• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

New Fomapan 200 Creative: which developer better?

Iridium

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
93
Location
Athens, Hell
Format
Multi Format
I just got a few 120 rolls of the new Fomapan 200 Creative from Foma Norway. I have the HC-110 developer, but I red in the forum that is not recommended for this film.

Can you please recommend me an adequate developer to get the best from the film in regular contrast at the nominal speed? The recommended soup/time will be also useful.

Thanx in advance!
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,716
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
I would love to prove the person wrong that says Foma 200 doesn't work in HC-110.
That's garbledegook to me.

Whatever developer you use to process other film will be fine with Foma 200.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,716
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
I happen to have a roll of Foma 200 lying around, waiting to be developed. I will process it in HC-110, because I have some handy. Then I will make a print from one of the negatives.

I think the reason why HC-110 isn't recommended as a developer for Foma films is that the film needs, usually, shorter developing times than most other films. With HC-110 dilution B, the developing time might just be too short. With Dilution H it shouldn't be a problem.

Start by exposing it at EI 160, and try Dilution H for 9 minutes at 68F / 20C. If you have too much contrast, reduce development until it looks right. If you have too little, increase development.

- Thomas
 
OP
OP

Iridium

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
93
Location
Athens, Hell
Format
Multi Format

Thanx Thomas. I would like to ask you why you choose EI 160 instead of the nominal 200?

The first I will develop is one that has been shot with Holga. I found a time of 11.5m @ 20C, H dilution. I will let you know about the result. As you refer to 9 minutes, do you think 11.5 is too much?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,419
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
The issue with HC110 and Fomapan 100 & 200 is the very short developing times required make it less practical. These Foma films build up contrast very quickly and require about 70-75% of the development time compared to other films.

Ian
 
OP
OP

Iridium

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
93
Location
Athens, Hell
Format
Multi Format
The issue with HC110 and Fomapan 100 & 200 is the very short developing times required make it less practical. These Foma films build up contrast very quickly and require about 70-75% of the development time compared to other films.

Ian

The H dilution I believe can solve this problem with short time if you use dilution B.

Thus Ian which developer do you recommend to use better with Fomapan 200? Have you tried any soup?
 

Peter Schrager

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
4,331
Location
fairfield co
Format
Large Format
Foma 200 is NOT a 200 speed film; try 160 or 150 asa
Best, Peter
 

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,419
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
The H dilution I believe can solve this problem with short time if you use dilution B.

Thus Ian which developer do you recommend to use better with Fomapan 200? Have you tried any soup?

I've used quite a lot of Fomapan 200 and currently use Pyrocat HD, but I've also used Xtol. Treat these Foma films right and they are remarkably good.

I'm not a fan of HC110 or Ilfords Ilfotech HC/LC equivalents, they give less effective film speed and aren't that fine grained but they are popular because of their convenience and very long shelf life.

Some people use Fomapan 200 (older version) at 80 EI, I've always used mine at 100 EI, I use Fomapan 100 at 50 EI.

These are finicky films but easily tamed

Ian
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,716
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
Yes, you lose shadow detail. I am right now scanning the Foma 200 film I processed in HC-110 last night. Results in about half an hour.... It works great at Dilution H.

- Thomas
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,716
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
The example below is Foma 200, exposed at EI 200 (due to low contrast), and processed in Kodak HC-110 Dilution H (1+63) at 68 degrees Fahrenheit for 14 minutes, agitating for the first full minute, and then 10s every two minutes.
The camera was a Pentax KX with a 100mm f/2.8 lens.
The scan looks grainier than a print will. Unfortunately I haven't had time to make a print. The negative has been cropped to about 75% of its original size. A little off the top and bottom, and then cropped to 3x4 ratio.

- Thomas
 

Attachments

  • 101203_10.jpg
    363.7 KB · Views: 1,551
OP
OP

Iridium

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
93
Location
Athens, Hell
Format
Multi Format

Thomas,

The scan looks nice, though the sky is grainier. In the print we could see the actual result of the grain in the sky.

However, I have a couple of questions for you:

1. You said @ EI 160, Dilution H for 9 minutes at 68F / 20C. I found in the digitaltruth @ EI 200, Dilution H for 11.5 minutes at 68F / 20C. You tried @ EI 200, Dilution H for 14 minutes at 68F / 20C. So, why so many differences in the time?

2. Why did you choose agitating for the first full minute, and then 10s every two minutes, instead of, for example, the more normal continuous agitation for the first 30 sec and then 2-3 agitations every minute?
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,716
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
Yes, the print would be less grainy. I will try to find time to make a print next weekend.

1. The roll of film was exposed in low contrast lighting. When the lighting is flat, and you want a full range of tones in your negatives you have to look at what you're photographing, think about how it's going to print, and then expose and process the film accordingly.
Flat lighting = low contrast = no real black anywhere in the scene, and no real pure crisp white either. Normal exposure at 160 and normal development would have provided me with a flat negative. So I exposed at EI 200 to get the almost black in the scenes down to true black, and then I develop longer to raise the mid-tones and highlights up to a full tonal range. This is quite normal.
Digitaltruth is good for finding a starting point, but you can't expose and develop your film the same way regardless of what the lighting conditions were. That will give you negatives that aren't the best they can be.

2. Agitation is a tool, same as developer dilution, developing time, developer temperature, film exposure, etc. I happened to have one more roll of film in the developing tank, a roll of Acros that I had shot at EI 400, and it also needed longer developing time. But it had brighter highlights, so in order to get highlights in that roll of film that did not block up and raise the contrast too much, I had to slow down agitation.
So, the Foma roll is a bit of a compromise. I could have used Dilution H at 12 minutes and agitated every minute for almost the same results. The highlights would have been a little bit more intense, and probably a bit more interesting. This is what I would have done if I had processed only the Foma film and not shared the tank with the Acros film.

See, you have to do your own testing, contact sheets, and prints on your paper, your developer, in your lighting conditions, with your light meter, etc. There is no happy medium for every single picture. Each situation is unique.
It's pretty simple too. If you don't have enough contrast - develop longer. If you don't have enough shadow detail - expose more. If your highlights are too intense, develop less, or slow down agitation, or both. It's a system, and you develop the film to fit your paper and paper developer combination.
I developed this film targeting a good print at Grade 2.5, which is what I do with all my negatives from 35mm. Sometimes they print well at Grade 1.5, and other times at Grade 3.5. But mostly Grade 2.5 is right on target. It makes printing much easier if the negative is great.

With the Foma 200 roll I processed in HC-110 I just wanted to prove that it could be done - and it can, of course. It may not be possible to use Dilution B, because the developing times might be too short to obtain evenly developed negatives. But Dilution B isn't the only way to use this developer.

Good luck.

- Thomas
 

RobertV

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
897
Location
the Netherla
Format
Multi Format
Neither HC-110 nor Rodinal will bring you fine grain with this Fomapan Creative (T200) film. But it will give tight regular grain. If you like it or not, that's another question.

Here an example (35mm ! ) in Para-Amino Phenol (Rodinal type) E.I. 160. The T200 film is not a real iso 200 film, in most developers iso 125-160. But the Silver Halide crystals are build up in Hexagonal and Cubical type form. A pretty rare mixture which gives the film a "classical look".



Xtol is also a good combination: E.I. 160, fine grain nice tonal scale see here:
Dead Link Removed

The film reacts also good on Pyro developers, PMK, Finol etc.

Best regards,

Robert
 
OP
OP

Iridium

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
93
Location
Athens, Hell
Format
Multi Format
Robert, the result with Xtol is exceptional, better than the one in your post. I will give also a try.

Thomas, thanx too!
 
OP
OP

Iridium

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
93
Location
Athens, Hell
Format
Multi Format
A couple of days ago I souped my first normal 120 Fomapan 200. I shot it with my Mamiya 7 II. My other 2 attempts were with the unreliable scratching Holga and I don't count them...

EI 200 - HC 110 - H - 20C - 11:30

6 agitations @ first 30sec, then 2 agitations every minute.

At the first contact with the Fomapan 200 I noticed the followings:

  1. The adhesive labels that Foma uses for the sealing the film are tenacious and when you try to remove the first gets off a part of the black cover too. Apart from that, the other one which is for sealing the film when finished two times glued in the rewind place and almost prevented the damage of a tiny plate. And the sticker left the glue inside.

  • The black protective cover/tape for the film is hard and it's possible to get unwrapped around the spool easily, which can expose part of the film to the light.

  • When the HC 110 poured back to the container after the development its colour was menthol green!!

Thus, here it's a frame of this film scanned in V700 according to the method referred by Michel Pollet.

I am waiting for your opinions.

I intend also to buy Xtol in order to give a try to it as the result from RobertV looks great.
 

Attachments

  • FP200-frame.jpg
    378.1 KB · Views: 836

Trask

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
1,946
Location
Virginia (northern)
Format
35mm RF
"Flat lighting = low contrast = no real black anywhere in the scene, and no real pure crisp white either. Normal exposure at 160 and normal development would have provided me with a flat negative. So I exposed at EI 200 to get the almost black in the scenes down to true black, and then I develop longer to raise the mid-tones and highlights up to a full tonal range. This is quite normal."

Thanks for this explanation, Thomas. I'd never thought of handling low contrast scenes like this -- driving what would be perhaps Zone 3 down to Zone 1 by underexposure, then increasing development to build the midtones and highlights. Very useful mental construct.
 

Photo-gear

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
304
Location
Montréal (Qu
Format
35mm
Hi guys,

I am about to develop a roll of Fomapan 200 and I wonder about three things:
#1- how do I differentiate the old roll from the new version?
#2- is the dev chart the same in both cases?
#3- is 11,5 min the right time for HC-110 dil H?