Overexposing Fomapan 400 (ISO 200 & 100)

[Juan Valdenebro]

It seems, when I´ve exposed correctly for film's design and real speed, what can be well done is to give film a bit more development to expand its tone and make a soft scene reach paper's limits naturally, but really, it doesn't work as well when there's underexposure in the first place.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

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 onto the processed negatives, using a thin brush dipped in India ink.

Just like with film, forums can be used in the cheesiest ways too!

 

[radiant]

Ask yourself what could it be.

That is just what I'm trying to do here

David Vestal (a big boy according to your definition???)

Nope. An adult who was done some testing for his proof Big boys just say and if you question, they will frustrate into you. But this big boy thing is just of course just fun and joking reference, so don't get it too seriously. Anyways I like that someone is really testing something in controlled manner rather than just saying because .. well, you know who I'm talking about

And please understand that I'm just after a good discussion, test results, technical datasheets and overall wisdom on this subject!

Strange what so many people get the exact same conclusion from their experience... Are we all big boys???

It is no wonder now when I understand the technical datasheet that many get the same conclusion. No you're not big boys, probably. You have your reasons and experiences and I'm keen to hear those. And I have. Thank you all for sharing your wisdom and thoughts. This thread has given me more than I would ever expect!

The point here is unless you are a person of god-like precision

Not related to this topic but I have built myself an automatic agitation machine, so I'm not totally hopeless on this! Maybe I can control something on the process

If NOT, then you can start adjusting a wide variety of parameters to bring it into a range that is visually pleasing to yourself and your intended end-result.

Sure. Agree 100%. I think this is the beauty of film but it gives anxiety to me because I don't know what to vary because I don't know what I'm after. But one doesn't come a jedi in one day or in few years.

Guess what? I stopped pushing in 2019. The reason is I finally discovered it's not really necessary.

Oh man, I'm glad at the same time that this forum exists but I'm a bit sad we have this kind of interesting and valuable stories floating around the globe. It would be so good to sit down next to a good cup of coffee and chat with you guys of all this. Hear your stories and chat around.

The reason why I started this thread and made this silly simple test cleared in my mind after Juans post. I don't want to do same "mistake" (not saying Juan your pushing is a mistake) for 33 years and then finding out that all my negatives are exposed wrong. I want to do things correctly because I cannot return to the place, time and moment when I exposed the negative afterwards. And that is why I wanted to know should I increase the exposure for real in the future. And I have got that information and much more ..

 

[radiant]

If you scan, you're not seeing your negative or its tone, but a digital photograph of it, and all you're seeing is the digital tone you got when you photographed digitally your film with a scanner.

How this differs from a print when inspecting things by eyes? .. aka looking at screen or the print.

I'm not questioning here or I'm not trying to be rude - I'm just keen to know what actually happens so I can understand this in the future. I've already commited to doing this kind of tests with real prints but still I would like to know

 

[Agulliver]

The first Fomapan I shot was 400 in 35mm, and as per general advice I shot it at 320ASA and developed as recommended in ID-11 stock. I found that the photos I'd shot indoors under minimal light looked better than the ones shot outdoors in sunlight. Since then I've shot Fomapan 100, 200 and 400 at box speed, developing as recommended in ID-11 stock and I have no problems.

I haven't tried pushing Fomapan though I did develop a Fomapan 400 film for a friend that she reckoned had been shot at more like 800. Seemed to be OK but she wasn't totally sure about the exposure.

 

[radiant]

I've pushed Fomapan 400 to 1600. Not bad at all (compared to other 400->1600 pushed films). Gives a really distinct look.

Some examples of negative scans (I know, I should test by printing):

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

To sum it up:
No need to overexpose Foma films, just expose them correctly, and remember their box speeds aren't in the same game Ilford and Kodak films are.
About pushing: pushing is not bad: it's just another game... Just like a sharper image is not better, only sharper... And a good photograph is not a simple technically good photograph... If you ask me, yet I care a lot more about the world than about photography. It's in the world where images are, not in the technique. BUT!!!! IMO only after mastering technique we can act quickly, but that's me (and others, yes), but people are different... Ansel Adams was a painter more than a photographer though he knew technique, he painted in the darkroom with photographic materials... He didn't feel able to capture the human condition as HCB or Frank or Winogrand did... So he worked slowly with scenes he could visit many times, and how did he want to surprise people? With prints showing landscapes that were not what he saw and not what he got in his negatives... That bores me to death, and that's much easier than the real thing: give a few years of your life to both games, and you'll see one of them is wildly harder to achieve... That's why Ansel Adams has so little importance from a historicist point of view in the world of photography and its aesthetic evolution: what he wanted was to be relevant in the USA and the MOMA.
For every single photographer making a few truly great images along a lifetime, there are 10,000 more photographers exposing and developing correctly images that say not too much, and for each one of those technies, there are 10,000 photographers exposing and developing far away from what they could really do with the very same materials...
Everyone has the right to decide what to be or not to be.

 

[radiant]

About pushing: pushing is not bad

I never thought it was bad; it is just a tool. I'm more concerned in the negatives in general - have I exposed & developed those well.

Maybe we are here talking as part of Ansel Adams heritage - would the exposing of negatives be what is is today without him? I believe he has some part of even this discussion

 

[flavio81]

So, foma400 is closer to 100 than other ISO400 films, foma200 closer to 50, and foma100 closer to 25 if we want to talk seriously.

Hi south american friend.

Foma doesn't really lie in the datasheets: if you look closely at their datasheets, the curves show that Foma 100 is about ISO 64-80 on D-76 (or a "standard") developer, and Foma 400, about ISO 250-320.

Using foma 100 at 100 (and developing accordingly) will get the high contrast often seen on sample images over the web. It's peculiar spectral sensitivity also often contributes to a contrast increase.

I think saying "foma 100 is closer to 25" is an exaggeration.

 

[R.Gould]

I don't hnow about Foma 100 as I never use it, but I have been using the 200 and 400 and nothing else for over 20 years and I expose at 320/400 for 400, depending on the light, when I bracked 1 stop each side of 400 the 200 would have beeen very hard to prin, burmt out skys, very dark, the 400 was pretty much perfect I develop either in Rodinal 1/50 for 18 minutes or ID11/D76 for 12 minutes for 400
Richard

 

[radiant]

I don't hnow about Foma 100 as I never use it, but I have been using the 200 and 400 and nothing else for over 20 years and I expose at 320/400 for 400, depending on the light, when I bracked 1 stop each side of 400 the 200 would have beeen very hard to prin, burmt out skys, very dark, the 400 was pretty much perfect I develop either in Rodinal 1/50 for 18 minutes or ID11/D76 for 12 minutes for 400
Richard

Did I understood you correctly; if you overexpose the ISO 400 film by one stop, it comes hard to print? Is this typical for Foma 400 only?

 

[R.Gould]

Did I understood you correctly; if you overexpose the ISO 400 film by one stop, it comes hard to print? Is this typical for Foma 400 only?

In over 20 years I have only ever used Fomapan so I can't comment on other film but using the method I use, with Rodinal Ect then I find that skys are more dense and take more burning in, perhaps saying hard to print is the wrong choice of words, but perhaps a bit harder, you can still get nice prints, but I get much more detail in my negatives, some photograohers will not agree and insist that the 400 is realy a 200 film, some will always expose any 400 film at 200, but for me and my method of working then 320 to 400, developed in mainly Rodinal 1/50 for 18 minutes gives me negatives that print well, 320 to 400, depends on conditions and light, for instance in dull grey weather I find that a 1/4 stop extra helps, put it down to knowing the film inside out, I just know what the film is capable of, 200 or 1 stop is for me just a little to much, at least for me, with ID11/d76 I always use it at stock and always expose the film at 400 and develop for 12 minutes, and it works for me
Richard

 

[albireo]

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.

Yep this is great advice IMHO. I myself started from Foma's excellent spreadsheets on the path to determining an E.I. that worked best, _for me_, i.e. in my shooting/exposing/processing/scanning/printing workflow. That's how I got to the I.E. 320 I was hinting at before.

Not sure about D76 and the 'real world' however. I'm very much in the real world and have never used D76. Where I live there are plenty of companies making chemicals which are cheap, easy to find and worth supporting. Adox is one of these companies. Foma's own chemicals are great. Fomadon LQN gives extraordinary results with Foma 400 in 120 in my experience - I warmly recommend it. Fomadon Excel (Xtol's clone) is also great. I use nothing else with Foma 400.

I would like to highlight the 'exposing' part of the process. The way you expose is IME more important than a +/- 1/3 stop variation in E.I. I use an external incident Sekonic light meter - would recommend using one if compatible with your style of photography.

 

[138S]

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).

ISO Speed can be calibrated with any developer, there are developers that increase or loss speed, a developer increasing speed may have some "effects" we may not want, because of that they are not universally used.

If developer is not stated alongside told ISO grade then D-76 standard speed is understood, but this is debatable. Kodak and Fuji show graphs with absolute lux-second units so they state very clearly what the film does, in the Foma case what datasheet says is more debatable, they show good graphs for contrast vs processing but no clear graph for exposure.

... so Foma 400 requires a test roll with bracketings to learn what suits our taste, anyway this is good with any film !

Me also I've found that Foma 400 should be rated lower with developers sporting "regular" speed.

 

[mnemosyne]

Did I understood you correctly; if you overexpose the ISO 400 film by one stop, it comes hard to print? Is this typical for Foma 400 only?

How much overexposure a film can take depends on the properties of the film, the developer and last but not least the brightness range of the subject. Foma 400 (and 100) works well with Rodinal and can give beautiful results, but this combo requires tight control regarding exposure and development (avoid overexposure, avoid over development), as there is less leeway than with other combos before you encounter burnt highlights, which will be difficult to print.

Whether a film gives best results at box speed or one stop over or one stop under or ... this really depends on your personal workflow, the subject, the brightness range, personal taste and the way you meter.

When two people say "I shoot/expose Foma 400 at box speed" the actual amount of exposure may still differen between the two, depending on the way they meter and judge any given scene. This is why you need to do your personal testing and cannot rely on others saying "Foma 400 can/must/should be exposed at EI XXX".

Being said that, it is clear from Fomas published data, that when developed to the same gamma (contrast) using the same developer they will yield somewhat less speed than competitors product of the same box speed. However, this does NOT necessarily mean that you cannot expose them at their box speed. In the end everything comes down to your personal taste and requirements.

I recommend that you read up a bit about basic sensitometry and make yourself familiar with the Foma published data (or that of other film manufacturers) which will answer 99% of your questions.

 

[138S]

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.

First, thanks for that precise information, only I would point that I find the FOMA 400 datasheet missleading, luring first time users to a moderate pitfall: underexposing by 1 stop.

They want the 400 stamp in the box, then they say "ISO grade 400" without saying it was calibrated with an speed increase developer and rounding to the ceiling.

Yes, "Microphen" is stated in the top of the graph... but it's hard to see it, it's not explicit that we have to use an "speed increase" developer to reach that flawed "400", and as no absolute units are shown in the graph even a technician will be lost about what film does.

Also they mix ISO and EI, they say: "underexposed by 2 EV (as ISO 1600/33º ) without any change in processing". Of course that can be done with any film, at EI 1600 with FOMA 400 we have zero latitude in the shadows, if an scene has no shadows then it may even work !! as with any film !!

Then, for the MTF graph and "90 lp/mm" they don't say at what contrast, 1.6:1 , 1000:1 , 30:1 ? It shows a decorative graph saying nothing,.

Fortunately they later show good graphs for contrast, but I find the "commercial heading" in the datasheet is pretty missleading.

All datasheets can have some comedy, but ISO should be serious.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Then, for the MTF graph and "90 lp/mm" they don't say at what contrast, 1.6:1 , 1000:1 , 30:1 ? It shows a decorative graph saying nothing,.

From having used Fomapan 400, I'd be inclined to say that the 90 line pairs quoted is likely the averaged result from the ISO standard resolution test, not the high and low contrast pair (edit: on second thoughts, I think it's probably more likely the 1000:1 resolution). See this post for an explanation of the procedures for testing RMSG and MTF (and #22 for the chart demonstrating edge effects) - and where 'mm' is used, read 'μm' - the methodology for the MTF tests is one of percentage contrast reproduction of slit targets - and it would seem likely that Foma's methodology is not that different to Kodak's. The results certainly don't suggest that Fomapan 400 is sharper than Kodak's 400 speed offerings - which is very much borne out if you use the materials in question!

As for the other differences - Foma seem to have stuck to a higher specified gamma as their preferred contrast aim - there are historical and cultural reasons why this & the use of PQ developers to define speeds are the case - likely a combination of flarier optics on average amongst their customers or a preference for contrastier negatives (when the western manufacturers were reducing their average recommended contrast indices in the 60's-70's), and/ or use of diffusion enlargers, along with the more readily available raw chemicals in the Warsaw Pact 40-50+ years ago.

 

[138S]

First, thanks for those good references.

(edit: on second thoughts, I think it's probably more likely the 1000:1 resolution).

I had made some informal tests, in a DIY way we can make contact copies of a usaf 1951 glass slide, we adjust contrast by a pre flash of the entire film, so the preflash is the exposure of the opaque strips in the target... and preflash plus the contact copy exposure is the exposure in the transparent strips. Of course, result depends on both, contrast and exposure, as very high levels of exposure makes work the smaller grains.

I guess that film resolving power is a very complex matter, but those tests are a way to compare in particular situations.

In this test https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/ with TMX they found 11200 "effective pix" from a Mamiya 7 MF shot, in a 56mm wide exposure, I guess, this leads to 11200/56/2 = 100 lp/mm at probably 100:1 contrast, still that test evaluates the whole system, including optics.

Perhaps the effectively around ISO 300 old foma cubic emulsion should go to 1000:1 to approach that.

anyway it has to be debatable when this makes a difference or not in real photography.

As for the other differences - Foma seem to have stuck to a higher specified gamma as their preferred contrast aim - there are historical and cultural reasons why this & the use of PQ developers to define speeds are the case - likely a combination of flarier optics on average amongst their customers or a preference for contrastier negatives (when the western manufacturers were reducing their average recommended contrast indices in the 60's-70's), and/ or use of diffusion enlargers, along with the more readily available raw chemicals in the Warsaw Pact 40-50+ years ago.

I guess that they also have commercial reasons, they may want 400 on the box. At the end even Kodak and ilford are also stamping 3200 on the box, while film is 800 or 1200.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Foma box speeds are ridiculously over-optimistic, especially the "200" speed product. I consider it almost like deceptive marketing.

 

[albireo]

Foma box speeds are ridiculously over-optimistic, especially the "200" speed product. I consider it almost like deceptive marketing.

Fomapan 200 is an excellent 160-200 ISO film in Xtol/Fomadon Excel and Fomadon LQN, and a fantastic 125-160 ISO film in Rodinal/Fomadon R09.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I guess that film resolving power is a very complex matter, but those tests are a way to compare in particular situations.

In this test https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/ with TMX they found 11200 "effective pix" from a Mamiya 7 MF shot, in a 56mm wide exposure, I guess, this leads to 11200/56/2 = 100 lp/mm at probably 100:1 contrast, still that test evaluates the whole system, including optics.

What I have found is that high contrast test charts on their own are essentially useless (and even downright misleading about real, useful optical performance - yes Epson, I'm looking at you) - and that the quality of contrast reproduction of real world objects matters far more, as do things like halation etc. When you go beyond the resolving power of the film in terms of degrees of enlargement, the ability to represent the granularity of the film reasonably well becomes a critical factor, at least in my experience.

 

[radiant]

When you go beyond the resolving power of the film in terms of degrees of enlargement, the ability to represent the granularity of the film reasonably well becomes a critical factor, at least in my experience.

.. and eposing the negative is much more important to do right. Scanning the negatives hides mistakes quite well and one can fix many things digitally without even understanding that they have made erros on exposure.

 

[Lachlan Young]

.. and eposing the negative is much more important to do right. Scanning the negatives hides mistakes quite well and one can fix many things digitally without even understanding that they have made erros on exposure.

Only up to a point - a well exposed negative (and depending on aesthetic, that's quite a broad range) is considerably easier to darkroom print or scan.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Trying to patch things up via a scan is like going to a barbershop so incompetent that you have to wear a wig afterwards.

 

[Prest_400]

Only up to a point - a well exposed negative (and depending on aesthetic, that's quite a broad range) is considerably easier to darkroom print or scan.

I know many people who shoot B&W and have it lab processed through the many excellent mailorder labs. The issue is that they tend to give magnificient scans that are corrected and that hides a lot of the sins that are rather obvious in the darkroom which IMO is not the best for learning. A reason why I took many years to get into B&W is that it's a DIY affair and awaited to have good darkroom access.

Back on the topic I've tested Foma 100 and 200 in 120 developed HC110h. The former I exposed at 80 and the latter at 100 and results have been fine. In 120 there are some emulsion defects now and then, such as comets and small marks.

Strangely I haven't gotten into grip with TMax 100 while having found no difficulty with the Fomas. Might be that I need to tighten my skills printing.