My Fomapan 400 is broken

[gone]

If that's the look you want, try the 100 at 25 ISO w/ a Y fltr and souped in Mic-X. I shot these down in Daytona Beach w/ the Arista EDU version of Foma 100. You can get serious grain if you play w/ your exposures. I probably should get some more Mic-X because I've been testing the 200 and 400 Foma films, and the 400 I really like in D76 full strength. Even the grain. The 200 may be too "modern" for me though. Might try a few rolls w/ different developers. I probably should have used Rodinal w/ it.

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?[/QUOTE]

 

[markjwyatt]

Someone said P3200 for grain- @3200 (HC110 B); 35mm;


Ho Ho Ho by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

 

[radiant]

I sweated out for you guys and made one print last night:

The JPG is smushing the grain a bit, here is a closeup in PNG:

The print is about 7x9" so 17cm x 23cm. This is high contrast print, I would say it is printed about at grade 4.

The grain is visible but in my opinion it is really small. I would say the grain is at normal and in natural level. The negative had pretty normal latitude as this was mostly a low SBR scene. Part of the stairs sunlight and the right side of the passage are blown out, I didn't bother burning those. Also the door is really visible in scans but because of high contrast print, it became totally black.

Remember this is from a negative that is shot at two stops underexposed from real ISO and developed like maniac, high temperature dev and developed TWO times longer than what is suggested (compensated with temperature of course).

I think Foma 400 is much better film than common belief is. The grain theory is totally debunked now. I'm not going to get my club membership to The Grain Lovers Inc. with this submission

 

[radiant]

If that's the look you want, try the 100 at 25 ISO w/ a Y fltr and souped in Mic-X. I shot these down in Daytona Beach w/ the Arista EDU version of Foma 100. You can get serious grain if you play w/ your exposures. I probably should get some more Mic-X because I've been testing the 200 and 400 Foma films, and the 400 I really like in D76 full strength. Even the grain. The 200 may be too "modern" for me though. Might try a few rolls w/ different developers. I probably should have used Rodinal w/ it.

Beautiful work. I might try that too! But I would guess I still have to continue dreaming of The Big Grain.

Someone said P3200 for grain- @3200 (HC110 B); 35mm;

I've shot Delta 3200 and it has a bit similar grain I guess than P3200? My experience might be limited but I think on those films the grain is just all over. It looks like there is constant noise over the negative? I'm probably totally wrong here but that is the reason I am not that keen on trying P3200. Also P3200 is quite expensive. I probably would pick Tri-X instead and expose at 200, developed in Rodinal.

 

[radiant]

Btw, here is comparison between print scan and negative scan, which is which? Please don't answer if you know, this is more like rethrorical question and time to think things a bit

 

[koraks]

That last example says something about the problems of using a flatbed scanner for 35mm. It just never comes out very satisfactorily IMO.
Nice print, the grain is IMO amply present and very pronounced as I'm accustomed to with this film, but doesn't hurt this image.

 

[radiant]

Nice print, the grain is IMO amply present and very pronounced as I'm accustomed to with this film, but doesn't hurt this image.

Thanks!

I think grain works only on certain subjects. It has be used like a tool, like everything else.. Sounds cliché but maybe that way even I will some day remember it..

Also it is imporant (for me) to remember what @Maris wrote that grain on positive representation is the area between grains of negative. So what you see from negative is not actualy the grain, but the spaces between the grains! That makes so much sense.

I assume that the grain on highlights is so dense that there isn't really any spaces between the crystals, right? And in shadows there isn't any silver, so nada there. And if highlights have spaces it might be really tricky or impossible to print the negative, I guess. That is why grain can be used as tool on midtones. This is pretty similar to lith printing..

 

[Steve@f8]

I sweated out for you guys and made one print last night:

View attachment 277125

View attachment 277126

The JPG is smushing the grain a bit, here is a closeup in PNG:

View attachment 277127

The print is about 7x9" so 17cm x 23cm. This is high contrast print, I would say it is printed about at grade 4.

The grain is visible but in my opinion it is really small. I would say the grain is at normal and in natural level. The negative had pretty normal latitude as this was mostly a low SBR scene. Part of the stairs sunlight and the right side of the passage are blown out, I didn't bother burning those. Also the door is really visible in scans but because of high contrast print, it became totally black.

Remember this is from a negative that is shot at two stops underexposed from real ISO and developed like maniac, high temperature dev and developed TWO times longer than what is suggested (compensated with temperature of course).

I think Foma 400 is much better film than common belief is. The grain theory is totally debunked now. I'm not going to get my club membership to The Grain Lovers Inc. with this submission

I think grain is very addictive, the more you get the more you want!
I do wish there was a Grain Lovers Inc, to discuss and share lovely grain. I’m hooked!

 

[radiant]

I think grain is very addictive, the more you get the more you want!
I do wish there was a Grain Lovers Inc, to discuss and share lovely grain. I’m hooked!

Oh yes there is: https://www.photrio.com/forum/groups/the-grain-lovers-inc.160/group

 

[Steve@f8]

Oh yes there is: https://www.photrio.com/forum/groups/the-grain-lovers-inc.160/group

So there is and now the group has two members!

 

[Horatio]

I have no trouble producing grain with Foma 400 and Rodinal 1:50.

 

[radiant]

I have no trouble producing grain with Foma 400 and Rodinal 1:50.

Probably, but your Foma 400 isn't broken like mine is

 

[ole-squint]

Have you tried Kodak 5222, aka Cinestill XX? It's a true old-style "clumpy" silver grain film like the old Tri-X, as opposed to the Delta/T-Max films that use flat (tabular) grains, or the "improved" Tri-X that uses various color dyes to achieve light sensitivity. As the Kodak rep explained it to us when the T (for tabular)-Max films were introduced, "It's like we cut the grains of silver in half so we can use half as much silver as before." This was in the 80's when the Hunt brothers in Fort Worth were trying to corner the silver market, and the price of silver went through the roof.
5222 is the motion picture film stock used in the films "Raging Bull" and "Paper Moon", among others. BTW, in the book "Darkroom" (Lustrum Press, 1977), Ralph Gibson said he used Tri-X, 100-400 ASA, 1:25 Rodinal, 11 minutes @ 68F, 10 " agitation every 1 1/2 minutes, by "rolling the tank on its side".

 

[MattKing]

As the Kodak rep explained it to us when the T (for tabular)-Max films were introduced, "It's like we cut the grains of silver in half so we can use half as much silver as before."

While that resulted in savings in silver, the more important result was much finer grain for the same light sensitivity.
Which, of course, is exactly the opposite of what the OP is trying for!
By the way, all panchromatic black and white films use sensitizing dyes. Otherwise, they aren't panchromatic.

 

[Lachlan Young]

It's a true old-style "clumpy" silver grain film like the old Tri-X, as opposed to the Delta/T-Max films that use flat (tabular) grains, or the "improved" Tri-X that uses various color dyes to achieve light sensitivity

The reality is rather different. All modern emulsions (since, oh, the 1950s) have used more and more tightly controlled emulsion growth methods to get grain of specific and defined characteristics. Delta films use high aspect ratio grains & epitaxial growth technology and very specific core/ shell crystal characteristics. Kodak materials use layered dye techniques that allow far greater use of the silver in a given emulsion (thus finer, sharper grain relative to speed). How much silver is in an emulsion is no indication of performance, how much of the silver can be sensitised is far more important. 3D crystals are now much more regular in character too - much of the silliness about materials having changed relates to latitude for misuse having been narrowed to allow for significant sharpness & granularity improvements. In other words, people are complaining about the idiot-proofing having been reduced.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

The real problem if you love grain is that films have been improved quite a lot. TriX in the late 00s for example. Manufacturers were obsessed (and people too) with how fine a grain they could get. Now that digital has come along there really is no point to that obsession. Films though are a lot better than they were. That leaves the peeps like us who love grain to have to jump through hoops to get it.

Personally I dropped down to an Olympus FT for grainier images. I use Fomapan 400 too which works fine at that size. The grain is comparable to the images I made back in the 90s when I wanted grain. I've always loved grain. You can see those old images on my website if you care to look, especially some of the Deconstructed images. I also shoot Eastman 5222 in a Minox (those are on my Instagram). That will get you grain as well, but it is a pretty extreme way to go. There are always the 3200 speed films. Don't shoot them at higher speeds though. Shoot them at around 800/1000 then develop them like you shot it at 3200. Much better tonality and of course you get the grain. Of course if you want to dump the shadows then ignore that advice. Do whatever makes you happy.

By the way, Gibson abandoned TriX later in his career. He moved on to faster films since, like I said, TriX was improved too much. IIRC he might have been using Neopan 1600 but my memory isn't that great. I shot a ton of that back twenty years ago. It was my favorite film, maybe of all time. I shot it at 640 and developed it like I shot it at 1600. I think for a decade or so I shot either Neopan 1600 or APX 400. I miss those days.

And I've pretty much always used Rodinal. You could give Beutler's a try as well but that has a different tonality. If you try Beutler's you have to really overdevelop it to get the grain.

Hope that helps you.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I’ve never found Fomapan 400 to be particularly grainy. Yes, it has grain, but it’s not what I’d classify as obnoxious, and I’ve seen a fair amount of grain come through my lab. Can you get there? Sure, but in all honesty, it’s easier to just shoot P3200 or Delta 3200 and easily get significantly more grain.

 

[mohmad khatab]

 

[Lachlan Young]

He moved on to faster films since, like I said, TriX was improved too much. IIRC he might have been using Neopan 1600

I think he used both - and Neopan 1600 was apparently essentially a 'highly pushable' 400 speed film with an incorporated development accelerator. Both the faster Neopans had slightly rougher visual granularity (to my eyes) than the Ilford/ Kodak materials of the same era.

 

[radiant]

Have you tried Kodak 5222, aka Cinestill XX? It's a true old-style "clumpy" silver grain film like the old Tri-X, as opposed to the Delta/T-Max films that use flat (tabular) grains, or the "improved" Tri-X that uses various color dyes to achieve light sensitivity.

I haven't but I will order some on my next batch. Thanks for the tip!

I’ve never found Fomapan 400 to be particularly grainy. Yes, it has grain, but it’s not what I’d classify as obnoxious, and I’ve seen a fair amount of grain come through my lab. Can you get there? Sure, but in all honesty, it’s easier to just shoot P3200 or Delta 3200 and easily get significantly more grain.

I have to still repeat that I was in impression that there are really (I mean REALLY) grainy film available. I mean really clumpy stuff. I haven't yet tested all but in general when we nowadays talk how some film is "grainy" it is nothing. Very small differences. Yes if you are after very fine film (why aren't you using tmax then?) then in that content you can say something is more grainier. But that is not the stuff I'm interested. I'm looking for really clumpy stuff.

I need to try P3200 and Cinestil XX for sure.

 

[Lachlan Young]

@vedostuu 5222 has considerably finer granularity than 400TX under the standardised test conditions - specifically an RMS G of 14 vs 17 - Fomapan 400 claims 17.5. What no one on this thread seems to want to take into account or understand is that granularity (and its visibility) changes relative to exposure, processing time/ average gradient and the tonal distribution of the subject (which also has a relationship relative to the sensitisation of the film). There are no magic answers or recipes to achieving intense and visible granularity, just basic understanding of the distribution of visual granularity and how to exploit that within a set of systemic parameters. Overexposing and overprocessing Delta 400 will produce some intense and very sharp granularity.

 

[MattKing]

Thread edited - if people wish to discuss the business of FOMA, start your own thread.

 

[psfred]

Looks to me that the 3200 speed films of today had about the same granularity of TX back in the early 80s. TMax films have far less.

I'd suggest some DoubleX if you can find it in 35mm -- and you aren't going to get high granularity is 120 these days no matter what, I don't think.

A note for the 5222 film, it is not reliably hardened, and if you don't use a hardening (acid) fixer you can get serious reticulation. That may be what you want -- develop normally, then use a non-hardening fixer and rinse with cold water. Should reticulate the film quite a bit, giving the appearance of coarse grain.

More modern film stocks probably won't reticulate.

I got a kick out of this discussion as I'm an anti-grain fan. My favorite film that is still available is (and I need to get more Rollie 25) is Agfapan 25 in medium format. Tech Pan, with all the issues, was wonderful film if you had enough light.

Back in the day Agfapan 400 in rodinal 1:25 and ove agitated/overdeveloped produced huge grain, so you might try some Rollie XRS 400, I believe it's the same.

Sadly you are swimming upstream with this though, all the research for the last 100 years or so has been aimed at reducing grain and increasing speed!

Using 16mm in a sub-mini will definitely give you much more grain, especially if you use a Minox. Limited flexibility though....

 

[Lachlan Young]

Agfapan 400... Rollie XRS 400, I believe it's the same.

If you mean the repackaged Aviphot that Rollei sells, no. Closest relatives of the Agfa Gevaert APX 400 are Bergger Pancro 400, Orwo N74 plus and Lomo Berlin Kino - and even then, it's a revised set of emulsions that seem to have been intended to drive in a Kodak 400TX-ish direction.

 

[flavio81]

Aha! So my Foma is actually broken!

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

Yeah! I want to know where to buy this improved Foma 400 with smaller grain than ever!!