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

Sirius Glass · Feb 6, 2018

chris77 said:
i am aware that this new tri x has been reformulated before. i honestly dont care.
tri x - as i know it (120) - is a wonderful film.

+1

BradS · Feb 6, 2018

Perhaps, the conversation would be more fruitful if the OP defined exactly what he means by "The Tri-X Look" .

What is it that you seek? What, for you, characterizes "The Tri_X Look"?

Tri-X is very versatile and can look like many things depending upon how it is exposed and developed....

NB23 · Feb 6, 2018

chris77 said:
so much unnecessary subtext.
please, instead of assuming truckloads of non existant information, take a walk.
this thread was not meant to offer a place for spam.

i am shooting tri x since 2014. i am aware that this new tri x has been reformulated before. i honestly dont care.
tri x - as i know it (120) - is a wonderful film.
the title of this thread indicated that i am looking for ideas/thoughts on how to achieve a ''similar look" with foma film .it was asked in order to gather inspiring ideas, nothing else.
thanks for respecting that.

ps. you should give minimal agitation a try. the edge effects enhance the beautiful grain pattern of tri x.

Yeah and now you’re giving recomendations? By the way what’s with the similar look thing? Use trix for a trix look, what else?

NB23 · Feb 6, 2018

chris77 said:
so much unnecessary subtext.
please, instead of assuming truckloads of non existant information, take a walk.
this thread was not meant to offer a place for spam.

i am shooting tri x since 2014. i am aware that this new tri x has been reformulated before. i honestly dont care.
tri x - as i know it (120) - is a wonderful film.
the title of this thread indicated that i am looking for ideas/thoughts on how to achieve a ''similar look" with foma film .it was asked in order to gather inspiring ideas, nothing else.
thanks for respecting that.

ps. you should give minimal agitation a try. the edge effects enhance the beautiful grain pattern of tri x.

Yeah and now you’re giving recomendations? By the way what’s with the similar look thing? Use trix for a trix look, what else?

esearing · Feb 7, 2018

You may or may not be able to get that look by varying exposure, developers, temperature, agitation, and time. That doesn't mean you can't have fun trying.

Experiment: 1/2 time in very warm developer and 1/2 time in cool developer (adjust time for avg temp) - or partially develop in two different developers with water stop in between.
Maybe 1/2 time normal dev, then let stand in more dilute developer.

Additionally, You can re-work the developed film by bleaching and redeveloping in a different developer, use intensifiers that add more silver to the film, make masks, use toners, etc...
If you have the patience for experimentation you might be able to adjust the films curve/grain and find something new or different that works for you.

chris77 · Feb 7, 2018

esearing said:
You may or may not be able to get that look by varying exposure, developers, temperature, agitation, and time. That doesn't mean you can't have fun trying.

Experiment: 1/2 time in very warm developer and 1/2 time in cool developer (adjust time for avg temp) - or partially develop in two different developers with water stop in between.
Maybe 1/2 time normal dev, then let stand in more dilute developer.

Additionally, You can re-work the developed film by bleaching and redeveloping in a different developer, use intensifiers that add more silver to the film, make masks, use toners, etc...
If you have the patience for experimentation you might be able to adjust the films curve/grain and find something new or different that works for you.

thanks! good input here.

DREW WILEY · Feb 7, 2018

This morning I was looking at a TX print and comparing it with a similar subject from the same location printed from TMY, likewise 120 film. I liked the bold TX blacks, and realized that I'd achieved a similar look before by underexposing TMY sheet film a full stop (ASA 400), then overdeveloping it. The problem with roll film is that you have to develop the whole roll the same, and this particular "look" might not be suitable for every frame.

DREW WILEY · Feb 7, 2018

Error - Underexp = ASA 200. Sorry.

LouisGR · Feb 10, 2018

aparat said:
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.

DREW WILEY · Feb 10, 2018

Making one film supposedly look like another by scanning and digitizing it is like curing your dog of scratching fleas by putting him in a microwave oven for ten minutes.

mshchem · Feb 10, 2018

I remember real Tri-X . 1970's 35mm Nikon F2, grain! When T-max and XTOL came out it was a miracle. My guess would be to take your Foma, push it to 3200 in straight D-76 . You might need some ND filters to operate in daylight. I don't scan. I print using traditional methods. I would enjoy FP4+ or the Foma options as is. If you want reticulated emulsion, you might be able to do this by hot then cold water baths. Modern film emulsions are hard.

Sirius Glass · Feb 10, 2018

DREW WILEY said:
Making one film supposedly look like another by scanning and digitizing it is like curing your dog of scratching fleas by putting him in a microwave oven for ten minutes.

MattKing · Feb 11, 2018

It seems clear that the Ilford data sheet for Perceptol makes no recommendation about minimum quantities per roll when using developers one-shot.
It only makes capacity recommendations relevant to those who re-use the developer.
And recommendations about re-using developer probably only give good hints about the capacity of the same developer used one shot, because different developers are likely to respond differently to the build-up of developer byproducts.
It will be interesting to see if Harman actually has an answer - they and their predecessors may have not tested for the question, because they may not have expected people to use Perceptol in small volume applications like rotary processing.

chris77 · Feb 11, 2018

mshchem said:
I remember real Tri-X . 1970's 35mm Nikon F2, grain! When T-max and XTOL came out it was a miracle. My guess would be to take your Foma, push it to 3200 in straight D-76 . You might need some ND filters to operate in daylight. I don't scan. I print using traditional methods. I would enjoy FP4+ or the Foma options as is. If you want reticulated emulsion, you might be able to do this by hot then cold water baths. Modern film emulsions are hard.

trendland · Apr 23, 2019

I guess the play with Fomapan 100 / Fomapan 200 AND tri - x is to be appraised from the following :

1) concerning developers
2) concerning workflow
3) concerning printing/scanning

So a special look is reachable with Foma 200 AND tri - x but with different methods/developers!

BTW : is there a special look with tri-x ? Not from my point - there is more a tendency of
tri - x in concern of each photographers special workflow!
So many photographers may speak about tri - x characteristics but actual mean
tri - x from a special workflow with some good developer combinations!

with regards

trendland · Apr 23, 2019

Aha - OK there are some posts concerning scanning!
The scanning workflow in general may create a software based "look - like" manipulation (after
scanning) but then this manipulation is also with digital shots!

The best is to look at tri - x's characteristics with own(used) developer combination and
start to search for films wich have simular characteristics with same developer!

with regards

baachitraka · Apr 23, 2019

I think it would be easier the other way around...

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

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency