Getting contrasty film with Foma Fomapan 400 in DF96?

[Candlejack]

Hello all! Please don't bite my head off asking a relatively newbie question. Im searching forums and posts while putting this here.
I am shooting 120 film, foma fomapan 400
BW. Im currently using DF96 to develop. I dont have a darkroom at home and slowly delving deeper and deeper. (Not ready for new developer and chemicals yet)

Anywho. The goal of this developed film is to make contact prints with cyanotype and van dyke processes. For van dyke im realizing I need really contrasy prints... dense darks. I am not achieving whites in my van dyje prints due to my current film shooting and developing. (Its not fogging issues, i ran a test today)

What can I do shooting wise to increase the dense darks/contrasts? Should I use a filter over the lens? Double exposure time?

What can I do processing wise with Df96 to push these darks on the film? Reading about stand development, can that be done with df96? Or should I use a higher temp and longer developing time?

Thanks for any and all advice!

 

[removed account4]

you might consider bracketing your exposures an experiment with both agitation and or temperature to change the contrast of your film. I have never used the cinistill developer but both those things tend to change contrast characteristics.. you might also contact the people that ho make it and ask what they recommend..
I wouldn’t bother with stand development that is to make low contrast negatives
sorry for not being much help.
John

 

[MattKing]

I've changed your thread title, because a monobath like DF96 requires a very different approach to contrast control than a more normal developer, and you will want to seek out the advice of the relatively small number of people who have monobath experience.
Good luck with your quest, and welcome.

 

[Candlejack]

I've changed your thread title, because a monobath like DF96 requires a very different approach to contrast control than a more normal developer, and you will want to seek out the advice of the relatively small number of people who have monobath experience.
Good luck with your quest, and welcome.

Thanks! New to this and much appreciated!

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

DF96 is not a good choice for this application. Try Kodak HC-110 or Ilford ID-11, you will also need a bottle of a fixer like Kodak Rapid Fix or Ilford Hypam. Overexpose by about a stop and overdevelop about 25% and see if that gets you where you need to be. Play it by ear from there - increased exposure will increase density of both shadows and highlights; increased development will increase the density of the highlights on the negative (i.e. the highlights will be whiter on the print) but won't make the print's shadows that much lighter. For a film you might want to consider TMAX-400 as it can reach higher density than Fomapan without the highlights blocking up.

Save the DF96 & Fomapan for taking negatives not slated for vandyke or cyanotype. And best stay away from 'stand developing' until you get everything working the way you want it to. Too many variables will just get you good and lost.

Putting a filter over the lens will not change your negative contrast though it might give you better separation of clouds and sky.

 

[Candlejack]

DF96 is not a good choice for this application. Try Kodak HC-110 or Ilford ID-11, you will also need a bottle of a fixer like Kodak Rapid Fix or Ilford Hypam. Overexpose by about a stop and overdevelop about 25% and see if that gets you where you need to be. Play it by ear from there - increased exposure will increase density of both shadows and highlights; increased development will increase the density of the highlights on the negative (i.e. the highlights will be whiter on the print) but won't make the print's shadows that much lighter. For a film you might want to consider TMAX-400 as it can reach higher density than Fomapan without the highlights blocking up.

Save the DF96 & Fomapan for taking negatives not slated for vandyke or cyanotype. And best stay away from 'stand developing' until you get everything working the way you want it to. Too many variables will just get you good and lost.

Putting a filter over the lens will not change your negative contrast though it might give you better separation of clouds and sky.

Thank you! Im going to do a little experimenting. Ill eventually migrate over to those chemicals and more expensive film. Right now I feel like im in the "get all the mistakes out of the way stage" with cheaper film and materials.

 

[MattKing]

DF96 (or any other monobath) is actually fairly expensive to use (on a per roll basis) and due to its relative complexity in how it works may give you a chance to make some mistakes that you wouldn't be able to make with a more usual combination.
The monobath users may correct me on this, but I believe that monobaths are actually designed to limit contrast and density, not enhance them. For that reason, a monobath may be the least desirable approach for what you are trying to do.
As I understand it, you need to use temperature, not time or agitation, to partially control contrast.

 

[revdoc]

I haven't been able to get a VDB density range out of Foma 400, and I've tried pretty hard. The best results were with print developer, which gave the right contrast in the mid tones, but blocked highlights. That's really the issue with this film... it has a shoulder that limits the maximum density it can deliver. That's just how it is.

That said, I can use it for VDB if I use a staining developer, and boost the print contrast by adding ferric citrate to the VDB sensitiser. That will just get me over the line, but it isn't easy!

I think you'd be better off with a different film. A lot of people using alt processes seem to use FP4+. It has a reputation for producing a very high density range, which is what you need, but as others have said, you'll have to switch to a conventional dev and fix.

 

[Candlejack]

DF96 (or any other monobath) is actually fairly expensive to use (on a per roll basis) and due to its relative complexity in how it works may give you a chance to make some mistakes that you wouldn't be able to make with a more usual combination.
The monobath users may correct me on this, but I believe that monobaths are actually designed to limit contrast and density, not enhance them. For that reason, a monobath may be the least desirable approach for what you are trying to do.
As I understand it, you need to use temperature, not time or agitation, to partially control contrast.

That makes sense. Ill start pricing out/ figuring out the otger developers and fixers

 

[Candlejack]

I haven't been able to get a VDB density range out of Foma 400, and I've tried pretty hard. The best results were with print developer, which gave the right contrast in the mid tones, but blocked highlights. That's really the issue with this film... it has a shoulder that limits the maximum density it can deliver. That's just how it is.

That said, I can use it for VDB if I use a staining developer, and boost the print contrast by adding ferric citrate to the VDB sensitiser. That will just get me over the line, but it isn't easy!

I think you'd be better off with a different film. A lot of people using alt processes seem to use FP4+. It has a reputation for producing a very high density range, which is what you need, but as others have said, you'll have to switch to a conventional dev and fix.

Thank you for sharing your experiences! Quite the bummer though.. dang. Ill look at new film and developers.

Any chance you had any luck with cyanotype?

 

[MatthewDunn]

I think you'd be better off with a different film. A lot of people using alt processes seem to use FP4+. It has a reputation for producing a very high density range, which is what you need, but as others have said, you'll have to switch to a conventional dev and fix.

I work almost exclusively with alt processes these days (4x5 and 8x10 in-camera negatives) and, as mentioned above, FP4+ in a staining developer is a very common choice. There are ample threads on this site that do a much better job than I can explaining why. Personally, if its helpful, I use FP4+ in Pyro HD, mixed at 2:2:100 for 10 mins in 70 degree water (agitate for the first 30 secs and then for 15 secs at the top of each minute). That gives me a robust negative that I can reliably print under a UV light in a "normal" amount of time.

Try summoning @Andrew O'Neill and/or @Vaughn. I suspect they might also have some relevant input for you.

I hope that helps. Sorry you are having difficulty. Would love to see your work when you get things sorted.

 

[Candlejack]

I work almost exclusively with alt processes these days (4x5 and 8x10 in-camera negatives) and, as mentioned above, FP4+ in a staining developer is a very common choice. There are ample threads on this site that do a much better job than I can explaining why. Personally, if its helpful, I use FP4+ in Pyro HD, mixed at 2:2:100 for 10 mins in 70 degree water (agitate for the first 30 secs and then for 15 secs at the top of each minute). That gives me a robust negative that I can reliably print under a UV light in a "normal" amount of time.

Try summoning @Andrew O'Neill and/or @Vaughn. I suspect they might also have some relevant input for you.

I hope that helps. Sorry you are having difficulty. Would love to see your work when you get things sorted.

Thank you for the information. Ill look that developer up/price it out. I need to figure out how long other developers shelf lifes are and If I can use them sans darkroom? Are they light sensitive? Anywho..

Heres some van dyke experiments i did today, to see if I was having fogging etc. (The completely white area was electrical tape only during sun exposure) Ultimately, it seems the negatives are the issues. (I haphazardly coated the paper just so i could experiment)

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

FP4 is a very nice film for alt processes that I dabble in...carbon transfer, kallitype, gum, etc. I also use HP5, but to get it to work in alt. I use a high contrast developer such as DK-50, as recommended by Vaughn. It will give you the required DR, without bumping up the base fog. I'm not familiar with Foma films, so I have no idea how it's base fog is affected by extended development times. If I recall, DF96 is a monobath developer... I personally would not use a monobath if alt printing is intended. This could be the problem that you are facing. Try a conventional developer like D-76, or even Xtol.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

It looks like your negatives are too flat for Van Dykes. Scrap the monobath, and try a conventional developer. I do use Pyrocat-HD, but probably a non-staining developer will be all you need. Good luck!

 

[MatthewDunn]

Personally, I don't think these look too far off. I understand the contrast issue you are getting at, but some of them seem close.

A couple of other questions that might help us:

• What paper are you using? Not all papers are great at clearing.
• Any sense as to whether your water is naturally acidic or alkaline? I have heard/read about clearing problems when washing in alkaline tap water. My understanding is that a few tbsp of citric acid to your rinse water should alleviate this issue.

I don't know enough about VDB to know if you can use a drop of something like ammonium dichromate (I hope that is correct) to increase contrast.

 

[Candlejack]

Personally, I don't think these look too far off. I understand the contrast issue you are getting at, but some of them seem close.

A couple of other questions that might help us:

• What paper are you using? Not all papers are great at clearing.
• Any sense as to whether your water is naturally acidic or alkaline? I have heard/read about clearing problems when washing in alkaline tap water. My understanding is that a few tbsp of citric acid to your rinse water should alleviate this issue.

I don't know enough about VDB to know if you can use a drop of something like ammonium dichromate (I hope that is correct) to increase contrast.

Thank you mr Matthew
Here is a writeup I put together with questions/ideas/reflections of todays work. Ill copy and paste it below.

Today I worked on 4 Van Dyke Process Prints using the B+S Formula. Here are my procedures, results, questions and idea.
I used 4 sheets of Stonehenge aqua hot press paper. Some of them I had soaked in a citric acid bath to de buffer, all I had coated with Arrowroot Starch sizing. This was all done a few weeks ago. I may omit the acid bath debuffering in the future, but definitely keep the arrowroot sizing.

This morning I coated the sheets with the Van Dyke solution using a sponge brush. I was relatively haphazard as one of my experiments was literally to see if I was getting fogging from ambient light (I don't have a darkroom or safe light) I'll address this issue in a photo below. I then put them in a box and in the closet and let them sit for about an hour later. when I exposed the second Van Dyke, I put black electrical tape on the glass of the contact frame. This was to see if I had any fogging before or after the film was put in a contact printing frame. As you'll see, the area is white white, so no UV exposure !

I used photographic prints that I took and developed. I used D96 for development. A question im wondering is if I should I should look for a developer that would add more contrast? Photograph using a contrast filter? Over expose my film to get dark darks on the film to achieve whites? I added a photo of some of the film below. I was unable to get a photo of the film i used for the last 2, because I deliberately picked darker prints. So I think I'm onto something. The longer necessary exposure time seems to help confirm this. Exposure and process:

1st photo 2 minute sun exposure. Second photo 3 minute sun exposure, 3rd photo, darker film, 3 minute exposure, weak. 4th photo, 5 minute exposure. Still kind of weak. I used the sun as my UV Source.
2. Processing 5 minute bath in water with citric acid. I changed the bath after the second print. My first bath was a splash of citric acid with 1liter of water. When I changed the bath, I was more controlled and used a pinch of citric acid in 1 liter of water (definitely less citric acid)

a rinse off in water

5 minute bath in constant rocking of the tray with fixer. 2 tsps fixer in 500ml of water. I changed the fixer before the last print because I'm not sure If fixer gets exhausted?

a rinse off in water

2 minute bath in hypo cleanse.

15 minute running water bath.

Hang dry. So my questions are...what should I do differently with my film exposure and development in order to achieve whites on the paper? Does the amount of citric acid in the initial bath effect the outcome? Does fixer get exhausted during a session?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thank you mr Matthew
Here is a writeup I put together with questions/ideas/reflections of todays work. Ill copy and paste it below.

Today I worked on 4 Van Dyke Process Prints using the B+S Formula. Here are my procedures, results, questions and idea.
I used 4 sheets of Stonehenge aqua hot press paper. Some of them I had soaked in a citric acid bath to de buffer, all I had coated with Arrowroot Starch sizing. This was all done a few weeks ago. I may omit the acid bath debuffering in the future, but definitely keep the arrowroot sizing.

This morning I coated the sheets with the Van Dyke solution using a sponge brush. I was relatively haphazard as one of my experiments was literally to see if I was getting fogging from ambient light (I don't have a darkroom or safe light) I'll address this issue in a photo below. I then put them in a box and in the closet and let them sit for about an hour later. when I exposed the second Van Dyke, I put black electrical tape on the glass of the contact frame. This was to see if I had any fogging before or after the film was put in a contact printing frame. As you'll see, the area is white white, so no UV exposure !

I used photographic prints that I took and developed. I used D96 for development. A question im wondering is if I should I should look for a developer that would add more contrast? Photograph using a contrast filter? Over expose my film to get dark darks on the film to achieve whites? I added a photo of some of the film below. I was unable to get a photo of the film i used for the last 2, because I deliberately picked darker prints. So I think I'm onto something. The longer necessary exposure time seems to help confirm this. Exposure and process:

1st photo 2 minute sun exposure. Second photo 3 minute sun exposure, 3rd photo, darker film, 3 minute exposure, weak. 4th photo, 5 minute exposure. Still kind of weak. I used the sun as my UV Source.
2. Processing 5 minute bath in water with citric acid. I changed the bath after the second print. My first bath was a splash of citric acid with 1liter of water. When I changed the bath, I was more controlled and used a pinch of citric acid in 1 liter of water (definitely less citric acid)

a rinse off in water

5 minute bath in constant rocking of the tray with fixer. 2 tsps fixer in 500ml of water. I changed the fixer before the last print because I'm not sure If fixer gets exhausted?

a rinse off in water

2 minute bath in hypo cleanse.

15 minute running water bath.

Hang dry. So my questions are...what should I do differently with my film exposure and development in order to achieve whites on the paper? Does the amount of citric acid in the initial bath effect the outcome? Does fixer get exhausted during a session?

I talked a little bit about choice of developer a few message above... Scrap the monobath. You want to use a developer where you can effectively extend the development time... like D-76 or Xtol, or pretty much any conventional developer, providing your film of choice's base fog doesn't rise drastically during extended development times (like HP5). The correct DR (density range) of your negative will give you the white whites you are looking for.
Acidifying cheap papers is a good idea, although I go for something stronger such as sulfamic acid diluted to a 10% solution. Actually, I gave up on cheap papers and for the last several years I've been using papers dedicated to the process, like Hahnemuhle platinum rag. Costly but worth it.

 

[Candlejack]

It looks like your negatives are too flat for Van Dykes. Scrap the monobath, and try a conventional developer. I do use Pyrocat-HD, but probably a non-staining developer will be all you need. Good luck!

Thank you Mr Andrew (btw Im an Andrew as well!)
In college and highschool we did black and white photography, and I remember we had a developer/fixer but of course I never learned the names of those. Also gotta make sure they are safe for in home processing.

I cant wait to just buy a house and build a dark room!
Anywho thanks again for the advice!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

One more thing. The paper you are using probably already has been sized by the manufacturer. You probably don't need to size it with arrowroot. When brushing the sensitiser onto the paper, does it float on top, or sink in pretty quick?

 

[Candlejack]

I talked a little bit about choice of developer a few message above... Scrap the monobath. You want to use a developer where you can effectively extend the development time... like D-76 or Xtol, or pretty much any conventional developer, providing your film of choice's base fog doesn't rise drastically during extended development times (like HP5). The correct DR (density range) of your negative will give you the white whites you are looking for.
Acidifying cheap papers is a good idea, although I go for something stronger such as sulfamic acid diluted to a 10% solution. Actually, I gave up on cheap papers and for the last several years I've been using papers dedicated to the process, like Hahnemuhle platinum rag. Costly but worth it.

Yup, that writeup was a general one I had written earlier. I need to edit it.

I was hesitant to get sulfumatic acid, but I could do that outside the house. (I think lowes sells it)

I watercolor and oil paint so I have copious amounts of 100% cotton paper, but not the top of the line stuff. Eventually I can splurge on it.. but dang.. some of it is over $10 a sheet!

Im looking for the developers you mentioned on B&H. With fixers... any recommendations or does the brand really matter?

 

[Candlejack]

One more thing. The paper you are using probably already has been sized by the manufacturer. You probably don't need to size it with arrowroot. When brushing the sensitiser onto the paper, does it float on top, or sink in pretty quick?

Im terrible at forums, so I apologize lol

I know its sized for watercolor.. but im not sure if that is externally or internally sized. Ill have to backtrack and try a sheet untreated with arrowroot.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yup, that writeup was a general one I had written earlier. I need to edit it.

I was hesitant to get sulfumatic acid, but I could do that outside the house. (I think lowes sells it)

I watercolor and oil paint so I have copious amounts of 100% cotton paper, but not the top of the line stuff. Eventually I can splurge on it.. but dang.. some of it is over $10 a sheet!

Im looking for the developers you mentioned on B&H. With fixers... any recommendations or does the brand really matter?

Fixer brand doesn't matter, but personally I prefer working with a rapid fixer like Ilford. Easy to use as it's a liquid, that you dilute down further to use.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Another Stonehenge paper to consider is Rising Stonehenge. I used to use that. It doesn't need additional sizing, but it does need to be acidified. Pick some sulfamic acid up. Mix up a 10% solution. Store working solution in a milk jug. You can use it over and over again.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Im terrible at forums, so I apologize lol

I know its sized for watercolor.. but im not sure if that is externally or internally sized. Ill have to backtrack and try a sheet untreated with arrowroot.

I've used some water colour papers, and I never sized them. They were internally sized. They had to be acidified, though.

 

[MattKing]

Im looking for the developers you mentioned on B&H. With fixers... any recommendations or does the brand really matter?

There are lots of combinations that work well, the brands can be intermixed, and practical questions like availability, ease of use, package size and keeping properties are often just as important as the slight differences between features.
Personally, I am currently using Kodak XTol developer with Kodak Rapid Fixer. As I have had recent trouble sourcing the Kodak Rapid Fixer, I will be using Ilford Hypam Fixer when the Kodak Rapid Fixer is finished.
I also use Kodak Indicator Stop bath and Kodak HCA wash-aid - advantageous, but not necessary if you don't mind more water use and longer wash times.
My choices are good and reasonably popular ones, but there are lots of other good and popular choices.
Do you mind mixing up solutions from powders? I ask because there are advantages to powders, just as there are to liquids.
And by the way, almost anything listed on B&H will, with reasonable care, be safe to use at home - certainly as safe or possibly even safer to use at home as the DF96 you currently have.