xwhatsit
Well-known
Hello all,
I bought a 30.5m roll of Fomapan 400 in 35mm almost a year ago on a whim to chuck in with another order. I'm very much in love with Tri-X and HP5+ for fast emulsions, but I thought I might try something different.
Anyhow, for the past year or so I've rolled up the odd cartridge and shot a roll interspersed with the other stuff.
I just can't get along with it! The grain always seems intensely mushy and huge. In Microphen, I get almost 400 ISO, but the grain looks horrible (just mushy and flat). In D76 1:1, the grain improves, but shadows block up to an unacceptable degree. Drop down to E.I. 200 or 250, and the shadows are back, but the grain is bad again and the contrast is really flat and tonality not nice.
How do I shoot this stuff?
I'd love to see some examples of other's shots with Fomapan 400. To let me know what I'm aiming for! I know I should be able to get good results with this, I just need to work out what sort of subjects and light and `style' it suits.
I also have some Rodinal on the way, perhaps the harsh, sharp grain it seems to produce will help here.
I bought a 30.5m roll of Fomapan 400 in 35mm almost a year ago on a whim to chuck in with another order. I'm very much in love with Tri-X and HP5+ for fast emulsions, but I thought I might try something different.
Anyhow, for the past year or so I've rolled up the odd cartridge and shot a roll interspersed with the other stuff.
I just can't get along with it! The grain always seems intensely mushy and huge. In Microphen, I get almost 400 ISO, but the grain looks horrible (just mushy and flat). In D76 1:1, the grain improves, but shadows block up to an unacceptable degree. Drop down to E.I. 200 or 250, and the shadows are back, but the grain is bad again and the contrast is really flat and tonality not nice.
How do I shoot this stuff?
I'd love to see some examples of other's shots with Fomapan 400. To let me know what I'm aiming for! I know I should be able to get good results with this, I just need to work out what sort of subjects and light and `style' it suits.
I also have some Rodinal on the way, perhaps the harsh, sharp grain it seems to produce will help here.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
I tried Fomapan in 120 and 135 in all available speeds a year or so ago. About halfway through my tests I just gave up and donated the remaining 25 rolls to the local school art teacher. The QC on manufacture wasn't good either. Lots of spots in the emulsions when I tried it and I won't go there again no matter how cheap it is.
Having said that, I have seen some beautiful tonality in Foma and Efke from their ISO 100 films but I think the film is much better suited to the softer European light than our harsher Southern skies. A bit like years ago when I found Ektachrome 32 (especially) and 64 were much better for UK light than the Kodachrome or Agfachrome I was using in Australia.
Foma and Efke both warn against pushing their films so my final take on it was that it was best for low contrast days, exposed at box speed and then test for development times and agitation to find just what gives you the contrast/grain you're looking for. The results will still be 'soft' but if you go too far the shadows block up, as you've noted.
P.S. I don't like Rodinal with HP5+ - too much grain. I'm using DDX or Prescysol EF with ISO 400 films and Rodinal 1+50 or Prescysol EF for FP4+ et al.
Having said that, I have seen some beautiful tonality in Foma and Efke from their ISO 100 films but I think the film is much better suited to the softer European light than our harsher Southern skies. A bit like years ago when I found Ektachrome 32 (especially) and 64 were much better for UK light than the Kodachrome or Agfachrome I was using in Australia.
Foma and Efke both warn against pushing their films so my final take on it was that it was best for low contrast days, exposed at box speed and then test for development times and agitation to find just what gives you the contrast/grain you're looking for. The results will still be 'soft' but if you go too far the shadows block up, as you've noted.
P.S. I don't like Rodinal with HP5+ - too much grain. I'm using DDX or Prescysol EF with ISO 400 films and Rodinal 1+50 or Prescysol EF for FP4+ et al.
Last edited:
presspass
filmshooter
I had good luck with two-bath D-23 - 5 g metol 100 g sodium sulfite for first bath, 18 g borax for second, five minutes each bath (temperature didn't matter). Good tonality, fair grain, but SCRATCHES that show in scans and wet prints. The same camera didn't exhibit that problem with Tmax, TriX, etc. I still have a roll or two around, but I probably won't use it. The 200 Creative, however, is a great film, sharp and good tonality, but you have to watch highlight blocking.
pschauss
Well-known
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
In Rodinal 1:50 for 10 min.
I like this film but it is temperamental.
xwhatsit
Well-known
Cheers everybody.
@Leigh: I shoot a lot of Efke KB25, and think I've got the hang of that. It's not too bad in hard light, there's decent shadow contrast despite them being pushed quite low. The Fomapan 400 goes very muddy and flat, with next to no shadow contrast.
@pschauss: I can see that it does much better in 120 format. Understandable, because at 400 in Microphen the biggest issue is the mushy, ugly grain. In 120 it's less of an issue, of course.
@xayraa33: Thanks for posting up a pic. That gives me a bit of hope for my Rodinal when it arrives, should be interesting to try a pretty different sort of developer from my norm. The grain is definitely a little better in your shot, although it's still quite soft edged. Perhaps a higher dilution would increase edge effects?
@Leigh: I shoot a lot of Efke KB25, and think I've got the hang of that. It's not too bad in hard light, there's decent shadow contrast despite them being pushed quite low. The Fomapan 400 goes very muddy and flat, with next to no shadow contrast.
@pschauss: I can see that it does much better in 120 format. Understandable, because at 400 in Microphen the biggest issue is the mushy, ugly grain. In 120 it's less of an issue, of course.
@xayraa33: Thanks for posting up a pic. That gives me a bit of hope for my Rodinal when it arrives, should be interesting to try a pretty different sort of developer from my norm. The grain is definitely a little better in your shot, although it's still quite soft edged. Perhaps a higher dilution would increase edge effects?
The Standard Deviant
inanimated.co.uk
RFH
rfhansen.wordpress.com
I've been using the Fomapan 400 in 120 rolls. Mostly developed in D76 or HC110. They scan quite well on my Canoscan 9900f. And they seem to curl less than the other films I've tried (Plus-x, T-max). I've also tried pushing it to 1600 and 3200, which also works fine despite claims to the contrary.
Here'a 3200 shot:
Here'a 3200 shot:
andersju
Well-known
I shot nothing but Fomapan 400 for about a year. While I really liked it sometimes, I don't think I would go back; switching back to Neopan 400 was like coming home again. On the other hand I haven't actually printed any pictures yet, only scanned them, so maybe I should wait before passing judgment.
Here are a few pictures, all 35mm, mostly shot at EI 200 and developed in HC-110 dilution b.
Here are a few pictures, all 35mm, mostly shot at EI 200 and developed in HC-110 dilution b.
xwhatsit
Well-known
Thanks once again everybody.
I have tried it at 1600, and it was interesting in a special-effect kind of manner. Certainly wouldn't replace HP5+ pushed to 1600 in Microphen as a reasonably high-quality 1600 result, but it was interesting in a ultra high-grain, ultra contrasty, blocked shadow kind of way.
@The Standard Deviant: Love the `Wet' shot. What a fantastic range of tones. I can see this sort of tonal range might work well with Fomapan, even at 400.
@ansersju: All of these have gorgeous tonality. They look almost a little bit like some Maco UP400+ I got really cheap as my first B&W film. I see it works well with indoor lighting; your landscape shot looks lovely, but I fear in NZ you don't get those lovely misty soft-lit landscapes like you do in the far north
The use of Xtol and HC 110 dil B are food for thought. Xtol would suggest to me to try a diluted Microphen (I normally use it straight) but HC110 would seem to be the worst enemy of Fomapan 400 on paper; less shadow detail, less accutance than D76. Finer grain perhaps.
Cheers everybody! Might roll up a couple more cartridges tonight.
I have tried it at 1600, and it was interesting in a special-effect kind of manner. Certainly wouldn't replace HP5+ pushed to 1600 in Microphen as a reasonably high-quality 1600 result, but it was interesting in a ultra high-grain, ultra contrasty, blocked shadow kind of way.
@The Standard Deviant: Love the `Wet' shot. What a fantastic range of tones. I can see this sort of tonal range might work well with Fomapan, even at 400.
@ansersju: All of these have gorgeous tonality. They look almost a little bit like some Maco UP400+ I got really cheap as my first B&W film. I see it works well with indoor lighting; your landscape shot looks lovely, but I fear in NZ you don't get those lovely misty soft-lit landscapes like you do in the far north
The use of Xtol and HC 110 dil B are food for thought. Xtol would suggest to me to try a diluted Microphen (I normally use it straight) but HC110 would seem to be the worst enemy of Fomapan 400 on paper; less shadow detail, less accutance than D76. Finer grain perhaps.
Cheers everybody! Might roll up a couple more cartridges tonight.
The Standard Deviant
inanimated.co.uk
Thanks, xwhatsit. Another Fomapan benefit is that the 35mm stuff dries lovely and flat.
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
Fomapan 400 in D76
captured on the hexar af
maxwell1295
Well-known
Here are some expmples with Freestyle's Arista.EDU version of the film. I only shoot it in 120 as I prefer Arista Premium/Tri-X in 35mm.
Bathroom1 by alanabramsphotography, on Flickr
Mini by alanabramsphotography, on Flickr
Mini by alanabramsphotography, on Flickr
Bathroom1 by alanabramsphotography, on Flickr
Mini by alanabramsphotography, on Flickr
Mini by alanabramsphotography, on Flickr
Artingei
Established
Leica II
Nickel Elmar
Fomapan 400 @ 800
HC-110 (B), 8.75min @ 22.25 °C
Nickel Elmar
Fomapan 400 @ 800
HC-110 (B), 8.75min @ 22.25 °C
v0sh
Established
CV 21mm f/4 HC-110 dil. H
Artingei
Established
Fujica ST801
Fujinon 50mm EBC 1.4
Fomapan 400 @ 800
Rodinal 1:50
charjohncarter
Veteran
Arista EDU ultra 400 HC-110h by John Carter, on Flickr
Arista EDU ultra 400 Rodinal 1+100 by John Carter, on FlickrTwo features of this film that I have found: first, is the contrast is higher than I like, and second, it is sensitive to blue more than most films.
The first problem (for me) was solved by changing my development scheme. The second was easier I use an orange file on all shots that have blue sky.
Artingei
Established
The last shot is great, @charjohncarter.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Thanks, I used an Orange filter
Artingei
Established
Top!
Regarding the film... I really enjoy it's classic look lately. It's full of character and light when used with a low contrast lens such as an old Nickel Elmar. 35mm mid range portraits may be the only motive where it's grain and sensitivity isn't the greatest match. But for street and as a "daily shooter" film there's nothing better than Foma 400 @ 800, I tried everything. :angel:
Furthermore it's price is unreal when bulkloaded here in EU. I will do excessive dev tests this winter.