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

[TheFlyingCamera]

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

I'm running mine on my Jobo in an Expert drum, and contact printing in Palladium.

 

[removed account4]

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

excellent

=== added later ---
ps. le clerc supermarket has ( or used to have ) an instant coffee
called "el gringo" it was the cheapest jar available, .. it was the best
instant coffee i have ever used ALSO if you can't find washing soda
take BAKING SODA and put it on a baking sheet cookie sheet in your oven at low
temperature to dry it out, it will convert nicely to washing soda ( sodium bicarbonate >> sodium carbonate )
( i wish i knew this when i was over there, i paid through the nose at the pharmacy for pharmacy grade )
i wasn't able to find vit c cheap in france either ( près de montbeliard/belfort ) so i went to a pharmacy
it was super expensive .. buy it elsewhere if you can !

bon chance !
john

 

[chiller]

It won't make Tri X but you could try developing in Dektol at about 1:4 to 1:9 and try both over and under exposing.

 

[trendland]

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

Yes Chris I expected this kind of objection - therefore lets better speak of
"personal look" in concern of your special workflow.
Because in bw the characteristics of films are realy much more close to your developer within your workflow than with
c41 or with e6 because of : There the developement is absolute standardized.
This is explizit relative to the kind of bw developer, the delution,pushing/pulling and of cause (a little) to agitation.
In combination of different exposure (certain avaible E.I.'s) you have a lot of impacts to the original film characteristics.
Next (possible) step is enlarging/scanning with much more relatives.(different developers/papers)
a.s.o.
Sure you will agree (hope).
Therefore you have special possible characteristics with bw films but never the same ones and so we can't speak of a definied "look" of a bw emulsion.
But it is on you to create nice looks.
The basis therefore is with bw the workflow of developement - in color the basis is more the film.

with regards

 

[ic-racer]

I'd like to see some examples of these 'looks.' Do you mean the tint of the rebate and how the numbers are printed?
Maybe someone can help me. Here is one. Is this the "D76" look or the "T-Max Dev." look? OR is it the "Tri-X" look or the "Fomapan" look, or the "HP5" look, or is it the Ilford MG FB look or the Kentmere look, or is it the Dektol 1:3 look or the "Ilford Multigrade Liquid Developer 1:14" look? Perhaps the photographer printed it to look like his own work or others in a series?

 

[chris77]

I'd like to see some examples of these 'looks.' Do you mean the tint of the rebate and how the numbers are printed?
Maybe someone can help me. Here is one. Is this the "D76" look or the "T-Max Dev." look? OR is it the "Tri-X" look or the "Fomapan" look, or the "HP5" look, or is it the Ilford MG FB look or the Kentmere look, or is it the Dektol 1:3 look or the "Ilford Multigrade Liquid Developer 1:14" look? Perhaps the photographer printed it to look like his own work or others in a series?

View attachment 194850

here for example.
one is tri x, the other is fp4
its like night and day at least to my eyes..
same dev, both on rollei emulsion handcoated on plywood.

 

[chris77]

size is 80x60 cm

 

[BradS]

I'd like to see some examples of these 'looks.' Do you mean the tint of the rebate and how the numbers are printed?
Maybe someone can help me. Here is one. Is this the "D76" look or the "T-Max Dev." look? OR is it the "Tri-X" look or the "Fomapan" look, or the "HP5" look, or is it the Ilford MG FB look or the Kentmere look, or is it the Dektol 1:3 look or the "Ilford Multigrade Liquid Developer 1:14" look? Perhaps the photographer printed it to look like his own work or others in a series?

+1

The whole premise of this thread kinda baffles me.

 

[chris77]

i

I'd like to see some examples of these 'looks.' Do you mean the tint of the rebate and how the numbers are printed?
Maybe someone can help me. Here is one. Is this the "D76" look or the "T-Max Dev." look? OR is it the "Tri-X" look or the "Fomapan" look, or the "HP5" look, or is it the Ilford MG FB look or the Kentmere look, or is it the Dektol 1:3 look or the "Ilford Multigrade Liquid Developer 1:14" look? Perhaps the photographer printed it to look like his own work or others in a series?

View attachment 194850

n my opinion this is not tri-x

+1

The whole premise of this thread kinda baffles me.

tonality, grain, therefore apparent sharpness , well.
some say so some say otherwise.
in a direct comparison of large prints, differences become obvious to me. but maybe i take things too serious.

 

[bernard_L]

here for example.
one is tri x, the other is fp4
its like night and day at least to my eyes..
same dev,

But totally different subjects (and subject includes light, of course) how can one conclude that the films behave differently?

One more example on this (and other) photo forum of a poster drawing conclusions (about film, developer, lens, but not yet camera body) from pictures taken of completely different scenes. See similar comment above by ic-racer.

 

[chris77]

But totally different subjects (and subject includes light, of course) how can one conclude that the films behave differently?

One more example on this (and other) photo forum of a poster drawing conclusions (about film, developer, lens, but not yet camera body) from pictures taken of completely different scenes. See similar comment above by ic-racer.

even without regarding the subject. both shots were done with the same lens, same camera, within a few hours, same day during a long walk.
can you not tell a difference in grain, microcontrast and overall feel therefore?
after all its not about being right or wrong.
some prefer vienna accoustics headphones and some are fine with the generic iphone headphones.
its about the music after all, i won't t argue with that.

 

[trendland]

I'd like to see some examples of these 'looks.' Do you mean the tint of the rebate and how the numbers are printed?
Maybe someone can help me. Here is one. Is this the "D76" look or the "T-Max Dev." look? OR is it the "Tri-X" look or the "Fomapan" look, or the "HP5" look, or is it the Ilford MG FB look or the Kentmere look, or is it the Dektol 1:3 look or the "Ilford Multigrade Liquid Developer 1:14" look? Perhaps the photographer printed it to look like his own work or others in a series?

View attachment 194850

Cheers ic-racer - thats the next point of a debatte about "look" - The photographical look. I tryed to avoid these points but it was in my mind.
I would like to state : you create a look
with photography in general but film characteristics may support you therefore.
So it is just a tool. Like your Camera, the lens and the whole conception.
All parameters here should come together. In other ways you will soon come in conflict with to much technical parameters.
Adam Ansel for example had to work with the worst lousy stuff we could imagine.
The speed of his lenses and within his films were poor.
But we can't notice lots of disadvantages
of the early 20th from his photographs.

with regards

 

[trendland]

Chris let me state last I understand your intention.You want to have some characteristics from a film you like with an other film emulsion. 100% identical it will not work in any case - as others mentioned before. But you may decide what is important to you. As I notice
60 x 80 I soon imagine the (possible) smaler grain you may have a focus for this.
Thats no problem at all. Some different other emulsions are able to have a nearly identical fine grain - therefore examples with different developers are usefull.
To other people the focus is more on tonals - some may not like finer grain they want to have noticable grain.
Remember you are the boss - but what is your priority?

with regards

 

[trendland]

Chris let me state last I understand your intention.You want to have some characteristics from a film you like with an other film emulsion. 100% identical it will not work in any case - as others mentioned before. But you may decide what is important to you. As I notice
60 x 80 I soon imagine the (possible) smaler grain you may have a focus for this.
Thats no problem at all. Some different other emulsions are able to have a nearly identical fine grain - therefore examples with different developers are usefull.
To other people the focus is more on tonals - some may not like finer grain they want to have noticable grain.
Remember you are the boss - but what is your priority?

with regards

 

[chris77]

trendland. you didnt get my point.
i want the grain grit and contrast of tri x, and was wondering if somebody has experience with the foma films and different developers.
i neither wanted to discuss the existence of god, nor did i ask to be patronized
but thanks anyway.
cheers

 

[ic-racer]

one is tri x, the other is fp4
its like night and day at least to my eyes..

Post #31, night or day? Tri-x or fp4?

 

[chris77]

sorry. i didnt mean to sound rude.
bit i am surprised. so many people out there usng tri x for its special characteristics.
its hard to understand.

 

[chris77]

sorry. i didnt mean to sound rude.
bit i am surprised. so many people out there usng tri x for its special characteristics.
its hard to understand.

 

[chris77]

Post #31, night or day? Tri-x or fp4?

the grainy obe is tri x, the one with no discernible grain fp4. first is gritty and steep, the second mushy, softer and wider range. are you making fun of me?

 

[chris77]

Post #31, night or day? Tri-x or fp4?

sorry i misread you.
cannot tell much from this small piv/scan or what.
as i cannot see grain i would nt think its tri x.
otoh i havent used tri x with flash.
hard to tell.
my examples tall more clearly of a comparable difference

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

+1

 

[MattKing]

Part of the problem with any of these sorts of discussions arises from the fact that when someone achieves a "look" they like with a film and their process, it is hard to determine how much of that "look" comes from the film, and how much comes from the myriad other variables that together formed the result.
Tri-X in combination with a particular developer and agitation scheme will respond differently than other films developed in the same or different developers agitated in the same or different ways. Some of those differences are malleable, while others are baked into the film.
The baked in differences relate to the spectral sensitivity of the film, the reciprocity failure response, the inherent grain (mostly), and the characteristic curve response (to a certain extent).
There isn't much you can do to match the spectral sensitivity and reciprocity failure response. What I think Chris is asking about are the more malleable variables - the grain and the characteristic curve response.
I don't use the foma products, so can't help. But if I was trying to do this, I'd look for plots of the respective characteristic curves with different developers and exposure indices, and try to adjust the variables to see if I could find a combination with the foma products that gives a similar shape to the curve that results from Chris' use of Tri-X the way he likes it.
It may be that it won't be possible to mimic both grain and characteristic curve - a grain increasing developer might skew the shape of the curve the wrong way. Or maybe they will work together to achieve both results. Some testing would be in order.

 

[chris77]

Part of the problem with any of these sorts of discussions arises from the fact that when someone achieves a "look" they like with a film and their process, it is hard to determine how much of that "look" comes from the film, and how much comes from the myriad other variables that together formed the result.
Tri-X in combination with a particular developer and agitation scheme will respond differently than other films developed in the same or different developers agitated in the same or different ways. Some of those differences are malleable, while others are baked into the film.
The baked in differences relate to the spectral sensitivity of the film, the reciprocity failure response, the inherent grain (mostly), and the characteristic curve response (to a certain extent).
There isn't much you can do to match the spectral sensitivity and reciprocity failure response. What I think Chris is asking about are the more malleable variables - the grain and the characteristic curve response.
I don't use the foma products, so can't help. But if I was trying to do this, I'd look for plots of the respective characteristic curves with different developers and exposure indices, and try to adjust the variables to see if I could find a combination with the foma products that gives a similar shape to the curve that results from Chris' use of Tri-X the way he likes it.
It may be that it won't be possible to mimic both grain and characteristic curve - a grain increasing developer might skew the shape of the curve the wrong way. Or maybe they will work together to achieve both results. Some testing would be in order.

tx for your reply. you are summing it up nicely! (hope thats english)

 

[trendland]

trendland. you didnt get my point.
i want the grain grit and contrast of tri x, and was wondering if somebody has experience with the foma films and different developers.
i neither wanted to discuss the existence of god, nor did i ask to be patronized
but thanks anyway.
cheers

I see - so lets find your point : You like Kodak Tri x- thats Ok ! Someone told you :"It is possible to use Foma 100/200 and they are nearly in direction of Tri-x."

Next step is to ask here because there might be parallel intentions and you'll like to have recomandation for a workflow that works fine.
Is it the best method?...because the experience of others is a bit individual with that what Tri-x look is to you.
There are general characteristics of Tri-x
quite clear - nevertheless.
Your Fp4 is like night and day. Aha - that should be your first task. What has gone wrong? Because it is a good film?
Wrong developer/delution/paper ?
You should clear this first. Next step :
Try to create tonals more in direction of your "Reference" from Tri-x prints with diffetent developers. Here were some nice ideas given to you.Then you may force the grain in direction of your REFERENCE .
But you may find out the results are then much better as before but different to your nice Tri- x prints.
Therefore I wouln't so much trust your
source (who sayed Foma 100/200 could have Tri-x like look?)but have a look to different films with same box speed.
And if you want special formats wich are only avaible with Foma - why is it so bad to have other characteristics?

with regards

PS : Friends I remember well last discussion about "Retro look" total unscientific...
PPS :And somewhere in the future the result might be OK to you ?

 

[trendland]

Part of the problem with any of these sorts of discussions arises from the fact that when someone achieves a "look" they like with a film and their process, it is hard to determine how much of that "look" comes from the film, and how much comes from the myriad other variables that together formed the result.
Tri-X in combination with a particular developer and agitation scheme will respond differently than other films developed in the same or different developers agitated in the same or different ways. Some of those differences are malleable, while others are baked into the film.
The baked in differences relate to the spectral sensitivity of the film, the reciprocity failure response, the inherent grain (mostly), and the characteristic curve response (to a certain extent).
There isn't much you can do to match the spectral sensitivity and reciprocity failure response. What I think Chris is asking about are the more malleable variables - the grain and the characteristic curve response.
I don't use the foma products, so can't help. But if I was trying to do this, I'd look for plots of the respective characteristic curves with different developers and exposure indices, and try to adjust the variables to see if I could find a combination with the foma products that gives a similar shape to the curve that results from Chris' use of Tri-X the way he likes it.
It may be that it won't be possible to mimic both grain and characteristic curve - a grain increasing developer might skew the shape of the curve the wrong way. Or maybe they will work together to achieve both results. Some testing would be in order.

I can't state this better - but you are the englishman..

with geringe

PS : Pentaxuser might soon foregive my resistente. Remember the Tradition of freie speach