Skies Appear too Dark on Foma 400

[Minolta93]

Hi everyone. I just finished a test roll for a 6x6 Ikonta. I chose the cheapest roll of 120 film I could find because I just wanted to see if the camera would work properly, and it seems that it does. I was sloppy developing, and it was my first time developing 120 instead of 135, so I have a few problems where the film stuck to itself on the reel, for example.

However, my main problem is that the skies are rendered very dark, much dark than they were in reality. Is this simply due to the nature of Fomapan 400? Can it be fixed with filtering? I don't think it's underexposure. The sky is darker than the black asphalt, and was very bright and cloudless when I took the photo.

Now, I've read a thread in which someone mentions that blue filtering on Foma 400 ends up making a mess of the image. Is there another budget film that is perhaps more sensitive to blue?

 

[mike c]

I have never used Fomapan , never heard of any complaints about it. But it looks like you have a flare or a light leak somewhere looking at your photo.

 

[Rick A]

It's not any more sensitive to blue than any other modern panchromatic film. It does however have a slightly extended red sensitivity. I have shot many rolls and sheets of Foma film and have never had issues with the sky being too dark unless I filter for it specifically. I believe you have camera and especially processing issues. Your pavement is lighter due to light reflection and metering. Sky tones vary throughout the day and can even appear light and dark in the same scene due to angle of sun and location.

 

[Paul Howell]

I agree, not an issue with Foma, it is my main film in MF and LF, light leak.

 

[gone]

I think that's an exposure/metering issue, or a developing issue. I shoot that film all the time in 35mm, but do have to be more careful of my metering. It's not Tri-X, Foma 400 doesn't have that sort of exposure latitude.

It also may take you a while to get it dialed it (it doesn't much like Rodinal I found). F76 plus at 1:8 for 7.40 minutes seems to be my ideal w/ the film shot at EI-250-400 using a yellow filter.

 

[Minolta93]

I have never used Fomapan , never heard of any complaints about it. But it looks like you have a flare or a light leak somewhere looking at your photo.

The camera wound the roll very loosely at the end and I was sure it got light leaks when I took it out of the camera. I have since adjusted the metal arm that puts tension on the feed spool to avoid this issue in the future.

 

[Minolta93]

I think that's an exposure/metering issue, or a developing issue. I shoot that film all the time in 35mm, but do have to be more careful of my metering. It's not Tri-X, Foma 400 doesn't have that sort of exposure latitude.

It also may take you a while to get it dialed it (it doesn't much like Rodinal I found). F76 plus at 1:8 for 7.40 minutes seems to be my ideal w/ the film shot at EI-250-400 using a yellow filter.

I will admit I metered by eye very fast and loose since I just wanted to test the camera. However, I did rate the film at 200 instead of 400 so as to ensure that I would err on the side of overexposure rather than underexposure. If this were an exposure issue (assuming the sky was in fact bright, I admit I could have remembered the scene in my mind differently than it truly was), would it have been overexposure or underexposure that would cause the sky to be so grey?

I developed it in Rodinal at 1+50 dilution for about 11 minutes. Maybe that's got something to do with it?

 

[Derek Lofgreen]

I would suggest running another roll through and be very diligent about your exposures. If you are testing the camera that's what you have to do. Just shooting from the hip doesn't give you a baseline of where the camera is at. Develop your film in something basic like D76 and do it at the right temps and times. Eliminate the variables like film developing, exposure and you will see if the camera is really working properly.

My guess, from looking at your image, is that your camera isn't 100%. It's hard to say though with your casual approach to testing the camera.

Good luck and don't give up.

D.

 

[Minolta93]

I would suggest running another roll through and be very diligent about your exposures. If you are testing the camera that's what you have to do. Just shooting from the hip doesn't give you a baseline of where the camera is at. Develop your film in something basic like D76 and do it at the right temps and times. Eliminate the variables like film developing, exposure and you will see if the camera is really working properly.

My guess, from looking at your image, is that your camera isn't 100%. It's hard to say though with your casual approach to testing the camera.

Good luck and don't give up.

D.

At the moment, I only have Rodinal on hand. Is it still worth using this to test? I could try bringing along another camera with a light meter that I know works properly, as well. Thank you for the advice. I also have a Weston light meter but I don't know if it is still working properly.

The good news is that my camera at least takes pictures. Now, whether or not it does that well has yet to be determined.

 

[npl]

I developed it in Rodinal at 1+50 dilution for about 11 minutes. Maybe that's got something to do with it?

It's in line with the fomapan 400 official datasheet (R09 1:50 11-12min). You'd still get contrasty and grainy pictures thought if shot at box speed, as fomapan 400 in rodinal is nowhere near 400 ISO.

Smartphone light meter apps are good enough to get a decent reading if you don't want to carry another camera and/or don't own a light meter.

 

[brbo]

Source

 

[BCM]

Note the lack of any whites in the photo. There are exposure and possibly development/fogging issues here.

 

[grain elevator]

This is not an exposure issue as it concerns the relationship of two different midtones. I doubt it's a spectral sensitivity issue, people would be all over that film that makes red filters obsolete. I think it's a perception issue. Blue skies can be very dark and asphalt/concrete can be very bright. We're just conditioned to think of the sky as bright ("that's where the sun is!") and asphalt as dark grey or black when I fact it's often mid gray and may reflect a lot of sunlight, depending on angles. We don't often questions such beliefs as our eyes are terrible light meters.

 

[brbo]

This is not an exposure issue as it concerns the relationship of two different midtones. I doubt it's a spectral sensitivity issue, people would be all over that film that makes red filters obsolete. I think it's a perception issue. Blue skies can be very dark and asphalt/concrete can be very bright. We're just conditioned to think of the sky as bright ("that's where the sun is!") and asphalt as dark grey or black when I fact it's often mid gray and may reflect a lot of sunlight, depending on angles. We don't often questions such beliefs as our eyes are terrible light meters.

It's both, spectral sensitivity (easily seen from the spectral sensitivity graph for Foma 400) and perceptual.

This is T-Max 400 (without filter) that doesn't have decreased sensitivity in lower wavelength area, but the sky is still quite dark:

 

[pbromaghin]

It looks to me like there wasn't enough liquid in the tank, too.

 

[Wallendo]

I don't know if the original image is a scan or an optical print, but I suspect the very bright band at the top and light leak at the bottom have fooled a scanner into setting an improper white point and underexposing the basic image.

I'm not at home right now, but I suspect if the file posted is cropped and white point adjusted, it would look quite different.

This is also an image where the car and asphalt or exposed to bright sun, closed to mid-day based on shadow length, while the building is in shade.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I don't know if the original image is a scan or an optical print, but I suspect the very bright band at the top and light leak at the bottom have fooled a scanner into setting an improper white point and underexposing the basic image.

I'm not at home right now, but I suspect if the file posted is cropped and white point adjusted, it would look quite different.

This is also an image where the car and asphalt or exposed to bright sun, closed to mid-day based on shadow length, while the building is in shade.

Bingo

 

[snusmumriken]

Most of the problems I see on that image look like processing issues. There's what looks like a fluid level halfway up the sky area. What lies above that level looks (filthy but) about the right shade for a blue sky; what lies below looks murky, like it is fogged or hasn't been properly fixed or something. You could recover the contrast in that part digitally, as @Wallendo says, but you shouldn't need to. With such coarse processing, it doesn't seem reasonable to suspect the film of anything odd!

Anyway, given your aim was to check the camera rather than the film, I'd be worried about that very bright spot/area in the foreground, unless you are certain it was caused when you mishandled the film.

 

[MattKing]

To my mind, the entire image is too dark.

 

[GregY]

A camera with unknown shutter speeds, guesstimated exposures & sloppy processing.....it's hard to say anything concrete about the characteristics of a film.

 

[Minolta93]

It's in line with the fomapan 400 official datasheet (R09 1:50 11-12min). You'd still get contrasty and grainy pictures thought if shot at box speed, as fomapan 400 in rodinal is nowhere near 400 ISO.

Smartphone light meter apps are good enough to get a decent reading if you don't want to carry another camera and/or don't own a light meter.

Do you happen to know what the real speed is in Rodinal? I would have hoped shooting it at an EI of 200 would remedy any of those issues.

 

[Minolta93]

Note the lack of any whites in the photo. There are exposure and possibly development/fogging issues here.

The photo I posted was just the result from my scanner without any adjustments, so I think it automatically set the white point to the messed up portion of the frame in the top. This is where I believe the film stuck to itself on the reel.

 

[Minolta93]

This is not an exposure issue as it concerns the relationship of two different midtones. I doubt it's a spectral sensitivity issue, people would be all over that film that makes red filters obsolete. I think it's a perception issue. Blue skies can be very dark and asphalt/concrete can be very bright. We're just conditioned to think of the sky as bright ("that's where the sun is!") and asphalt as dark grey or black when I fact it's often mid gray and may reflect a lot of sunlight, depending on angles. We don't often questions such beliefs as our eyes are terrible light meters.

I think you may be right. Even outside my window at the moment, it feels like the sky is brighter than the side of a building, but if I think about it, it's darker. And testing it with the light meter on my SLR confirms this.

It's both, spectral sensitivity (easily seen from the spectral sensitivity graph for Foma 400) and perceptual.

This is T-Max 400 (without filter) that doesn't have decreased sensitivity in lower wavelength area, but the sky is still quite dark:

This still looks a lot better. Of course a lot of it has to do with my poor development. That, plus the film itself, plus perception error, all added up. Maybe underexposure, but I don't think so. The asphalt in my picture is clearly exposed and the shadow detail on the front of the building is there. Frankly, I don't think I did a bad job exposing especially considering I was just shooting from the hip on my bike ride home.

Maybe I can learn a lesson about the true brightness of the sky, though. That's worth something. I might consider experimenting with a blue filter as well to see if that can maybe match our perception better.

 

[mshchem]

Blue filter is for tungsten film. Start over. Use sunny 16, when sunny.

 

[Minolta93]

Blue filter is for tungsten film. Start over. Use sunny 16, when sunny.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. I did use Sunny 16 rules for exposure, in the one I posted I had the aperture open wider than f/16 to capture shadow detail. Probably at least one or two stops. So I don't see how this would cause the sky to be darker in any way apart from, like someone has mentioned, the sky actually being darker in reality than it feels when you're there.