I never said it should be underexposed or overdeveloped. Quite the opposite. Reread my post.
As for the "has to be treated like a 200 iso", I've found It depends on the developer chosen and, of course, on the meter used, and on our metering habits. The official developer-specific curves published by the manufacturer are excellent and pretty accurate IME.
As stated, I routinely get 250EI with XT-3/Xtol 1:1 and am often very, very happy with 320EI with Fomadon LQN (an excellent match with Fomapan 400, more people should try it).
Of course it might just be a matter of personal preference.
We agree actually but it was poorly worded on my side. I meant that like you said, it should not be underexposed/overdeveloped
I also happen to rate fomapan 400 at EI 250 in XTOL/XT-3/fomadon excel, EI 125 in rodinal but only tried that once or twice.
Edit : Post in thread 'Fomapan 400 in rodinal 1:50 EI (35mm)' https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/fomapan-400-in-rodinal-1-50-ei-35mm.198140/post-2666361
Unintentionally reticulated one of my vacation rolls (FPP emulsion x, xtol stock)View attachment 366427
but the aesthetic fits
I can get delta and tmax 3200 pretty easily, but I pretty much just shoot in daylight so I don't want to go over iso 400, and I work at 5am so I don't want to stay up late doing night photography.
also, some other samples-
Lomo Berlin 400 (120)- hc110 B
View attachment 366428
1958 expired Tri-X 120 (got three rolls left, maybe I should try one in Rodinal and Dektol
View attachment 366429
Film Washi F (hc110 a)
View attachment 366430
Paul and Reinhold that sat in my fridge for probably two years, hc110 B
View attachment 366431
Yeah, Freestyle's got Retropan on clearance
I never knew dektol was also called d72
Delta 3200 in Rodinal.
Kodak Recording film would probably be grainer but good luck finding some of that, and even if you found it, I doubt it would make an image at this point.
View attachment 376477
Fomapan 400 in caffenol.
Fomapan 400 is really not that grainy. That is, unless it's severely underexposed or overdeveloped or negative-scanned improperly. This happens a lot I think, based on what we see on social media: the film is cheap which encourages people to use it to 'experiment' (which often involves exposing it, developing it, and scanning it without a lot of care).
Here's an example in 35mm. Rodinal 1:50, exposed with the internal reflective meter of a Canon Eos 3. 40mm f/2.8 pancake. Exposure compensation set to +1.3 EV (so 'exposed at 160EI'). Negative scan.
1:1 detail from the original negative scan at 5000 dpi
That looks really nice! I still think Fomapan 400 is pretty grainy when shot at box speed though.
Foma Retropan 35mm in Rodinal
Love it in medium format. Sadly I've never been able to try it in 35mm. Do you know anyone who still sells it?
uncorrected scans, iso 400-100
these are scans, here's 100% zoom in photoshop, though there is going to be significant detail loss compressing these for uploadHow much of a crop/zoom in the examples? I regularly process HP5+ in Rodinal, it never looks that grainy. The grain is crisper, though. I rate it at 160, not box speed. Are these prints or negative scan
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?