Microphen + Fomapan 100 failure?

[spl]

I'm testing out a couple of Olympus Pen FT cameras. I used Fomapan 100 film. The one I developed in Rodinal (1+50, 9 minutes) turned out very nicely, most frames were correctly exposed and developed.

However I also developed a Fomapan 100 with Microphen and results were terrible. I used 6 minutes in stock solution per the digital truth tables. The histograms are compressed and the images are unusable.

So I'm trying to decide if it's a light meter problem, but I feel it's more likely to be a film/developer incompatibility.

Microphen:
Rodinal:

Does this sound familiar, any perspectives?

 

[Dali]

Never had an issue with this combo. I develop 13mn 1+1.5 or 16mn 1+1.5 with low contrast lens. It worked for all my cameras (Mamiya C, Lubitel, OM1, FED 3). It is my fist choice with my FPP Debonair (16mn) and negatives contrast is pretty convincing for a plastic lens.

 

[pentaxuser]

Shots of the negatives might be a useful start to the discussion but initially I would be suspicious of the contention that there are disastrous film and developer combinations. Gut instinct tells me that something else has occurred here

pentaxuser

 

[foc]

If you could show a photo of the negative strip of the films, something like this.

Without seeing the negative strip, it is just guesswork as to the problem/solution.

 

[Willyekerslike]

I have to ask.

Were both rolls shot in the same camera?

 

[spl]

Okay, I think I've solved it. The light meter on the PEN FT is not known for accuracy, but being 50 years old it needed some work too. The exposure was inconsistent by about three stops. Combined with the Microphen that just didn't work and the negatives were washed out. I'll just post this one because a lot of them have people in.


Luckily the light meter seems to be mostly linear and I just removed the shutter speed dial and set the meter 3 stops away from the shutter mechanism to bring it back to readings that correlate mostly with my OM10, which is reliable and much newer.

I'm getting the feeling that blaming the developer/film combination isn't the way it works, so thanks for that feedback.

I will probably double check the exposures on the camera with a manual light meter for a few weeks and I will eventually post a successful frame with Microphen.

 

[foc]

Okay, I think I've solved it. The light meter on the PEN FT is not known for accuracy, but being 50 years old it needed some work too. The exposure was inconsistent by about three stops. Combined with the Microphen that just didn't work and the negatives were washed out. I'll just post this one because a lot of them have people in.
View attachment 286397

Luckily the light meter seems to be mostly linear and I just removed the shutter speed dial and set the meter 3 stops away from the shutter mechanism to bring it back to readings that correlate mostly with my OM10, which is reliable and much newer.

I'm getting the feeling that blaming the developer/film combination isn't the way it works, so thanks for that feedback.

I will probably double check the exposures on the camera with a manual light meter for a few weeks and I will eventually post a successful frame with Microphen.

Thanks for posting the image of the neg strip.
You can see from the edge markings that the film looks developed correctly so it was the lightmeter underexposing as you have said above.

 

[spl]

Thanks for posting the image of the neg strip.
You can see from the edge markings that the film looks developed correctly so it was the lightmeter underexposing as you have said above.

I had noticed that the edge markings were good and dark and thought that might mean that development was solid, but I was uncertain if that can be used as a good indication. Are well developed edge markings always a solid indication that the development was good? I'm curious why 35mm film doesn't come with a standardised test exposure along the sprockets or in the last inaccessible frame at the spindle.

 

[foc]

Are well developed edge markings always a solid indication that the development was good?

The simple answer is yes.
Because they are exposed onto the film by the manufacturer so you know they will show up if the film is processed correctly.

 

[MattKing]

Are well developed edge markings always a solid indication that the development was good?

The complex answer is: usually.
For in date film that has been handled normally, yes if it isn't something weird like Pan F.
For Pan F, and old, outdated, poorly stored film, the latent image formed when the edge markings are exposed on to the film can show signs of fading. When that is the case, well imaged edge markings actually may be a sign of over-development.
Most films are quite resistant to latent image fading over time, but Pan F is unusual in that latent images deteriorate unusually quickly - thus the advice from Ilford to develop Pan F reasonably promptly after exposure.
And you can't really use edge markings as an accurate measure of consistency, unless your films are consistent to start with - fresh, well stored and of the same type.

 

[Jonno85uk]

I've heard about the latent image fading in Pan F. Do we know if something similar happens with Ferrania P30? I only have a sample size of 1 but for the roll I developed I noticed the edge markings were quite thin when compared to the actual image.