My Fomapan 400 is broken

[Juan Valdenebro]

I've done the first two so I will develop next rolls on high temperature. If that isn't enough then what is ..

One more thing: condenser enlargers are often considered better for more present grain... Good luck!

 

[radiant]

.. and here is EI 160, Rodinal 1+25, 7 minutes, (scan, contrast adjusted):

Nothing new under the sun.. I mean bridge?

I start to think Foma 400 is too despised film. If you need more than 9 stops of latitude, then choose other film. But when do you need such latitude, really? The toe seems to be pretty similar to other films too. And the grain .. well. The Holy Grain. Where is it? I'm still on my way to get accepted on Grain Lovers Inc ..

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Shouldn't you dilute rodinal to 1:100 instead of 1:25 for sharper, bigger grain?

 

[radiant]

One more thing: condenser enlargers are often considered better for more present grain... Good luck!

I have condenser enlarger, so I'm ready to fire.

 

[radiant]

Shouldn't you dilute rodinal to 1:100 instead of 1:25 for sharper, bigger grain?

Well, should I? I don't know.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

And results are in general compared -between films, developers and dilutions- on the light table with a 22x loupe... Scanning implies creating a new thing...

 

[radiant]

And results are in general compared -between films, developers and dilutions- on the light table with a 22x loupe... Scanning implies creating a new thing...

For sure. I've looked with loupe and looks pretty clean to me. I've noticed that if there is grain, scanning emphasizes it.

But I still want to remind that we are now searching for the holy, potato size, grain on Fomapan 400 with 22x loupe .. I mean, it is common knowledge that Foma 400 has HUUUUGE grain? That is why I'm suspecting there is something terrible wrong in my patch

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

For sure. I've looked with loupe and looks pretty clean to me. I've noticed that if there is grain, scanning emphasizes it.

But I still want to remind that we are now searching for the holy, potato size, grain on Fomapan 400 with 22x loupe .. I mean, it is common knowledge that Foma 400 has HUUUUGE grain? That is why I'm suspecting there is something terrible wrong in my patch

Scanning doesn't emphasize grain always: it's some types of digital sharpening what do that... Scanning can make grain look softer sometimes.
Foma400's problem is not grain, but speed and pushing capabilities. Others talk about its weird spectral sensitivity.
I use it anyway.

 

[grat]

I get plenty of green when I pre-soak.... wait. You said grain. Never mind, carry on.

 

[Maris]

The grain in the negative is not the grain in the positive.
The grain in the positive is a map of the spaces between the grains of the negative. To make these spaces conspicuous start with a non-solvent developer to produce a dense negative (few spaces) and then make big enlargements on to high contrast photographic paper. Lots of grain.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Only wet printing can show OP (and us) what F400 is at EI640 and EI1280.
What he showed us here is a digital photograph of a negative, and that digital photograph's tone is a different tone, a new tone, and belongs to a different field... Obviously a new image is created digitally to go from black to white in different ways, and digital images can be manipulated (that's what scanners and software do) to make them lighter the ways digital technology makes grays lighter: but that's not how F400 looks.
Foma400 is a different thing. It's what it looks like when wet printed.
Foma400 used mixed with other technologies, of course has the right to exist, but it requires another name, because Foma400 is a different thing already: the wet printing of Foma400.

 

[Craig75]

Yeah but we have to find out what is problem with my Foma 400 which is always said to be grainy and shouldn't never be developed in Rodinal.

Here is some proof. Shot at 640 and 1280 EI and Rodinal 1+25, 12minutes. Full tonal scan (I know, I know) on Epson V600, no any adjustments.

View attachment 276986
View attachment 276987

close up:

View attachment 276988

The highlights on EI 640 were so dense that the scanner couldn't handle it. I actually don't know if the un-adjusted settings crank the output levels to the max or not. But that is not important..

those look really soft / underdeveloped.

the bridge one looks "right" but these one dont

 

[Down Under]

Nonsense like this is why this community is on a decline. Vast majority of today's film users don't give a damn about dead trees. They also couldn't care less about "counting" either. Photography, as any hobby, has always been about having fun and enjoying oneself. Nobody needs to be reminded about what counts and what doesn't.

I kind of (not kinda) agree with you. But then you and I are dinosaurs anyway. Let us now slink off and play with our Leica LTMs.

As for the rest, well. Look up Ralph Gibson in his early years, he was a master at all this. Back when I was in my teens and trying to earn after school money by making news photos, I did hundreds or even thousands of quite grainy prints with a then-standard one-hour processing and printing method. Warm Dektol or PQ Universal, full strength, with HP3 (or maybe it was HP4 then, memory has failed me on this), three to five minutes. Squeegee the negative and print while still wet. Messy, but it worked. Grain like rice. The newspaper scanning machines of that time (1960s) worked best with grainy, grey prints for best repro on letterpress.

Gibson did it to utter perfection with Tri-X in, as I recall, full strength Rodinal. His processing times must have been lightning fast. He was legendary at it for years before he lost the plot and went all modern with other techniques (which I must say, he did equally well).

All this said, I suspect today's HP5 is too fine-grained a film to give similar results today. Fomapan 400 is probably still your best bet. Go on experimenting.

And do show us your results, please. Thanks in advance...

Yes, it's all fun.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Tri-X in, as I recall, full strength Rodinal. His processing times must have been lightning fast.

No. 1+25 Rodinal, 11mins at 20oC, Tri-X exposed under effective Sunny-16 methodology (ie EV15 conditions = f16) as if it were EI100. This is very well documented.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Yeah but we have to find out what is problem with my Foma 400 which is always said to be grainy and shouldn't never be developed in Rodinal.

Now that I think about it, I've probably got some scans of Fomapan 400 that may have been through Rodinal (I've never got round to printing them in the darkroom for various reasons) - they're definitely strong in visual granularity however, and you'd see the effect at even pretty small sizes. It may take some time to dig them out.

I think I will continue on Rodinal, isn't that typically producing more grain than ID-11 ?

Yes, but it also produces a somewhat different curve.

 

[Steve@f8]

Have a look at what this guy’s doing. Hot development of HP5+ Rodinal 1:10 I believe, +30C.
https://www.35mmc.com/20/05/2021/ma...eloping-film-at-30-degrees-by-tyrell-mcbride/

 

[NB23]

Grain is not a function of agitation. This is why stand development is BS. People think that stand development makes smaller grain and so on.

fomapan 400 is special/unique (not necessarily good) in two departments: unusually narrow flexibility and spectral sensitivity. Can look super good for landscapes and ugly with people.

As member of Grain Lovers Inc. I tried to go on crusade to search for the "huge" grain from Fomapan 400.

I've tried evertyhing from underexposing and overdeveloping. I mean heavy overdevelopment. I've tried overexposing. I've been using Rodinal 1+25. I've agitated "like crazy" (30sec intervals).

But I suspect my film is broken. There isn't any large grain. The film works surprisingly well.

The only way to get this notorious and really common grain from Fomapan 400 is to heavily underexpose and scan. There is no way to make prints out of those negatives. And making prints is only thing that counts.

So should I return my film? I thought even showing this film to Rodinal bottle makes it have such acne that I could get my respect in Grain Lovers inc. But they just laugh at me ..

 

[grat]

Only wet printing can show OP (and us) what F400 is at EI640 and EI1280.
What he showed us here is a digital photograph of a negative, and that digital photograph's tone is a different tone, a new tone, and belongs to a different field... Obviously a new image is created digitally to go from black to white in different ways, and digital images can be manipulated (that's what scanners and software do) to make them lighter the ways digital technology makes grays lighter: but that's not how F400 looks.
Foma400 is a different thing. It's what it looks like when wet printed.
Foma400 used mixed with other technologies, of course has the right to exist, but it requires another name, because Foma400 is a different thing already: the wet printing of Foma400.

To continue this sort of logic, given the variables of developing chemicals, methods, atmospheric conditions, printing equipment, technique and materials, it is impossible to establish a baseline performance for any film.

In fact, I think you may have disproven the existence of photography as a science.

Or, you've just spouted the biggest line of claptrap I've encountered today-- and I've been dealing with homeowner's insurance.

 

[radiant]

Have a look at what this guy’s doing. Hot development of HP5+ Rodinal 1:10 I believe, +30C.
https://www.35mmc.com/20/05/2021/ma...eloping-film-at-30-degrees-by-tyrell-mcbride/

Hey, I have seen that but forgot the existence. Soon we will see my attempt at hot development too!

those look really soft / underdeveloped.

They are developed to print on grade 2-3 based on my measurements. Did you take in account that those are RAW / flat scans?

The grain in the negative is not the grain in the positive.
The grain in the positive is a map of the spaces between the grains of the negative. To make these spaces conspicuous start with a non-solvent developer to produce a dense negative (few spaces) and then make big enlargements on to high contrast photographic paper. Lots of grain.

This is a good reminder! I have some Foma 400 shot at ISO 100 and overdeveloped, I can see what the grain looks on print in those.

Foma400's problem is not grain, but speed and pushing capabilities. Others talk about its weird spectral sensitivity.
I use it anyway.

I'm not pro-Foma 400 in any ways but I don't think speed is issue if you know to expose it at 160-180'ish. Pushing.. Well, as the toe is pretty similar to other films, then if you push from ISO 160, it should be fine. The previous scans are example of that, the other is shot at 640 which is 2 stops push. Not horrible and a maybe usable too?

Squeegee the negative and print while still wet. Messy, but it worked. Grain like rice.

Print while wet? This is new to me. So before printing, wet the negative and then print? And about the full strength Rodinal devleopment, that is crazy I've heard that news photographers did develop their films fast but that probably also helped on the printing of the newspaper because of the grain?

Only wet printing can show OP (and us) what F400 is at EI640 and EI1280.
What he showed us here is a digital photograph of a negative, and that digital photograph's tone is a different tone, a new tone, and belongs to a different field... Obviously a new image is created digitally to go from black to white in different ways, and digital images can be manipulated (that's what scanners and software do) to make them lighter the ways digital technology makes grays lighter: but that's not how F400 looks.
Foma400 is a different thing. It's what it looks like when wet printed.
Foma400 used mixed with other technologies, of course has the right to exist, but it requires another name, because Foma400 is a different thing already: the wet printing of Foma400.

I know. I'm going to try printing and also wet printing (completely new for me) when my darkroom cools a bit. Currently we have some kind of heatwave here in Finland so my focus has been photographing outside, enjoying the sun .. But I will post report here once I print the negatives.

 

[albireo]

Nonsense like this is why this community is on a decline. Vast majority of today's film users don't give a damn about dead trees. They also couldn't care less about "counting" either. Photography, as any hobby, has always been about having fun and enjoying oneself. Nobody needs to be reminded about what counts and what doesn't.

Gregg - If only I could agree with your post 1000 times. It is actually astonishing to me how reactionary, elitist, and downright dumb the film photography community can be - based on some of what you read here. About 80% of the posts on here are of the flavour "DaRkRoOM priNTS WiN oVeR sCaNnInG! the ReAL pUrpOse of FiLM photography is TO PRInT in a DarKRoOm!" which are so puerile and remind me a lot of those brainless "Canon is better than Nikon" fights that dominate digital photography forums. So disappointing.

If it weren't for a few open minded and knowledgeable contributors (one of them being Lachlan Young - incredibly well informed content - thank you Lachlan for your work on here) I would have left this place long ago.

 

[radiant]

More tests. Foma 400, Pushed 2 stops from real ISO, Rodinal 1+25, 27 degC, 7.5 minutes, 30 sec agitation interval. Reminder that these are flat scans, no adjustments:

 

[radiant]

Previous examples need to be printed at Grade 1 if they are shot in high SBR. Low SBR would need about grade 3.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Reminder that these are flat scans, no adjustments

What would be most useful is a piece of uninverted neg with some rebate showing - that'll give a clearer idea as to what is usable detail in the shadows/ toe - and where your exposure is landing, relative to where you want it to land.

 

[Steve@f8]

@vedostuu thanks for showing the hot development results.
Comparing these with what Ty McBride is achieving at +30C with the same dilution of Rodinal 1:25 I’m wondering if the extra 3C is making the difference. His results have quite large grain (looks fabulous in my opinion, but not to everyone’s taste of course). Basically I like grain, large amounts in fact, for the aesthetics; additionally it makes film look totally different to digital.

 

[radiant]

What would be most useful is a piece of uninverted neg with some rebate showing - that'll give a clearer idea as to what is usable detail in the shadows/ toe - and where your exposure is landing, relative to where you want it to land.

Sure. Here you go, one Stouffer for scale!