Question to Fomapan 200 users

[mauro35]

Hi all,

I have been using Fomapan 100 for about one year now and I have my own tested developer/time combination for contrast control. Since I liked this film very much, although with some struggling at the beginning, I decided to give Fomapan 200 a try. I have not tested this film yet and I have a rather specific question so that I could reduce testing times and be more effective. As quite well known to Fomapan 100 users, one of its features is that it tends to build highlight density very quickly and the developing times are shorter relative to most other films, in order to achieve normal contrast. Is this effect as pronounced in Fomapan 200 as well? As I can see from the technical sheet provided by Foma, the 200 ISO builds contrast even more rapidly then the 100 in the same developers. What is your experience?

Thank you!

Mauro

 

[Xmas]

Do you believe in web gossip or Santa Claus.

It needs longer in fixer!

 

[mauro35]

I tend not to believe in anything without a certain amount of evidence. However, I believe (and there is evidence for this) there are many skilled and knowledgeable people here at APUG who might have tried the film in question and therefore give me an idea, that's all. Concerning the 100 ISO I have tested it MYSELF and could see with my own eyes that it is true that it builds highlight density very rapidly, compared to all the other films I have tried MYSELF.

Am I then supposed to believe you saying it needs longer in fixer?

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Mauro

Noel knows exactly what he is saying.
You need to fix it for longer as it is a mixed traditional grain with CCG film.
Follow the datasheet.

 

[mauro35]

Hi Ricardo,

thanks, absolutely, Noel might as well be right. My question however was specifically concerning the developing stage of the process, as in my original post I was referring to contrast and highlight density and developer/time combination to achieve normal contrast. I have not mentioned fixer or fixing stage anywhere.
It should be relatively straightforward for me to determine whether Fomapan 200 needs indeed longer fixing times and I am not concerned about that.

 

[Rick A]

You might find an answer here.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?121712-Fomapan-100-200-and-400

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Or here: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I use stand development and I like it that way.

 

[baachitraka]

Yes, it builds the contrast rather fast. Cut the development time by 20% from the manufacturer recommendation.

 

[gone]

You might find this link VERY helpful....

https://www.flickr.com/groups/86738082@N00/discuss/72157622403285883/

I usually shoot the 100 version, and have only a few rolls of experience w/ the 200, but they seem to be different films w/ different looks. My preference is for the 100, but I use Microdol X at full strength for my developer. In D76, I didn't care for the look at all, and in Rodinal I found it to be quite nice, even at 1:25. Had to drop my metering ISO to 50 when I used D76, and pretty much the same for Rodinal, to tame the contrast. W/ Microdol X I shot it at 200 WITH a yellow filter, but that developer loses at least a stop when used full strength. This is all info for the 100 version. The 200, as I mentioned, I don't have enough experience to make any recommendations one way or the other, other than to point out that it has a different look than the 100. More T Maxey, w/ tighter grain.

But here's the thing, so much of this depends on agitation cycles and how vigorous you agitate, times and temps in each person's particular water, each person's thermometer error, and on and on. I don't see any way out of testing it yourself to see what you're going to get, which may not be what I would get using the same protocols.

 

[Xmas]

I tend not to believe in anything without a certain amount of evidence. However, I believe (and there is evidence for this) there are many skilled and knowledgeable people here at APUG who might have tried the film in question and therefore give me an idea, that's all. Concerning the 100 ISO I have tested it MYSELF and could see with my own eyes that it is true that it builds highlight density very rapidly, compared to all the other films I have tried MYSELF.

Am I then supposed to believe you saying it needs longer in fixer?

Foma's data sheets are rather good.

If you don't fix by inspection, then fix for longer or anticipate problems, longer won't hurt.

The 100, 200, and 400 all build up density fast but that is subjective since my procedures are not calibrated like a proper test house even if they are repeatable in my dark room. And my water hardness varies a lot.

The best advice you can get is to ignore web advice start from data sheet times for the gamma you want.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Yes, it builds the contrast rather fast. Cut the development time by 20% from the manufacturer recommendation.

You might find this link VERY helpful....

https://www.flickr.com/groups/86738082@N00/discuss/72157622403285883/

I usually shoot the 100 version, and have only a few rolls of experience w/ the 200, but they seem to be different films w/ different looks. My preference is for the 100, but I use Microdol X at full strength for my developer. In D76, I didn't care for the look at all, and in Rodinal I found it to be quite nice, even at 1:25. Had to drop my metering ISO to 50 when I used D76, and pretty much the same for Rodinal, to tame the contrast. W/ Microdol X I shot it at 200 WITH a yellow filter, but that developer loses at least a stop when used full strength. This is all info for the 100 version. The 200, as I mentioned, I don't have enough experience to make any recommendations one way or the other, other than to point out that it has a different look than the 100. More T Maxey, w/ tighter grain.

But here's the thing, so much of this depends on agitation cycles and how vigorous you agitate, times and temps in each person's particular water, each person's thermometer error, and on and on. I don't see any way out of testing it yourself to see what you're going to get, which may not be what I would get using the same protocols.

F200 doesn't build contrast as much as F100.

Yeap, F100 is very different than F200.
Read the datasheet for proper agitation. It is all there.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It is true that Foma films build density faster than other films.

I would also recommend to start with the manufacturer's data sheet, and use that as a starting point to determine your own optimal developing time and exposure.
In the past, having used a fair amount of Foma film, I would say I don't get very good effective film speed. Fomapan 200 I have exposed at EI 80 to EI 100 in normal contrast lighting in the past, which seems to give enough shadow detail in most developers. No developer has given me EI 200, and I only used EI 200 in low contrast lighting such as fog or heavily overcast days.

Have fun with Foma 200. It's a really nice film that I think you'll enjoy a lot.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

One of the reason the Foma 200 is loved by alt-process printers is that it builds contrast so easily, especially in staining developers. It also seems to perform best when exposed at an EI of 100 instead of 200.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

It is true that Foma films build density faster than other films.

Thomas
Have you tried Retropan 320 Soft?

6-24-2015_006 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

 

[mauro35]

Thanks all for the info.

It is true that Foma films build density faster than other films.

I would also recommend to start with the manufacturer's data sheet, and use that as a starting point to determine your own optimal developing time and exposure.
In the past, having used a fair amount of Foma film, I would say I don't get very good effective film speed. Fomapan 200 I have exposed at EI 80 to EI 100 in normal contrast lighting in the past, which seems to give enough shadow detail in most developers. No developer has given me EI 200, and I only used EI 200 in low contrast lighting such as fog or heavily overcast days.

This is my experience as well with the 100 ISO version. My EI is usually 50-64 to get good shadow detail.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It does develop and build contrast fast. But it also is not likely to be anywhere near true 200 speed in most developers. I'd try it at 100.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I have not. All I shoot these days, with rare exception, is Ilford HP5+ and the odd roll of FP4+ (for pinhole and old box cameras).

I just replied to the thread because I have some experience with Foma.

Is the Retropan 320 nice?

Thomas
Have you tried Retropan 320 Soft?

6-24-2015_006 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

For me, it is a nice film as you can see.
I mainly use these days Foma products and some Ilford films.

 

[baachitraka]

F200 doesn't build contrast as much as F100.

Yeap, F100 is very different than F200.
Read the datasheet for proper agitation. It is all there.

I do not know how you can compare the contrast build up of those two films. In-fact F200 builds the contrast rather very fast when comparing the curves of the both, developed in D-76.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Well, I always develop them at the same stand development and it is noticeable that F100 is more contrasty to my eyes.
I don't use "scientific" methods.
It is a matter of taste for me.
I prefer F400 for its grain.

 

[Xmas]

I tend not to believe in anything without a certain amount of evidence. However, I believe (and there is evidence for this) there are many skilled and knowledgeable people here at APUG who might have tried the film in question and therefore give me an idea, that's all. Concerning the 100 ISO I have tested it MYSELF and could see with my own eyes that it is true that it builds highlight density very rapidly, compared to all the other films I have tried MYSELF.

Am I then supposed to believe you saying it needs longer in fixer?

Caution is good...

If you need a gamma of 0.6 the data sheet is ok for microphen (YMMV).

However the data sheet is in error for the fix time, you need longer, I fix by inspection in multi tanks and the 200 is slower. I assume this is a cut and paste error.

Comparing the development times of different films as a criteria is strange you get the time from the data sheet like you get an ISO value. The box speed is not the ISO speed, there are current threads with name calling on this topic, about Kodak's premium films.

The Foma films have a smaller dynamic range than Ilford Fuji or Kodak films ie will compress high lights more readily in high contrast scenes, IMO, I swap to a 2nd body with different film, if the sun comes out, YMMV.

The 200 has less grain signature than the 400 or 100, not tried the 320, note grain is really subjective.

 

[Lachlan Young]

If you get the current Foma physical catalogue, it actually has times & gammas for quite a range of developers

Going by my experience, I'd start with their suggestion of 8-9mins in ID11/D76 at 20c, 1+1, which'll give you 0.63-0.68 gamma. Personally I might go towards 10 mins.

EI-wise, rate it at about 80-125, unless you're running it in Microphen or Xtol etc. It'll be easy to make a good print or scan if treated like this.

It's a beautiful film if exposed correctly.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Lachlan

The Foma products catalogue is also available online as a handy PDF:
http://www.foma.cz/ew/92cad2bd-ec2b-4442-bc3c-b13be9ea63ff-en

 

[Lachlan Young]

Lachlan

The Foma products catalogue is also available online as a handy PDF:
http://www.foma.cz/ew/92cad2bd-ec2b-4442-bc3c-b13be9ea63ff-en

That's it - highly useful as the data sheets, while good, don't give a particularly comprehensive overview of developers/ dilutions