how to make fomapan 100 or 200 look 'like tri-x"?

[chris77]

title says it all.
ans ideas?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yes, buy Tri-X. One can spend a lifetime making one film look like another and not succeed.

 

[aparat]

I know it's not what you want to hear but Foma has a unique look (curve, snsitivity, response to developers, grain structure, etc.). I actually prefer Foma 100 to most currently made films. Having said that, if you scan your film, you can make 16 bit linear scans and then apply a contrast curve of your choice. That way, many inherent differences among films are minimized. You should be able to digitally approximate the TriX look, to some degree.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

In other words how to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

 

[Sirius Glass]

 

[ic-racer]

How can you tell them apart in the first place? Do you have an example?

 

[chris77]

well well chanel
i am talking about 13x18 (noo, not 5x7) and i love trix and use it quite a lot in 120.
the whole purposr of my quest was to find out if someone ever used one of these fine foma films (sow's ear? well, if thats how you feel) and realized that the developer/toning/whatever procedure has given the grain and tonality of our beloved tri x.
simple

 

[chris77]

lucky accidents do happen!

 

[Lachlan Young]

well well chanel
i am talking about 13x18 (noo, not 5x7) and i love trix and use it quite a lot in 120.
the whole purposr of my quest was to find out if someone ever used one of these fine foma films (sow's ear? well, if thats how you feel) and realized that the developer/toning/whatever procedure has given the grain and tonality of our beloved tri x.
simple

Very simply, 120 Tri-X, (aka TX) is quite fundamentally different from sheet Tri-X (TXP) in terms of curve shape. You might find that HP5+ is actually closer to TXP than TX in curve shape. Look up the Foma datasheets and compare the characteristic curves to TX & see which one out of 100/200/400/retro320 comes close to what you want. You do pay a grain penalty compared to Kodak. They're also potentially quite a bit slower in ID-11 etc than the box speed suggests - see the datasheets. I like Foma 200 a lot, but it's definitely not a direct Tri-X substitute.

 

[Fritzthecat]

In other words how to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

I see it the other way around. Never been a fan of TriX, shot my fair share of it though. I much prefer Foma 100 to most any other film. I don't see how anyone could consider trying to make one film "look" like another, just shoot the one you like. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Foma 200 is a T grain film, more resembling T-Max or Delta films. Foma 400 may be the closest to TriX in appearance.

 

[pentaxuser]

I thought that all Foma films were of the "conventional grain " variety as opposed to T grain or the Ilford and possibly where applicable, the Fuji equivalent but that is hardly the point. Shouldn't those who have helpful ideas that may transform Foma into Tri-X suggest them and the rest of us who have no helpful suggestions or believe it is impossible simply say nothing at all.

pentaxuser

 

[Richard Man]

Use a curve flattening developer like divided Pyrocat. Then use a high contrast paper. (if the s* word, then you can apply a curve or film-plugin)

 

[chris77]

fomapan 200 is a mixed grain film. and yes, its a bit like tmax.
dont get me wrong. txp is not available in my format, sure is in 5x7, so i could buy other holders etc. in fact i am considering that.

funny enough, a thread like this seems like a sin. ( you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife)

tx richard man, gonna try that.
tx everybody for response.
chris

 

[DREW WILEY]

Take a shotgun into the darkroom and blast the film. That's the only way to get authentic Tri-X grain on another film.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Start to print instead of scanning. Once you'll start it, the film look is the bogus.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Digitize the film and reconfigure it???? How did I miss that one? Then what are you going to do with it? You can't print it in a darkroom.

 

[chris77]

Start to print instead of scanning. Once you'll start it, the film look is the bogus.

no scanner in my darkroom!
i prefer drew's shotgun solution.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

fomapan 200 is a mixed grain film. and yes, its a bit like tmax.
dont get me wrong. txp is not available in my format, sure is in 5x7, so i could buy other holders etc. in fact i am considering that.

funny enough, a thread like this seems like a sin. ( you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife)

tx richard man, gonna try that.
tx everybody for response.
chris

I shot a LOT of Fomapan 200 in 5x7 (several hundred sheets of it), because it prints so well in platinum/palladium. Best results were rating it at 100, and develop in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100. It develops FAST - like 7-8 minutes - vs. FP4+ (11) or Tri-X (14). But at those sizes, certainly for contact printing, grain is non-existent. Even if you enlarge, grain is non-existent in the print until you hit wall-size prints.

 

[removed account4]

hi 77
try over exposing it a couple of stops
THEN
develop in a tray with strong* caffenol C with a 1oz shot of dektol or whatever
print developer youhave on hand
develop it for about 10-12 mins ...
it will be DENSE
so contact print it with a bright light on the paper of your choice

YMMV
have fun!
john

* teaspoon recipe, use more ingredients than recipe calls for

 

[R.Gould]

Tri using Fomapan 400, develop it in Rodinal 1/50 looks very similer to the Original Tri x when it was first introduced before Kodak mucked about with it

 

[trendland]

title says it all.
ans ideas?

Chris - I would state a color film, better state : a slide film E6 (without scanning)
has a definied look.
(If it is exposed right)
If we would be more exactly we should name it
"color look". That might be one describtion of films wich is nearly OK.
(color look with E6)
If we regard color c41 it is a little different - from subjective darkroom perspective or scanning workflow.
But in sw we can't speak about a look of a film. We may speak of a general
"bw look" as we speak about bw and don't mean color.
To create a look from an other bw film
is no real task Chris.
It is like to ask : How to fly to the moon but "underwater" - to dive to the moon.
First we have to float the space with water then.... ?
So we perhaps might speak from a special look of a bw emulsion - in reality it is allways the specific film within our specific workflow in bw.
It is then you "personal look".
And that is my answer to your question.
You might change to other bw films and you might speak about : This is my tri-x like look with foma films.
But first there is NO tri-x look.Second it is not possible to get same charactaristics with different films.

with regards

PS : Don't be sad about. Have a look on expired Tri-x stuff.

 

[chris77]

Chris - I would state a color film, better state : a slide film E6 (without scanning)
has a definied look.
(If it is exposed right)
If we would be more exactly we should name it
"color look". That might be one describtion of films wich is nearly OK.
(color look with E6)
If we regard color c41 it is a little different - from subjective darkroom perspective or scanning workflow.
But in sw we can't speak about a look of a film. We may speak of a general
"bw look" as we speak about bw and don't mean color.
To create a look from an other bw film
is no real task Chris.
It is like to ask : How to fly to the moon but "underwater" - to dive to the moon.
First we have to float the space with water then.... ?
So we perhaps might speak from a special look of a bw emulsion - in reality it is allways the specific film within our specific workflow in bw.
It is then you "personal look".
And that is my answer to your question.
You might change to other bw films and you might speak about : This is my tri-x like look with foma films.
But first there is NO tri-x look.Second it is not possible to get same charactaristics with different films.

with regards

PS : Don't be sad about. Have a look on expired Tri-x stuff.

i disagree with you.
tri-x has a very specific look, as quite a few other films do.

 

[chris77]

Tri using Fomapan 400, develop it in Rodinal 1/50 looks very similer to the Original Tri x when it was first introduced before Kodak mucked about with it

gonna trY that. tx

 

[chris77]

I shot a LOT of Fomapan 200 in 5x7 (several hundred sheets of it), because it prints so well in platinum/palladium. Best results were rating it at 100, and develop in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100. It develops FAST - like 7-8 minutes - vs. FP4+ (11) or Tri-X (14). But at those sizes, certainly for contact printing, grain is non-existent. Even if you enlarge, grain is non-existent in the print until you hit wall-size prints.

hello !
interesting, i rate it iso 100 aswell, and use the same dev. but my development time is around 11 min.
i enlarge negs with a diffusor enlarger, my contrast IS maybe higher .
so i was wondering about your agitation. i agitate continuously for a min, then 2 agitations every other minute.
cheers.
chris

 

[chris77]

hi 77
try over exposing it a couple of stops
THEN
develop in a tray with strong* caffenol C with a 1oz shot of dektol or whatever
print developer youhave on hand
develop it for about 10-12 mins ...
it will be DENSE
so contact print it with a bright light on the paper of your choice

YMMV
have fun!
john

* teaspoon recipe, use more ingredients than recipe calls for

i will try that, john.
havent made caffenol yet.
one more thing to try...