Damn, I really overexposed it then at EI250.
Damn, I really overexposed it then at EI250.You're right - enough of these jokes. Let's be really, really serious now: Foma 400 is actually a 15 ISO film, foma200 close to 7 ISO. Don't even get me started about foma 100: it's actually an ISO 2 film.
By the way, rubbish film if you ask me - I have to spend HOURS adding the shadow detail I crave directly on the processed negatives, using a thin brush dipped in India ink.
I'd recommend a good old contact print. But if you want to go bigger: if you print two negatives, one by one, changing none of the parameters in the process, your prints will be perfectly comparable.Could anyone elaborate how one can print comparable prints in darkroom?
you are welcome to see my prints and or negatives...I use foma 100 at 100 ASA and it works fine...just add a little extra time for dark scenesYou're right - enough of these jokes. Let's be really, really serious now: Foma 400 is actually a 15 ISO film, foma200 close to 7 ISO. Don't even get me started about foma 100: it's actually an ISO 2 film.
By the way, rubbish film if you ask me - I have to spend HOURS adding the shadow detail I crave directly onto the processed negatives, using a thin brush dipped in India ink.
one man's garbage is another man's priceless gift!!
have a great day!!
Peter
I'd recommend a good old contact print. But if you want to go bigger: if you print two negatives, one by one, changing none of the parameters in the process, your prints will be perfectly comparable.
Coincidentally, it may just give you a firmer grip on what is going on than scanning film. There's nothing wrong with scanning, but as a means to figure out how you're faring in terms of creating good negatives, scanning sometimes tends to introduce unnecessary problems. Just my opinion, by the way.
Print paper has a fixed gamma and contrast ratio as long as you expose and process each print as close to identical as possible.
As MattKing keeps saying, scanners have variables not under your control.
First of all, apologies of the mixup with the two strips. They are both the same, I just brightened the second to make it easier to analyze but the explanation text between images were lost in translation.. Did not mean to confuse you!
So here is a quite huge image. The following strip was scanned on one single scan. No levels adjusted, reset all auto things on Epson scan and no post-process fixing. I only cut&copied the strips in a row but that's all there is. There aren't any scan / adjustment difference between the frames. So the negatives are pretty comparable.
All frames have increased time by half stop. The middle one have one extra too.
View attachment 235747
Here is a direct link to larger picture: http://vedos.tuu.fi/foma400.jpg
My thoughts on this issue somehow start to come clear. As overexposing or increasing exposure doesn't really do anything for the highlights other than those come "brighter" (aka denser) the increased exposure has a "real" affect to the shadows. So what we are doing when increasing exposure is helping out the shadow details and that is it. And that is totally normal. Maybe Foma 400 needs that, it is hard to say with these tests.
I still think it is wrong to say that "Foma 400 is actually ISO 200 film". However it might be true - what everyone says that Foma 400 - that you needs more exposure when you want shadow details. But still in my opinion far stretch from a statement that one should expose Foma 400 at 200 always and in all the scenes.
For example if you look at the strip and the middle scene (with four shots) there isn't any shadow details to save. Yes it is really low in SLR. But sometimes photographs are low at SLR. The negative just gets dense but one doesn't gain anything with that. Why would I need to shoot that kind of scenes at ISO 200?
Maybe the bottom line here is: "if you want shadow details, some films need one stop increased exposure" - what about this instead of the worn out mantra
Yes, your comparison certainly has merit as well. I think my personal preference for a chemical contact print is because I make negatives for printing. This brings some challenges particularly in the shadows; while a scanner generally does a pretty good job at recovering shadow detail that is barely present in the negative, for darkroom printing you need some density/contrast in the low values in order to get them effectively on paper. So a scan may lead to conclusions that may prove to be overly optimistic when afterwards to try and print your negatives with an enlarger. If your work flow is exclusively hybrid and no darkroom printing is planned, you generally can get away with somewhat thinner shadows in your negatives. So here again we see that you're right in saying that we shouldn't hang on to mantras, but decide for ourselves what our specific needs are.
All you have to do is look at the spec sheet: http://www.fomausa.com/pdf/Fomapan_400.pdf
Foma uses Microphen to determine speed, and the real speed in Microphen tops out at 320, but only when the gamma is way higher than ISO standard. Foma calls it 400 speed because it’s within a third of a stop at its max in Microphen. That’s fine.
In the real world, using D76 and developing to a gamma closer to ISO standards (0.60), you should expect to shoot it at EI 160-200 according to their published charts. In Xtol, at 0.60 gamma, you get about a third of a stop more speed than D-76, and in Fomadon LQN you get about another third of a stop of speed over XTOL at 0.6 gamma. Foma’s spec sheets for their films are shockingly accurate, if you look at them and read the charts that they have in there for the developers that they’ve tested.
from my experience, it's not unusual for a film to perform best at box speed -2/3 stop.Big boys told me somewhere that Fomapan 400 is "OK film if you shoot it at 200". I thought I had done something terrible wrong, exposing it at 400 or sometimes at 320 (also this ISO speed is the "correct" speed told be another big boys). Maybe this why I shoot so bad photographs! Of course, this is it! I must try it!
So I did shoot a roll of 135. I shot few different scenes to see how my photography suddenly comes better. I tried to measure the scenes correctly (spot meter, zone measuring, camera measuring) and then I increased the shutter time for one stop two times - to get exposure at 400, 200 and 100 speeds.
I developed the test film at xtol 1:1 for 9min 30 seconds, so at "box speed". When I pulled the film from the tank I was like, yeah now we see some density difference! However I couldn't see any difference in the frames, I thought I did something totally wrong. I checked the camera exposure memory and yes, I had exposed everything like I planned.On any of the scenes I just cannot any dramatic changes. Or maybe I cannot even see any changes..
I was aware that negative film handles overexposure pretty well previously. One can overexpose 2-3 stops without any real "harm". Maybe a bit denser negative but nothing to worry about.
So should Fomapan 400 shot at ISO 200? If you have the extra light, sure - go ahead. Film loves light. Do you need to do that? Based on this experience, I would say I don't understand why one should. Maybe to avoid underexposure? I accidentally underexposed one frame by one stop and the film handled that well too.
Here is one video of me showing three scans (without any level adjustment with Epson V600). Right upper corner shows exposure information. Check how the exposure affects to the levels. The changes in levels is really the only real difference I can see. The negative frames are pretty similar, maybe the slowest frame is a tiny tiny bit denser. So the scans shows pretty much the reality.
Thank you!
First technical explanation that I can see on this "issue" and really much more than I needed. Also confirmed that I can trust Foma's datasheets really so now it is easier to process claims like the old mantra.
But still the mantra is not true; it depends on what developer & time you use! My new suggestion is "If you want shadow details, some films need one stop increased exposure. Your exposing 'ISO' depends on your developer & time."
I usually use Foma films with an E.I. reduced by 1/3 of a stop from box speed. But I wouldn't hesitate using Fomapan 400@400 if I had to. I did so on a trip to Taipei and wasn't really disappointed. But I do use a suitable developer, in my case Fomadon LQN. But if I ever move from the nostalgic D76 to Xtol, the latter seems to work really well according to the mentioned datasheets. And I'm really tempted to switch to replenished Xtol.
A week ago I used a roll of Fomapan 100@80 and 200@160 for a testdriving my new Rolleicord and I'm happy enough with the shadow performance. I'm sure the Ilford and Kodak flagship films can do better, but I didn't miss out on any details I wanted to have.
From your original post, who are the "big boys"?
Why do you redeuce EI by 1/3? I'm interested how did you come into that conclusion. Is there any way to do this without doing comparison test? And with your rolleicord, without reducing EI would you have got disappointing shadows?
The thing that has bothered me most before this thread is that people just repeat the mantra without any proof or reference how they do this. This thread has opened my eyes in many ways, for example the Foma datasheet explanation previously was really good technical description why Fomapan 400 shouldn't be exposed at 400 all the time.
Gamma has very little (actually, nothing) to do with exposure or shadow detail. Gamma is influenced primarily by development (and of course the nature of the emulsion).Back to Foma: Later I saw the graphs in the datasheets and, using Fomadon LQN, it seems that a 1/3 stop below box speed should be the proper speed. I.e. E.I. 160 for Fomapan 200 and 320 for Fomapan 400. From my memory that might mean a slightly higher Gamma of 0.7 or so, according to the graphs.
Gamma has very little (actually, nothing) to do with exposure or shadow detail. Gamma is influenced primarily by development (and of course the nature of the emulsion).
Apart from that, a 1/3 stop more exposure is pretty minimal. I wouldn't notice the difference in the real world, to be honest. If it works for you, that's fine, of course.
Gamma has very little (actually, nothing) to do with exposure or shadow detail. Gamma is influenced primarily by development (and of course the nature of the emulsion).
Apart from that, a 1/3 stop more exposure is pretty minimal. I wouldn't notice the difference in the real world, to be honest. If it works for you, that's fine, of course.
Gamma, simply put, is the steepness of the HD curve of a film (more accurately, of the mid-section straight portion of the curve). It says therefore something about the contrast of the negative - how much more density you get with an increment in exposure.Actually could you open up the Gamma term a bit? Or is there a good description somewhere? What is that magical 0.60 ISO standard?
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?