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.
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.
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.
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!
Aha! So my Foma is actually broken!
In future if anyone refers how grainy Foma 400 is, feel free to redirect to this discussion
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?i'm not really sure what really flat scans are supposed to show. The grain will come when you add the contrast...
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..
It's more likely that the white point didn't get set properly. My v600 is notorious for this.those look really soft / underdeveloped.
the bridge one looks "right" but these one dont
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.
I guess you didn't understand what vedostuu was saying.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.
Why are you arguing about this in a darkroom sub-forum and a thread about how to obtain a particular type of darkroom print?@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.
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?
It's the steep toe, oddly nonlinear response in the midtones and the tendency of highlights to blow out.
Of course a flat scan/print won't show much grain.
So my question to vedostuu is: what size are you printing to?
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.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.
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).
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 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
HP5+ lab processed, Pen F, 70mm f2
View attachment 277080
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.
It is important to note that Pen F means half frame (24mm x 18mm) negatives!Nice! Just the look I'm after. What kind of exposure and processing? Is this print? Grade? So many questions!
Thanks!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?
It's the steep toe
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!How are you exposing and developing HP5?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?