Most people say that Rodinal is not for 400 ISO films, although I've used for Tri-X at 1:50/1:25 and liked the beautiful all-over grain very much. Foma isn't Tri-X though, but the first 1 1/12 rolls worked great in D76 stock. I just looked at some flicker shots that were made w/ Foma 400 pushed to 1600 and souped in Rodinal at 1:50, and it looks OK. I have this 1/2 of a roll left, and might give it a shot. Has anyone else used Rodinal for Foma 400? This is in regarding the 35 mm film, not 120 or sheet film.
Rodinal and Fomapan 400?
-
A
- Thread starter gone
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Light Impressions Archival Slide Storage Boxes
- Started by Jon Shiu
-
For Sale SPECIAL BOXED SET OF 14 PHOTOGRAPHS 1972
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale Ricohflex TLR CAMERA
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale Agfa Portiga Rapid grade 3 paper
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale FS: Toyo - Speed Graphic Lens Board Adapter (NOS)
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
But does the grain look different after printing? I made these 11x14 enlargements the other day using two TriX negs and two Foma 400 negs. Using D76 stock as a film developer, it's almost impossible to tell them apart, even up close.
Wasn't there some examples of this film at 1600 on the other thread on Foma> If I recall correctly, the 1600 shots looked very grey and veiled as if 1600 was really beyond the reach of Foma 400. I can't recall if it was Rodinal at 1600 however . It would appear that this film at 1600 is hardly a surprise in terms of negative results, given most rate it at about 250 . However you have managed some shots at 400 in D76 which look OK. Rodinal might be OK depending on your taste
Nice if there were those here who could show us scans of darkroom prints from Foma 400 but I feel that church has a small congregation
pentaxuser
Nice if there were those here who could show us scans of darkroom prints from Foma 400 but I feel that church has a small congregation
pentaxuser
Quite probably. My prints with Tri-X and Neopan were always less grainy than scans but I don't have access to a darkroom anymore to check with Foma 400.
I sometimes use Rodinal, for Fomapan 400,and I have never found the grain objectional, in fact it you get a nice grain with Fomapan, but not an all over grain, it will mainly show up in the sky if burn.t in,I always used 1/50, and have used box speed with it, also the 400 @250, especialy when using the camera's meter, with my trusty Weston meters on MF I will often use 400, and I personally find it needs that bit extra, and develop between 15 and 18 minutes@20, which I find suits the way I like my negatives to be, 2 years ago, for most of my photographic life I developed everything in Rodinal, never used anything else, the tonality of Fomapan in Rodinal can be quite beautiful, and last year, covid lockdown and all that, I experimented with different developers due to to much time on my hands, and liked ID11, but I am gradually going back to Rodinal to get the tones I like
I've use Rodinal with Foma 400 4X5, not my cup of tea in 35mm, need to try a roll of 120 6X9.
Probably because you have either underexposed both films or just printed all too dark, IMHO.
It is easy tell the difference between these two films, no doubt about it. It is even more trivial if Foma is exposed at 400 ..
In my opinion/experience, Rodinal is sort-of three different developers: strong (1+25 zone), medium (1+50ish) and very weak for stand (haven't done that).
I find significant rendering differences between 1+25 and the 1+50/60 range, in grain and the way the curve is rendered. But I agitate very gently with Rodinal, and use times I've found via testing. I also give the film an extra half stop at least for 1+50 and an extra stop for 1+25.
For years now I've only used it around 1+50/60 (if a test roll or frame needs tweaks, I adjust dilution vs. time usually, it's very linear). With 120 and 4x5, i don't get objectionable grain. but I do get that "look" - nothing else I've tried looks like Rodinal, and it's a fantastic match for lith printing. I don't really like it for portraits and skin where you'd want smoothness though. I've shot lots of hP5 120 with Rodinal and always been pleased with the look. I haven't shot 35mm film in years and years though, but I feel the "Rodinal-ness" could easily be too much for me.
I find significant rendering differences between 1+25 and the 1+50/60 range, in grain and the way the curve is rendered. But I agitate very gently with Rodinal, and use times I've found via testing. I also give the film an extra half stop at least for 1+50 and an extra stop for 1+25.
For years now I've only used it around 1+50/60 (if a test roll or frame needs tweaks, I adjust dilution vs. time usually, it's very linear). With 120 and 4x5, i don't get objectionable grain. but I do get that "look" - nothing else I've tried looks like Rodinal, and it's a fantastic match for lith printing. I don't really like it for portraits and skin where you'd want smoothness though. I've shot lots of hP5 120 with Rodinal and always been pleased with the look. I haven't shot 35mm film in years and years though, but I feel the "Rodinal-ness" could easily be too much for me.
Years ago there was a poster who called himself the high priest of the Church of Rodinal, the gospel was that Rodinal is perfect, all other developers are a plot to keep the masses from the beauty of Rodinal, that Rodinal Special is heresy. I think there are still some members.
Here's 35mm .EDU Ultra 400 (rebranded Fomapan) processed in Parodinal (homebrew Rodinal made from headache tablets) at 1:50.
Shot at box speed with Canonet 28 (yes, that's 35mm). Sure, it's grainy, but Tri-X would be grainy too, all else equal.
Shot at box speed with Canonet 28 (yes, that's 35mm). Sure, it's grainy, but Tri-X would be grainy too, all else equal.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |