FYI - Foma & JandC films in Diafine

[Foto Ludens]

Just a quick FYI...

I just bought a single 120 roll of JandC 100, 200 and 400, as well as Foma 100 and 200 from JandC, and tested them in Diafine. I shot quick portraits of myself to test different e.i.'s of each film, and found this:

Foma 100 and JandC Pro-100 look really good at e.i. 50 (lots of shadow separation and good highlight separation) and e.i. 100 (lots of highlight separation and good shadow separation). Although I have not printed any of the Foma 200, the contact sheet indicates that e.i. 100 and 200 will give good results with that film.

The classic films were a bit disapointing to me, they don't seem to like Diafine much. The classic 200 gave good results at 200 and 400, but I'd shoot it at 200 (better tones). Still, the Foma and Pro-100 films have a distinct advantage in terms of tones. I have not printed any of the classic 400, but the contact sheet indicates that e.i. 200 and 400 would be best, with 200 as the better looking one.

Please note that this is not a precise test, I simply meter the ambient light (in the sun), and shoot at different e.i.'s . The Foma and Pro-100 films gave me very good shadow detail, and the Foma 100 gave great skin tones and detail. The purpose of this test was to determine which 8x10 film I'd go to for portraiture work and Diafine development, and it seems that either the Pro-100 or Foma 100 are great choices.

Anyway, your mileage may vary, but I thought that this might interest some of you.

André

 

[Foto Ludens]

Oh, I forgot to mention. The above e.i.'s are what I found print with no filtration in my color head. Yeah, a stop difference still printed nicely with no change in filtration... One of the reasons I really liked Pro-100 and Foma 100. I'm really leaning towards Foma 100 at this point.

André

 

[eumenius]

Yes, Foma 100 is an excellent film in terms of skin tones and shadow separation - it works in every chemistry, too! I never had blocked shadows/lights on Foma 100, unlike with the famous Tmax My Foma Diafine negs come out a bit low-contrasty and thin, but that's how the equalizing developer works - do you ever get big densities in Diafine? But in the sun this combination should work like a song

 

[Foto Ludens]

Eumenius,

I've gotten big densities with Tri-x and Diafine, but I don't think I've blown any highlights with other films. In this test, none of the films have bullet proof highlights, even when rated one stop under the box speed in a backlight frame. Sure, the flare takes up much of the frame (I used an old 3 element folder), but it looks easy to print through.

My Foma 100 negs in diafine look a bit thin (as most of my medium format negs) but prints with no filtration at all, so the contrast is just right. This of course, in direct sunlight. Shaded areas should require a lower e.i. to give the appropriate contrast.
But as you said, this combination is GREAT for sunlight.


Anyway, Foma 100 seems to be my new film of choice. I'll get my hands on some 8x10 and 35mm and try it out in real world settings.

BTW, the strong blue film base did not give me any problems when printing in variable contrast paper. The exposures were not significantly longer than the other films I tested.

André

 

[eumenius]

I am very glad to see that someone enjoys FOMA film, especially Foma 100 - after the famous quality flaw of 120 Foma 100, I've heard much invectives against it It gives fine negatives, it can be reversed with great success, it has a clear colorless base in LF sizes, and it's cheap - what else do we need?

The blue base don't make problems, looks like FOMA people uses an X-ray film base for making 120 film... it's okay, it just looks unusually to some people.

Good luck, and regards from Moscow - Zhenya