atlcruiser
Part Yeti
Hi All,
This film is tough for me. I seem to get overexposed negs. I am using d 76 stock for 7-8 minutes. This happens on both of my MF cameras so it is not the meter. I also dbl checked with a handheld to make sure I was correct.
Ideas?
I bought a bunch cheap form freestyle and i am hating it!
This film is tough for me. I seem to get overexposed negs. I am using d 76 stock for 7-8 minutes. This happens on both of my MF cameras so it is not the meter. I also dbl checked with a handheld to make sure I was correct.
Ideas?
I bought a bunch cheap form freestyle and i am hating it!
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
It's really hard to get a good, current fix on this film. Earlier posts going back three years or so on different forums suggest (a) it's horrible, (b) love it, (c) doesn't scan well, (d) has pronounced grain, (e) has a true speed of around 200.
Since you bought a bunch" and it was "cheap" I think you'll have to run some tests (a la Roger Hicks) at three different exposures - normal, +1 stop, -1 stop, and repeat the sequence for (say) three different ISO ratings - say 400, 320, 200 giving you nine shots on a 120 roll. Develop for the standard time and compare the dry negatives to select the one that most nearly represents your ideal.
Then run a further 12 shot test roll at your selected optimal exposure with all shots the same. Before developing, and in the darkroom, cut the film roll into four sections (we're not worried about cutting through frames for this test) and develop each section for times over and under the standard recommended time to see which you prefer. The short version of all this is on Roger & Frances site - go to Photo School/ Exposing Negative Films and scroll down to "Real World Iterative Testing".
Since you bought a bunch" and it was "cheap" I think you'll have to run some tests (a la Roger Hicks) at three different exposures - normal, +1 stop, -1 stop, and repeat the sequence for (say) three different ISO ratings - say 400, 320, 200 giving you nine shots on a 120 roll. Develop for the standard time and compare the dry negatives to select the one that most nearly represents your ideal.
Then run a further 12 shot test roll at your selected optimal exposure with all shots the same. Before developing, and in the darkroom, cut the film roll into four sections (we're not worried about cutting through frames for this test) and develop each section for times over and under the standard recommended time to see which you prefer. The short version of all this is on Roger & Frances site - go to Photo School/ Exposing Negative Films and scroll down to "Real World Iterative Testing".
ethics_gradient
Well-known
Personally, I think it's worth the extra 10% or so for the Neopan or Tri-X.
atlcruiser
Part Yeti
Leigh I am with you. I guess I will start the testing process. When all is said and done it is not that cheap when I need to invest time to get some sort of good result from it.
I have gotten very good negs a few times but I cannot link exposure and develping time to quality of neg. I will drop the ISO to 320 then 200 on my GA645I and see how it all comes out.
I am fine with the grain and the scanning is fair to good.
I ususally blow through MF film...my pile o fomapan will be gone before long.
I have gotten very good negs a few times but I cannot link exposure and develping time to quality of neg. I will drop the ISO to 320 then 200 on my GA645I and see how it all comes out.
I am fine with the grain and the scanning is fair to good.
I ususally blow through MF film...my pile o fomapan will be gone before long.
benlees
Well-known
I tried 20 rolls of foma 400 in 120 and the experience had me running back to Tri-x. Couldn't get even negs for the life of me! Lots of (factory) scratches. Very curly. The cheap price was attractive at the beginning, but the little extra for Kodak is worth it many times over. I also prefer the look of the more modern emulsions.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
No too brilliant experiences here either, with 400ASA nor with 100ASA.
While the Classic 100 and the 200 are brilliant indeed, I am
While the Classic 100 and the 200 are brilliant indeed, I am
ChrisN
Striving
I have some of this labelled as Arista Edu Ultra 400 (courtesy of a member here). Exposed at 250 iso I get reasonable daylight exposures. I tried it recently for some long exposures ( daylight with a 10-stop ND filter) and found the reciprocity failure is apparently much worse than the HP5+ figures I was using as my exposure guide - all my shots were underexposed even with 1-stop bracketing.
The attached shot was a normal daylight exposure at 250 iso, probably developed in ID-11 1+1 for 12 minutes at 20c.
The attached shot was a normal daylight exposure at 250 iso, probably developed in ID-11 1+1 for 12 minutes at 20c.
Attachments
Mister E
Well-known
On one roll of Fomopan 400 it went from unusably grainy to amazing on the same roll with similar exposures. It seems really finicky.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
You might be overdeveloping it, 8 minutes seems way too long in D-76 stock. I dilute the developer 1+1 and develop 10 minute sat 68 degrees with good consistent results. I have not used any in almost 2 yrs though, maybe its changed, but I liked it ok.
atlcruiser
Part Yeti
Was worried about overdeveloping as well. Looked all round the net and 7-8 min stock d-76 seemed about right. I also tried 6.5 and 8.5 with all generally crapy results.
I will burn a few rolls today and see where i end up. MY gut feeling is that 200 or 320 iso with 7.5 minutes is about as good as it will get.
Is cindys diner still going in Ft Wayne?
I will burn a few rolls today and see where i end up. MY gut feeling is that 200 or 320 iso with 7.5 minutes is about as good as it will get.
Is cindys diner still going in Ft Wayne?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Cindys is still open downtown!
I used EI 320 for my stuff developed in D-76 1+1 for 10 minutes.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
These were done by a former girlfriend who used a lot of the Foma 400 developed as I outlined above. I think they look good. This is the 35mm version.
naruto
GASitis.. finally cured?
I have had some consistency in results with Foma 400 shot at E.I 320. I follow the following method with Xtol:
* pre-wash for 10 mins in 20degC water (the color that gets out is really green)
* Xtol 1+1 for 0.9*12 mins - to compensate for pre-wash
* Alternatively Rodinal 1+50 for 0.8*11 mins
I get very usable results as seen here -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/arucard/tags/foma400/
* pre-wash for 10 mins in 20degC water (the color that gets out is really green)
* Xtol 1+1 for 0.9*12 mins - to compensate for pre-wash
* Alternatively Rodinal 1+50 for 0.8*11 mins
I get very usable results as seen here -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/arucard/tags/foma400/
philipp.leser
Established
I've used Fomapan 400 in Diafine and got a true speed of E.I. 200 out of it (which made it somewhat useless for me, because it has the grain of a true ASA 400 film, but not the speed).
Apart from that I didn't notice anything unusual. It's an ok film for a very low price (almost half of what Tri-X costs here in Germany).
Regards,
Philipp
Apart from that I didn't notice anything unusual. It's an ok film for a very low price (almost half of what Tri-X costs here in Germany).
Regards,
Philipp
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I recently shot a roll of Foma in my Super Ikonta B ... it was 200 and a left over from the travelling Bessa project.
I think I developed the film in Rodinal @ 1+50 for whatever the recommended time was and reduced it by 20% to give a better neg for scanning. Most of the shots on the roll appeared to be over exposed or over developed ... it was hard to tell but whatever was going on I didn't like the look much. The only shot that I was even a little bit happy with produced a reasonable result with a lot of buggering around in post but at the expense of a fair loss of shadow detail ... I've posted before and after so you can see what I mean. I also dont like the rather flat chalky look that almost every scan had.
Maybe with time and effort I could consistently get a look I was happy with but is it really worth it? Tri-X and Neopan are forgiving to the point of being near foolproof and not a hell of a lot more expensive as someone pointed out ... I wouldn't want to have a freezer full of Foma because I suspect it may not ever escape it's icy enclosure!
I think I developed the film in Rodinal @ 1+50 for whatever the recommended time was and reduced it by 20% to give a better neg for scanning. Most of the shots on the roll appeared to be over exposed or over developed ... it was hard to tell but whatever was going on I didn't like the look much. The only shot that I was even a little bit happy with produced a reasonable result with a lot of buggering around in post but at the expense of a fair loss of shadow detail ... I've posted before and after so you can see what I mean. I also dont like the rather flat chalky look that almost every scan had.
Maybe with time and effort I could consistently get a look I was happy with but is it really worth it? Tri-X and Neopan are forgiving to the point of being near foolproof and not a hell of a lot more expensive as someone pointed out ... I wouldn't want to have a freezer full of Foma because I suspect it may not ever escape it's icy enclosure!
KenD
Film Shooter
If you are getting overexposure (and not over-development) at 400, you will get even more overexposure at 320 or 250. I agree with the suggestions that you do some testing of EI and development times, especially if you have "a whole bunch."
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
I just checked on Flickr for all photos tagged with Foma 400 and I have to say that overall it's discouraging. I've got about ten rolls (5x120 and 5x35mm) in the fridge and I'm thinking of dumping them in the trash tonight. Can't see the point in wrestling with it. The results I've had from Foma so far don't thrill me.
I might persevere with the Foma 100 of which I have similar quantities but I think I'm headed back to HP5+ and FP4+, even though they're double the price here. By the time you add the cost of wasted time and chemicals and the frustration, the spots, the scratches - it's just not worth it.
I might persevere with the Foma 100 of which I have similar quantities but I think I'm headed back to HP5+ and FP4+, even though they're double the price here. By the time you add the cost of wasted time and chemicals and the frustration, the spots, the scratches - it's just not worth it.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Another weird thing that happened on that same roll was this image ... again a straight scan. The white flecks are damage to the emulsion which may heve been my fault with wash water being a fair bit cooler than the chemicals ... but I've never had this with any other film!
jmcd
Well-known
Unless your meter is off, I doubt you are overexposing at 400. This is a good film for me.
Here are some combinations that work well for me, all in normal contrast soft light (no hard shadows.)
ei 200 Xtol 1:1 10 min at 68, initial 30 second agitation, two inversions each minute. This developer makes a finer grain negative with this film.
D-76 1:1 ei 200 11 minutes at 68 degrees, same agitation as above.
HC-110 1:54 ei 200 7:15 at 68 degrees. Same agitation as above. Sharp, gritty grain compared to Xtol.
Rodinal 1:50 ei 200 10 minutes at 68 degrees, 30 second initial agitation, then two inversions every 30 seconds to 10 minutes, coast to 13 minutes without further agitation.
Here are some combinations that work well for me, all in normal contrast soft light (no hard shadows.)
ei 200 Xtol 1:1 10 min at 68, initial 30 second agitation, two inversions each minute. This developer makes a finer grain negative with this film.
D-76 1:1 ei 200 11 minutes at 68 degrees, same agitation as above.
HC-110 1:54 ei 200 7:15 at 68 degrees. Same agitation as above. Sharp, gritty grain compared to Xtol.
Rodinal 1:50 ei 200 10 minutes at 68 degrees, 30 second initial agitation, then two inversions every 30 seconds to 10 minutes, coast to 13 minutes without further agitation.
jmcd
Well-known
I would also add that the only reason to shoot Foma 400 is if you like the look it produces. Tri-x is much more forgiving, and Foma 100 achieves nearly the same ei in Beutler's with much finer grain.