people use the wrong developer on purpose for special effects. Your Rodinal can be used as a paper developer but I have yet to find clear instructions on how. I've been meaning to try it myself. I wouldn't try it just yet. I'm sorry I'm not of much help.

RowanBloemhof · Mar 12, 2014

No worries mate. Were in the end all here to learn new and cool things

I think i still got some old 10x15 paper lying arround. I might just give the fomadon a try. See if i can juice it up by playing with the concentrations. Hell a bottle of that stuff wasnt that expensive anyway. Now i know that the Xtol which i luckily also ordered. Also contains phenidone, i can also try to increase the potency by trying to mix some xtol powder in.

Hopefully i can set up my darkroom this weekend. Once i get results in, il definitely post them here. And show the results.

37th Exposure · Mar 12, 2014

RowanBloemhof said:
No worries mate. Were in the end all here to learn new and cool things

I think i still got some old 10x15 paper lying arround. I might just give the fomadon a try. See if i can juice it up by playing with the concentrations. Hell a bottle of that stuff wasnt that expensive anyway. Now i know that the Xtol which i luckily also ordered. Also contains phenidone, i can also try to increase the potency by trying to mix some xtol powder in.

Hopefully i can set up my darkroom this weekend. Once i get results in, il definitely post them here. And show the results.

I hope it works out. That's part of the fun of having a darkroom. Who knows, maybe you can patent a whole new developer!

RowanBloemhof · Mar 14, 2014

Ok. So few days ago i send an email to Foma. With the question what the real difference between fomatol/fomatone is. And they actually for what it seems went ahead, and tested it for me. They send me an image comparing results from the two. see this Dead Link Removed. I gotta say, i am very much impressed by the effort there willing to invest into a customer. hats off for foma!

darkosaric · Mar 14, 2014

RowanBloemhof said:
Ok. So few days ago i send an email to Foma. With the question what the real difference between fomatol/fomatone is. And they actually for what it seems went ahead, and tested it for me. They send me an image comparing results from the two. see this Dead Link Removed. I gotta say, i am very much impressed by the effort there willing to invest into a customer. hats off for foma!

Wow, this is what I call customer oriented! Kudos to Foma.

37th Exposure · Mar 15, 2014

Now that's service!
So it looks like the two developers are similar. I forgot to mention earlier that a few formulations will work for either film or paper with little manipulation and these must be two of them. But note that they needed a stronger concentration of the Fomadon developer (normal is 1:10 to 1:14 according to Foma data sheets) and the contrast is lower than with Fomatol from the test shots they sent you. So just choose which result you prefer. I used to use Foma liquid developers but never tried to interchange them. I stopped because of poorly sealed bottles and the stuff goes off quite quickly, but that was years ago.

RowanBloemhof · Mar 15, 2014

Good point 37th. That concentration thing is definitely a downside, and when getting a chance. That would mean i would definitely chose the fomatol over fomadon. But atleast it means that this bottle of magic wont have to go to waste Plus, with this knowledge i can compensate the contrast by using additional contrast filters. If that does not work out, which i doubt. I can always discard the bottle and use it for film instead.

Also, in the end i only paid like 3 euro something for the bottle.

37th Exposure · Mar 15, 2014

Good luck! How did your own results turn out? I might just even try Foma liquids again.

RowanBloemhof · Mar 15, 2014

Well. Issue is. I dont have the goods yet. New date is to be monday. Over here with dhl, if you dont open up in 20secs. They go on again. So i missed the courrier by just a moment:S But when i can give you that info, i definitely will.

Fomatol/Fomadon lqn paper developer. misclick at ordering.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency