My Fomapan 400 is broken

[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.

Clarification; I want grain, I want deep blacks to my shadows (because I'm usually destroying those in prints anyways), I don't mind blowing highlights. I'm happy that these negatives need currently grade 1 filter to print because I'm probably going to use from 3 to upwards, depending on the subject.

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.

I can try +30C too. I start to get feeling that it doesn't really help.

But you are accepted to Grain Lovers Inc. if you want to join the grait graup of grain .. um sorry people!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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 ..

I used Rodinal and stand one hour. Grain was huge. Visible on 5x7 prints.

But I’m not surprised you ain’t getting any. Took years, but maybe Foma finally fixed this odd emulsion.

 

[radiant]

I used Rodinal and stand one hour. Grain was huge. Visible on 5x7 prints.

But I’m not surprised you ain’t getting any. Took years, but maybe Foma finally fixed this odd emulsion.

Aha! So my Foma is actually broken!

In future if anyone refers how grainy Foma 400 is, feel free to redirect to this discussion

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Clarification; I want grain, I want deep blacks to my shadows (because I'm usually destroying those in prints anyways), I don't mind blowing highlights. I'm happy that these negatives need currently grade 1 filter to print because I'm probably going to use from 3 to upwards, depending on the subject.






I can try +30C too. I start to get feeling that it doesn't really help.

But you are accepted to Grain Lovers Inc. if you want to join the grait graup of grain .. um sorry people!

Get Kodak 3200. I never seen this much of grain.
For deep shadows use contrast filters in the darkroom. If you are scanning; it just a slider in LR.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Aha! So my Foma is actually broken!

In future if anyone refers how grainy Foma 400 is, feel free to redirect to this discussion

Good news indeed!

 

[Craig75]

i'm not really sure what really flat scans are supposed to show. The grain will come when you add the contrast...

 

[grain elevator]

i'm not really sure what really flat scans are supposed to show. The grain will come when you add the contrast...

Yup, the scans do look grainy for the size and contrast. OP, you know when they speak of grain like golf balls that's hyperbole, yes?

 

[Jonno85uk]

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..

To my eye that image is full of jpeg artifacts so I don't think you can make a valid conclusion based on it. (edit: i see mine also now have artifacts, Photrio must recompress)

For me, I find the grain obtrusive on areas with open shades in 35mm e.g. skies, skin, OOF areas.
Rodinal + Foma 400, even in 120, I will still hold is ugly.
HC + Foma400 in 35mm is sometimes ok. Quite like it in 120.
Xtol really tames things down and is what I prefer.

Close-ups:
Raw(*), unsharpened 2400dpi scan (Nikon V-ED), 35mm, Ilfotec HC

As above but 4800dpi, XTOL 1+1

Ditto

As above but Rodinal 1+50. 1st and last time with 35mm for me.


In this gallery, the 2 images which were 120 + rodinal are obvious, despite being amongst 35mm.

Now, don't get me wrong, I like grain, Tri-x + Rodinal are a great match IME, but Foma400s just ain't to my taste.
Tri-X@1600 + Rodinal



* Raw meaning I use vuescan, scan a clear section to be able to lock the exposure and image-color (and something else I forget). 16bit/channel tiff.

 

[laingsoft]

those look really soft / underdeveloped.

the bridge one looks "right" but these one dont

It's more likely that the white point didn't get set properly. My v600 is notorious for this.

 

[MattKing]

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.

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 guess you didn't understand what vedostuu was saying.
He is looking for something that results in really grainy darkroom prints.
He isn't looking for scans.
Not a rejection of what others are looking for, just an expression of what he is looking for.
This is why this community remains strong - it offers opportunities for a variety of people, looking for a variety of things, including people who are trying to do some things in the darkroom.
If someone is looking for a digital solution, this Darkroom sub-forum isn't the appropriate Photrio sub-forum to have the discussion, but such a discussion is welcome in other parts of the site.
As for the quest for visible grain, I'll ask the question: what enlarger and light light source are you using? I know you posted that it was a condenser enlarger, but what bulb?

 

[koraks]

Looking at the examples shown here combined with my experience with this film, I can see why I didn't like it and still don't. It's not the grain. It's the steep toe, oddly nonlinear response in the midtones and the tendency of highlights to blow out.
Btw, adjust or print these for a normal viewing contrast and there will be grain. Of course a flat scan/print won't show much grain. It doesn't show much image either
To each their own. I passed on and won't look back.

 

[MattKing]

@MattKing I can assure you that plenty of people see "And making prints is only thing that counts." in such context, they leave and never come back, without even posting anything.



It doesn't. I see frequent self-congratulating threads here about being inclusive to women or people of color amusingly co-existing right next to dozens of posts that declare that "a print is a final product", "digital is for proctologists", "removing objects out of a picture is outside of photography", and other dogmatic crap that instantly excludes 95% of people of all genders, colors, shapes and sizes. This community hinges on like 10 people like yourself, Bacon, Henning, Donald and Lachlan who can answer any technical question. The fact that I can just enumerate you all, comma-separated style, speaks volumes about the "strength" of this community.

Why are you arguing about this in a darkroom sub-forum and a thread about how to obtain a particular type of darkroom print?
A quick count indicates that there are already 53 other threads with posting activity today - perhaps some of the other threads are more to your taste.
Getting back to the subject of the thread - my second most recent postcard exchange entry - which should finally be arriving in mail-slots now - is from a 135 negative exposed on long past date Neopan 1600. It is processed for contrast, and printed for more.
The postcards are grainy, but not extra-ordinarily so. The 9.5" x 13" enlargement is definitely grainy!
So my question to vedostuu is: what size are you printing to?

 

[radiant]

As for the quest for visible grain, I'll ask the question: what enlarger and light light source are you using? I know you posted that it was a condenser enlarger, but what bulb?

I converted my Fujimoto to using LED strips. But because of the heat problems I haven't had chance to try printing these. It makes marvelous look with Tri-X + Rodinal combo so I assume it is enough sharp.

It's the steep toe, oddly nonlinear response in the midtones and the tendency of highlights to blow out.

I'm not defending Foma 400 here but I assume you took into account that these were 2 stops underexposed and heavily overdeveloped? And most of the examples here are flat as possible.. But I'm not saying it is the best film I know either

Of course a flat scan/print won't show much grain.

I really assumed that exposing/developing this film wrong I could get that golf ball sized grain. I actually thought it is easy peasy with this film + rodinal. And that is why I opened this thread because for me it looked that my batch is broken I thought the grain is so large that it shows even on scans..

Anyway, here is few to my taste digitally adjusted scans from the 27degC development:

Could I print these with similar look? I have doubts..

 

[radiant]

So my question to vedostuu is: what size are you printing to?

As this was just an experiment, I haven't decided yet.

I printed 12x16" from Tri+X + Rodinal and the look is just great so I know these should also be printed big. I of course would like to see heavy grain on 8x10" prints too...

edit: here is test print from one of those 12x16" prints: http://kuvau.tuu.fi/accidentals/ (a 5x7" crop / test which turned into Mikael Siirilä style by accident)

 

[MattKing]

I converted my Fujimoto to using LED strips. But because of the heat problems I haven't had chance to try printing these. It makes marvelous look with Tri-X + Rodinal combo so I assume it is enough sharp.

That sounds like a quite diffuse light source. Even with condensers in the path, I don't know that you would be able to achieve prints that would really accentuate grain.
A lot of the enlargers that use condensers also use light sources (such as frosted bulbs) that diffuse the light somewhat. To maximize grain, you want a light source to be as small as possible (which makes it relatively difficult to achieve even lighting).
For accentuating grain and acutance (sharpness) a point light source is ideal. There is a reason though that point light sources are rare and no longer made - they are difficult to use.

 

[radiant]

A lot of the enlargers that use condensers also use light sources (such as frosted bulbs) that diffuse the light somewhat. To maximize grain, you want a light source to be as small as possible (which makes it relatively difficult to achieve even lighting).

I got great tips from Douwe on video call regarding the UV enlarger. Now I know why the light source should be as small as possible too! I was thinking of building 5x7" RGB enlarger too now I know how it is done. With that I could probably get visible grain even from Tmax-100+Xtol combo While in video call we crossed topic of dust and when I mentioned cleaning 5x7" negative out of dust Douwe just lost it That tells something about real condenser sharpnesss.

Fujimoto has originally halogen lamp in own "chamber" from where there is 15x15 opening to the condenser "chimney". The light is just blasted to the side wall of the chimney so it bounces around until it ends in the condenser lens. So it is probably not that efficient.

 

[NB23]

First image TMZ, lots of grain.
Second image Foma 400 in rodinal 1:25, no grain.

use TMZ, HP5 pushed...

 

[Steve@f8]

HP5+ lab processed, Pen F, 70mm f2

 

[koraks]

I'm not defending Foma 400 here but I assume you took into account that these were 2 stops underexposed and heavily overdeveloped? And most of the examples here are flat as possible.. But I'm not saying it is the best film I know either

Yeah, well,I was mostly reminiscing over my own experiences with this film. I got very few keepers to vouch for it, so I went to Rollei RPX400 and then to HP5+. Next stop is probably TMY if I keep heading this way...although I'm so far quite pleased with HP5+ after a disappointing first impression years ago.

 

[radiant]

HP5+ lab processed, Pen F, 70mm f2
View attachment 277080

Nice! Just the look I'm after. What kind of exposure and processing? Is this print? Grade? So many questions!

Yeah, well,I was mostly reminiscing over my own experiences with this film. I got very few keepers to vouch for it, so I went to Rollei RPX400 and then to HP5+. Next stop is probably TMY if I keep heading this way...although I'm so far quite pleased with HP5+ after a disappointing first impression years ago.

I'm also giving HP5 another chance. Same here; I didn't like it first time. But pushing it to 800 or 1600 seems to do the trick! How are you exposing and developing HP5?

 

[MattKing]

Nice! Just the look I'm after. What kind of exposure and processing? Is this print? Grade? So many questions!

It is important to note that Pen F means half frame (24mm x 18mm) negatives!
Perfect for the grain seekers - as long as they don't mind 72 photos on a 135-36 roll

 

[Steve@f8]

Nice! Just the look I'm after. What kind of exposure and processing? Is this print? Grade? So many questions!




I'm also giving HP5 another chance. Same here; I didn't like it first time. But pushing it to 800 or 1600 seems to do the trick! How are you exposing and developing HP5?

Thanks!
The image dates back a few years ago so I’m guessing here, but looking at it now I would have thought the mid tone on the building, since I used the in-built reflected light meter calibrated for mid grey.
I’m afraid I have to hold my hand up here, it’s a Plustek scan so I guess I’ll get banned here.

 

[radiant]

It's the steep toe

I just remembered I plotted Adrian Bacon's measurements and I cannot see any steep toe in those. See this plot. Don't mind about the axis, X is zones, Y is stops ..

Data for example: https://www.photrio.com/forum/resou...plenished-xtol-for-8-45-at-24c-in-a-jobo.427/

 

[koraks]

How are you exposing and developing HP5?

Box speed and instant Mytol using massive dev chart times. Gives a tad more contrast than what most would consider normal, but works quite well for me. I've grown quite fond of instant mytol for just about anything!

 

[Lachlan Young]

Clarification; I want grain, I want deep blacks to my shadows (because I'm usually destroying those in prints anyways), I don't mind blowing highlights. I'm happy that these negatives need currently grade 1 filter to print because I'm probably going to use from 3 to upwards, depending on the subject.

Those images of the negs are useful, they give an indication of where your actual shadow values are, relative to the b+f etc in a way that a nominally 'linear' scan doesn't. Here's something else to consider about visual granularity and the distribution thereof (and this translates to printing/ burning in highlights too). The negs that do the sort of thing you are looking for (on Fomapan) often tend to have highlight areas that seem to 'leak' (halation/ internal reflections/ turbidity etc) around contrast/ frame edges.