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

[chris77]

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 ?

please stop assuming.
nothing has gone wrong with fp4, nobody told me anything about foma film. pour posts (not only in this thread) are full of assumptions and it is getting kind of tiring, at least for me.
thank you.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Grain characteristics aside, Tri-X has its own distinct signature or look. It relates to specifically how the bold shadows transition upwards and determine midtone options. I can see it in my own prints, even though I rarely use this particular film.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I should add that Foma 200 is a completely different animal than either Tri-X or Foma 100.

 

[1kgcoffee]

Foma 200 is a very special film... strange combination of tradition and cubic grains and beautiful results.

Without the similar grain structure you won't tri-x like results.

 

[sepiareverb]

Why not use tri-x? I’m confused.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I you like it, use it. Simple. But if you walk into Baskin Robbins and they're out of Pumpkin Caramel, don't ask them how to alter Mocha Mint to taste the same.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I you like it, use it. Simple. But if you walk into Baskin Robbins and they're out of Pumpkin Caramel, don't ask them how to alter Mocha Mint to taste the same.

ROTFLMAO!!

 

[removed account4]

please stop assuming.
nothing has gone wrong with fp4, nobody told me anything about foma film. pour posts (not only in this thread) are full of assumptions and it is getting kind of tiring, at least for me.
thank you.

chris77
just do what you want and don't worry //
not sure if you have a few rolls to experiment wtih ... you might
bracket by 3 stops so +3, as metered -3 a few different lighting scenarios you like
and then try in a few different developers and dilutions to find the sweet spot. and make sure
you note whether your film is expired or fresh, sometimes expired or short date film does wonderful stuff
when you push it to the edge, it might give you the tri x look you are looking for.

good luck !

 

[bernard_L]

can you not tell a difference in grain, microcontrast and overall feel therefore?
after all its not about being right or wrong.

Just to be clear, I personally believe that some films have a distinctive look. But, such a belief is, I think, acquired through viewing numerous examples and unconsciously extracting some characteristic traits. Sure, I do not need numerous samples to tell Delta 3200 apart from PanF.

Here is one. Is this the "D76" look or the "T-Max Dev." look? OR is it the "Tri-X" look or

Other than that, it's all too easy to self-delude oneself that one can perceive oh-so-subtle differences, aided by the knowledge of which is which. I'm unsure whether AKG is better than Sennheiser or the opposite, but I'm certain that a magic box resting near that AC wall plug cannot improve the sound of my HiFi, despite the claims of self-proclaimed experts, who don't even know what a double-blind test is.

To wrap up. IMO, you are presumably right that there are differences between, say, FP4 and TX, but the evidence you give is inadequate. To prove the difference exists, you need double-blind tests, to go further, and emulate a certain look, you need to define it in a objective and reproducible way.

 

[bernard_L]

can you not tell a difference in grain, microcontrast and overall feel therefore?
after all its not about being right or wrong.

Just to be clear, I personally believe that some films have a distinctive look. But, such a belief is, I think, acquired through viewing numerous examples and unconsciously extracting some characteristic traits. Sure, I do not need numerous samples to tell Delta 3200 apart from PanF.

Here is one. Is this the "D76" look or the "T-Max Dev." look? OR is it the "Tri-X" look or

Other than that, it's all too easy to self-delude oneself that one can perceive oh-so-subtle differences, aided by the knowledge of which is which. I'm unsure whether AKG is better than Sennheiser or the opposite, but I'm certain that a magic box resting near that AC wall plug cannot improve the sound of my HiFi, despite the claims of self-proclaimed experts, who don't even know what a double-blind test is.

To wrap up. IMO, you are presumably right that there are differences between, say, FP4 and TX, but the evidence you give is inadequate. To prove the difference exists, you need double-blind tests, to go further, and emulate a certain look, you need to define it in a objective and reproducible way.

 

[chris77]

Why not use tri-x? I’m confused.

no tri-x in 13x18 (i am considering buying some 5x7 holders), and its rather expensive, and i got lots of foma film on stock. its just an idea.

 

[removed account4]

might as well do something with the foma, it is 4x cheaper than tri x ( at least here in the states )
by the time you figure things out tri x will go up again in price and maybe you'll get it to look different than
tri x and different than "normalized" foma but .. the way YOU want it to look ... and in a few months
someone from italy is going to post images of yours and say:
"does anyone here on photrio have any idea how i can get my film to look like this? i think he is using FOMA ... "
===
how are you processing your sheet film ? in a jobo, or combi-plan or in yankee/FR tanks or in trays ?

 

[trendland]

Why not use tri-x? I’m confused.

Because tri-x in sheed films is more expensive. Or lets say Foma make nice prices with sheeds so Foma is a real good deal. That is a concern I may agree with.Special if it possible go about bigger amounds of films.
But in addition Chris has the intention to reinvent the wheel. He tryes to get same characteristics as with Tri-x.
Perhaps Kodak knows the advantages of Tri-x and therefore it's higher pricing in comparison.???

with regards

PS : You can't buy a cheap volkswagen rabbit and tune the engine so far that it is like a porsche.
PPS : may be you will reach the porsche's horsepowers but the whole construction isn't designed as a porsche.
PPPS : Nevertheless Foma makes no bad films (Retro320 is a bit special from heavy grain to me) - but Foma100/200 are different to Tri-x of course.

 

[removed account4]

PS : You can't buy a cheap volkswagen rabbit and tune the engine so far that it is like a porsche.

no but you can buy a kharman ghia, and but big bore cylinders and a header exhaust system
in it, and turn it into a porsche 356b

 

[trendland]

no but you can buy a kharman ghia, and but big bore cylinders and a header exhaust system
in it, and turn it into a porsche 356b

I expected such kind of answer.......
Ok - so lets make a grand prix sportscar
from a city rabbit

 

[removed account4]

I expected such kind of answer.......
Ok - so lets make a grand prix sportscar
from a city rabbit

what year rabbit ?

i know of someone who put a high powered engine in his 67 bug, and drag raced + beat people in 67 mustangs
if you are a mechanic and know how to drive you can do just about anything.
except with the DCV ( renault deux chevaux ) it would be hard with such a springy suspension and nuns

 

[trendland]

Just to be clear, I personally believe that some films have a distinctive look. But, such a belief is, I think, acquired through viewing numerous examples and unconsciously extracting some characteristic traits. Sure, I do not need numerous samples to tell Delta 3200 apart from PanF.

Other than that, it's all too easy to self-delude oneself that one can perceive oh-so-subtle differences, aided by the knowledge of which is which. I'm unsure whether AKG is better than Sennheiser or the opposite, but I'm certain that a magic box resting near that AC wall plug cannot improve the sound of my HiFi, despite the claims of self-proclaimed experts, who don't even know what a double-blind test is.

To wrap up. IMO, you are presumably right that there are differences between, say, FP4 and TX, but the evidence you give is inadequate. To prove the difference exists, you need double-blind tests, to go further, and emulate a certain look, you need to define it in a objective and reproducible way.

Double blind tests with film emulsions is that what some film - manufacturers not want to have....
There might be different aproaches in bw. Chriss made his points clear now -
hope I understand - meanwhile.
Today - so many people are new with film. My approach is indeed a different one : First the idea - then the location.
This may change somtimes but at last :
wich film..is best for this ?
If I get my results I will not change my experience.
If I louse I would have the next try with
other emulsions/other workflow.
But as I would not buy a new expensive camera and wouldn't expect nice pictures from the new equipment I would not expect a nice result from a special film.
with regards

 

[trendland]

what year rabbit ?

i know of someone who put a high powered engine in his 67 bug, and drag raced + beat people in 67 mustangs
if you are a mechanic and know how to drive you can do just about anything.
except with the DCV ( renault deux chevaux ) it would be hard with such a springy suspension and nuns

By the time I remember a first shooting with E6 films and "star light filters"
(1979)...it was a kind of crash race. Also
some older Renault dcv have been on the scene but no single was able to survive against "monster beetles"
At last all cars were crashed and they came to scratch.
Also my film - it was a thungsten E6 with Star light...

with regards

 

[sepiareverb]

no tri-x in 13x18 (i am considering buying some 5x7 holders), and its rather expensive, and i got lots of foma film on stock. its just an idea.

Got it. I would start out with a bunch of the FOMA in 35mm and as suggested above, testing testing testing. Not terribly fun work, but I suspect you could get something along the lines of what you're after given enough time & materials. Maybe Perceptol 1:1 as a start? I'd say something with a pretty good solvent level at any rate.

 

[chris77]

might as well do something with the foma, it is 4x cheaper than tri x ( at least here in the states )
by the time you figure things out tri x will go up again in price and maybe you'll get it to look different than
tri x and different than "normalized" foma but .. the way YOU want it to look ... and in a few months
someone from italy is going to post images of yours and say:
"does anyone here on photrio have any idea how i can get my film to look like this? i think he is using FOMA ... "
===
how are you processing your sheet film ? in a jobo, or combi-plan or in yankee/FR tanks or in trays ?

hi. i am using trays. old tupperware in fact you?

 

[chris77]

might as well do something with the foma, it is 4x cheaper than tri x ( at least here in the states )
by the time you figure things out tri x will go up again in price and maybe you'll get it to look different than
tri x and different than "normalized" foma but .. the way YOU want it to look ... and in a few months
someone from italy is going to post images of yours and say:
"does anyone here on photrio have any idea how i can get my film to look like this? i think he is using FOMA ... "
===
how are you processing your sheet film ? in a jobo, or combi-plan or in yankee/FR tanks or in trays ?

hi. i am using trays. old tupperware in fact you?

 

[chris77]

Got it. I would start out with a bunch of the FOMA in 35mm and as suggested above, testing testing testing. Not terribly fun work, but I suspect you could get something along the lines of what you're after given enough time & materials. Maybe Perceptol 1:1 as a start? I'd say something with a pretty good solvent level at any rate.

you are right, series of experiments are in order..

 

[trendland]

you are right, series of experiments are in order..

Chris signaler ce qui en est sorti et montrez-nous votre résultat....

Bon chance

 

[Sirius Glass]

no but you can buy a kharman ghia, and but big bore cylinders and a header exhaust system
in it, and turn it into a porsche 356b

But it will still be a VW. You know it is a VW. Everyone else knows it is a VW. It still will never be a Porche.

 

[Craig75]

All OP wants to do is grain up a finer grained film (as i understand it)

So just over expose it and over develop it in rodinal and now its a lot grainier