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.
Ask yourself what could it be.
David Vestal (a big boy according to your definition???)
Strange what so many people get the exact same conclusion from their experience... Are we all big boys???
The point here is unless you are a person of god-like precision
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.
Guess what? I stopped pushing in 2019. The reason is I finally discovered it's not really necessary.
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.
About pushing: pushing is not bad
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.
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
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 meDid 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?
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.
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).
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?
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.
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,.
(edit: on second thoughts, I think it's probably more likely the 1000:1 resolution).
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.
Foma box speeds are ridiculously over-optimistic, especially the "200" speed product. I consider it almost like deceptive marketing.
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.
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.
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.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.
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?