Good information, thanks. Point being Foma 200 needs 0.3 stops more exposure (or less than that). Foma 400 needs 0.75 stops more which explains partly why people think it is "muddy" when exposing at box speed.
Not that it makes a significant difference, but ISO CI/ G-Bar usually equates to about a 0.65 gamma. Higher flare situations (uncoated lenses, cold cathode heads etc) could lead to recommended/ design gamma being in the 0.75-0.8 range on some older emulsions.
And you've successfully avoided the apparent error on the Foma 200 data sheet - the D-76 gammas have seemingly been transposed up by 0.2...
......It's actually not fully red sensitive - you throw a Red 25 in front of it and you've got to boost your exposure by at least an extra stop or even two above the regular filter factor to get something approaching a normally exposed negative........
Amusing ?
What matters is to get information in the shadows. Then while printing you can do whatever you want. You represent them. Or not.
In theses two examples there is no need to show information in these shadows and make a muddy grey print without any punch.
Max black makes the print.
So please amuse me and show me some prints of yours.
Good information, thanks. Point being Foma 200 needs 0.3 stops more exposure (or less than that). Foma 400 needs 0.75 stops more which explains partly why people think it is "muddy" when exposing at box speed.
Usually if a film delivers 'muddy' results, it's mostly not a result of underexposure & extended development, but overexposure and too lengthy development.
As underexpose cuts down shadow details, I think that looks muddy too? If you do it heavily then the shadows aren't "muddy" because you don't have any details in the shadows?
Can you describe why overexposure+extended development causes muddyness? Overexposure creates more shadow details?
So a lot of subjective terms such as "muddy" or "blocked" are being thrown around. I'd like an opinion on this photo, which is essentially, straight out of the scanner. Basic inversion was performed, and out of consideration, it's resized to fit HD monitors. It was a fairly bright day, with heavy shade. I'm curious as to whether people think it was over- or under-exposed.
View attachment 267203
It's Arista .EDU Ultra 400, scanned on an Epson v800 with Silverfast, using the NegaFix module, and the histogram set to the full range of the image.
This looks good on my phone. The chimney and foreground are maybe a little hot but certainly within reason.
I'm pretty sure my EV readings were between 15 and 8, and I went with approximately EV 11.5.
That would tally with placing the deepest shadows with detail on the IRE 10 shadow index at an EV of about 9 - do also bear in mind that because of the linearity of scan sensors, you may get a little more useable shadow detail than you could readily access in the darkroom. Camera flare (plus possible internal halation/ flare on the film) & de facto bounce fill on the subject can also help to lift shadow values more than might be expected. What EI did you use for basing your exposure on?
400. Taken with a Caltar-S II 210 f/5.6 lens (which I believe is multicoated). I've tried shooting Foma 400 at 320 or 200 before, and in scenes like this one in particular, the highlights suffer.
That may be entirely because I scan with an Epson, although I managed a similar tonal range with my DSLR.
Do you tightly mask off the extra coverage of the 210 with a compendium, or just leave as is? I've learnt the hard way to be extra careful of all sorts of things that can cause in-camera flare when using a 210 (with 8x10/ near 8x10 coverage) on 4x5 - it'll happily flare the shadows open a bit. Not a bad thing necessarily. I quite like some of the older Kodak Ektar lenses for their slightly higher flare levels.
I typically shoot HP5 and FP4 in medium format. How does the FOMA compare? Don't want to be a cheap skate but if it's half the cost that's a big savings. Are there any quality control issues with FOMA?
When wet, Foma emulsion is well softer than the Kodak/Ilford ones, so extra care has to be played in the processing to not have scratches.
But what comes to handling of sheet films; I think any brand needs a extra care.
So a lot of subjective terms such as "muddy" or "blocked" are being thrown around. I'd like an opinion on this photo, which is essentially, straight out of the scanner. Basic inversion was performed, and out of consideration, it's resized to fit HD monitors. It was a fairly bright day, with heavy shade. I'm curious as to whether people think it was over- or under-exposed.
View attachment 267203
It's Arista .EDU Ultra 400, scanned on an Epson v800 with Silverfast, using the NegaFix module, and the histogram set to the full range of the image.
So a lot of subjective terms such as "muddy" or "blocked" are being thrown around. I'd like an opinion on this photo, which is essentially, straight out of the scanner. Basic inversion was performed, and out of consideration, it's resized to fit HD monitors. It was a fairly bright day, with heavy shade. I'm curious as to whether people think it was over- or under-exposed.
View attachment 267203
It's Arista .EDU Ultra 400, scanned on an Epson v800 with Silverfast, using the NegaFix module, and the histogram set to the full range of the image.
Fotoimpex's Microphen description has following information
"Microphen is exactly the opposite of Perceptol. This developer can easily push films up to 3 stops (with a developer temp. of 30 degrees), but the contrast and grain are basically uncontrollable. The contrast increases almost linearly with the developing time, and even the lowest-contrast Fomapan negative has no chance of avoiding a sharp contrast curve. HP5 can be pushed up to 1600 ASA and the Adox CHS films can be pushed even up to 4 Stops. Even Tmax and Delta films can be pushed past their ratings and still show the middle gray-tones.
A film pushed 4 stops with this developer has a very unique look - almost like a lith print. Black tones blend together and the middle tones and highlights and compressed together. The ADOX CHS 100 looks even better, but with somewhat markedly accentuated grain."
https://www.fotoimpex.com/chemistry/ilford-microphen-to-mix-1000-ml.html
That is controversial to the 8 stop linearity.. Or is Fotoimpex talking about only pushing in that description?
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?