Overexposing Fomapan 400 (ISO 200 & 100)

[bedrof]

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.

Damn, I really overexposed it then at EI250.

 

[koraks]

Could anyone elaborate how one can print comparable prints in darkroom?

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.

 

[Peter Schrager]

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.

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 scenes
and quite contrary it is an older older emulsion type and can be quite beautiful. use FP4 instead you'll get great results....
one man's garbage is another man's priceless gift!!
have a great day!!
Peter

 

[albireo]

one man's garbage is another man's priceless gift!!
have a great day!!
Peter

See my first post in this thread. I love Fomapan. I hardly use anything else these days.

The post of mine you're quoting was an (obviously quite poor) attempt at sarcasm.

Have a great day too!

 

[Kino]

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.

Yeah, you really need to evaluate this test via printing, not scanning, as suggested by Koraks.

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.

 

[pentaxuser]

If these are equal steps then if what I see is what is there on the negatives I believe that the EI goes down from left to right I am still confused about stops but I think you are saying that it is 400, 250 and 160 not 400, 200 and 100. Anyway the foreground in each case becomes darker and the detail in the trees increases. Prints of each of the negatives would be useful to see how the negative translates into a positive print to work out how much detail is needed to improve the print but we are into subjective judgement again. How much you need in extra detail may be less or more than I need

pentaxuser

 

[radiant]

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.

Good to know, I thought I would need to adjust each print separately.

However I want to point out that all the frames in this picture have same "settings" - every frame has same exposure as I scanned them to single image, there is no frame specific calibration at all because of this. So that is why it sounds pretty same as printing different negatives with same height/aperture/time .. Anyway, here is the picture again: http://vedos.tuu.fi/foma400.jpg - I think it is not completely worthless and shows the real difference between the frames.

 

[koraks]

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.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

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

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.

 

[radiant]

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.

Ah, this opens my eyes. If the scanner affects to shadows and "fixes" shadow problems, then I totally understand why I should do a print. And I know that negatives can look better on scans, maybe really hard to replicate on a darkroom print.

 

[radiant]

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.

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."

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

from my experience, it's not unusual for a film to perform best at box speed -2/3 stop.

 

[removed account4]

hi OP
sometimes differences people rant and rave about are small not big.
i tend to over expose every film i shoot by at least 1 whole fstop, been doing this since
given my first roll of tri x in high school and never really stopped ( im not in high school anymore ). t
he beautiful thing about photography is that
everything is a starting point - if you don't like the way box speed works for you switch it up, if you don't like the
way your xtol is working for you
change the developing time or dilution or both ( what you might try is adding a little strong print developer
into your xtol, you might get better development all around
vit c developers seem to be flat for some people's tastes ) &c ...
how do your prints look do you like them ?
after you have like 5 different examples of the same scene, the same lighting conditions all
different exposure and development values print them out whichever way
you like to view your photographs .. ink jet, laser on b/w, enlarged in your darkroom, contact prints .. and
then you decide what you like the best..
i never really listened to "the big boys" to be honest, their interests in photography always seemed to be different than mine ...

 

[Adrian Bacon]

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."

Foma also lists how they agitate. If you agitate the same way, the data in the spec sheet is pretty accurate. You can of course vary it, but I’d use the spec sheet as a starting point, and then adjust from there.

 

[msage]

From your original post, who are the "big boys"?

 

[lantau]

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.

 

[radiant]

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.

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.

From your original post, who are the "big boys"?

No dad, I won't tell you! Seriously: reference to a persons who seem to be authority and are not questioned at all..

 

[lantau]

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.

I started film photography (the way I do it today) in late 2015. Used my first rolls of Foma in 2016. I started with box speed and I seem to remember that there may have been some weakness in the shadows. Remember that I was quite inexperienced then (well even more than I still am now). So initially I pretty much did as you complain and just took the gospel.

More vivid in my memory are my experiences with Ilford PanF+ and Fuji Acros 100. They have nice shadow rendering, especially Acros. But it can be tricky, and with both I had it that there was a 'tear' in the tonal transition to total black.

The Acros example that comes to my mind might have been sloppy (external, incident) metering. For PanF+ it is a more consistent feature and so far I have refused to go below E.I. 50 for metering and rather add a notch of exposure if my impression of the scene makes me think it needs it.

I have often used Acros at E.I. 80. To give it a little more reserve to work with, just like Fomapan. But then I may get plain grey pictures from it, which I don't want either.

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. But as I said, I'm happy enough and I still have a lot of experimentation ahead of me with those films..

I did not try Fomapan 200@200, yet with the Rolleicord. BTW, this camera has no meter and I used incident metering with an external meter. I do that most of the time with medium format, even with my Rolleiflex SLX, which has TTL metering.

 

[koraks]

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.

 

[radiant]

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.

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?

For example if I look at Foma 400 datasheet I can see that gamma is a bit over 0.7 on Xtol developer at 9min 30sec (digital truth suggested time). However the gamma goes up to 11 min development time - show I develop longer?

 

[Dali]

To the OP... People are not totally silly. If most recommend to overexpose a film, there is certainly a reason. Ask yourself what could it be.

With most standard developers, film ISO is most of the time overestimated. You can compensate somewhat by using more exotic developers like Microphen, Acufine or even Diafine and expose at box speed. But these are not the most used developers: Look for ID11/D76 or Rodinal instead.

Years ago, David Vestal (a big boy according to your definition???) did a comparative study with Kodak TriX by exposing it from ISO800 to ISO6. From his prints serie, the most pleasant and balanced were from ISO 100 and 200 negatives. Strange what so many people get the exact same conclusion from their experience... Are we all big boys???

 

[lantau]

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.

If you develop according to datasheet, such that you get within 1/3 of box speed, then you'll end up with a gamma of about 0.7. Again according to the datasheet. Was simply mentioning that, because those into those things will try to develop to a gamma of 0.6.

So it may upset some one or not. I'm okay with that because the results by hybrid and classic processing look fine to me.

As I mentioned further up. I won't hesitate to use Fomapan 400 at boxspeed if I need to. Adding that extra third is a slight safety buffer for me. I'm not going to systematically evaluate it in the foreseeable future. But Foma seems to have done that for me, so I just follow their datasheet most of the time.

 

[koraks]

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?

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.
The 0.6 (or 0.62, or 0.65) is just a convention and the same applies here as with exposure: different strokes for different folks. Some of us prefer somewhat flatter (low gamma) negatives, some like the curve a bit steeper. This also depends heavily on what you intend to do with the negatives, ie how you intend to print or scan them.

 

[Kino]

The ISO .60 gamma standard is based upon strictly controlled machine processing and it is only useful to someone who hand processes film as a general benchmark. Depending on your mannerisms, techniques and precision using a specific developer, you can arrive at a gamma approximately around .60 using the manufacturer's suggested development rates.

But then again, everyone is different. Using the same film, temperature,developer and tank, one person might agitate like crazy and too often and wind up with a .80 gamma negative and another too infrequently and wind up with a .50 gamma negative just because they have different ideas of how you should do the action.

The point here is unless you are a person of god-like precision, your process gamma will tend to "float-around" within a certain range due to fluctuations of all the variables, but you should be fairly consistent within a certain range. If that range suits you, you are golden.

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.

Think of your processing routine as the benchmark and changing the ISO to bring the film and developer into line with what you want it to be.

Manufacturer's suggestions are just that: suggestions.

Just because someone strictly follows those suggestions doesn't make them more right than the person who changes them drastically to suit their needs/wants...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

To the OP:
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.
All that has nothing to do with real photography. I can tell you every b&w film was designed to "just" reach its best possible image (tone, grain, sharpness) at +1 from box speed. The image is great, yet, even with a bit more light than that. I can tell you from +2 the image starts to lose its best qualities too. At box speed, films produce an image that has more grain than the real film's grain, less sharpness and detail is revealed, and its tone is a bit shifted because of the film receiving half the light it needs...
Let me tell you another thing: I'm 47 and I started with b&w when I was 14, I've built three darkrooms in three different countries, in three different decades, and film's always been the same...
I pushed for 33 years until 2019. This year, I was checking two just developed rolls of an abandoned, rusty car, an old Mercedes Benz... Both transparent sheets with the strips were on the light table, while I checked them with my 22x loupe... I was amazed at the detail I was seeing: even though I could see the sharp tight grain, I could clearly see several very small lines and squares inside each of the car's back stops or red lights, and that's cool for 35mm handheld and ISO400 film when a car is placed several meters from you... I was amazed at the detail, as much as to remember it the next day, so I took my loupe again just to see how can grain produce such definition, and... I just could not see, again, the small lines and squares in the car's back lights... For a moment I felt lost... Then I remembered: I carry two cameras every day, a Leica with a Leitz 35 for good light, and a Konica Hexar AF for low light, and when I was shooting the car with my Leica, the roll was over after a few shots, so I switched to my other camera, the Hexar, and did a few more images (a wonderful 35 too, by the way...), so, I had the same film in both cameras that day, HP5+, and as a general rule I exposed for many years with my Leica (good light) at 200, and with my Hexar (low light) at 1600 (for perfectly metered scenes and best possible development with Microphen, which reaches up to 3200 for wet printing with HP5+ in Ilford pages...). In the end of the story, I learned this year, after seeing side by side both images, pushing changes so much the nature of an image, that we lose all detail... It´s that simple. It's a lot worse than I imagined: I can see the car, I can get an image, but that image has nothing to do with the other one! At all!
Guess what? I stopped pushing in 2019. The reason is I finally discovered it's not really necessary. I can photograph with f/1.4 inside a dark church now. I'll give my film less light than it was designed for, only when I need to lose all detail behind the grain growth. That's why Kodak recommends us not to change development after a -1 photograph, but use the same development time that's the standard for N... That bad is giving poor light and more development!