What am I doing wrong? Fomapan

[KevinVH]

As some of you may know, I recently moved from Belgium to Ecuador. Since it's impossible to buy the developing chemicals here, I brought Kodak D76 and Adox atomal 49 with me. Enough to develop for at least a year. I've been developing several kinds of films in only the D76 so far, and they all turn out great except the Fomapan. I developed the following picture for 8 mins at 20°C with D76 stock. I agitated the first minute and 10 secs, after that 5 secs every minute. Film was Foma 400

Apart from the negative not being completely flat, it just has too much noise.


epson170 by DarthVador, on Flickr

 

[pdh]

By "noise" you mean grain ?
Foma 400 is pretty grainy stuff by nature, so it's not an ideal choice if you are averse to grain.

When I looked at your image full-size, I did wonder if the appearance of grain is being exacerbated by the scanning.

 

[KevinVH]

By "noise" you mean grain ?
Foma 400 is pretty grainy stuff by nature, so it's not an ideal choice if you are averse to grain.

When I looked at your image full-size, I did wonder if the appearance of grain is being exacerbated by the scanning.

Yes grain offcourse. I don't think the grain is exacerbated by the scanning, because the result I get from Tmax or HP5 are great, developed with the same developer and scanned with the same scanner at the same settings.
I knew it was grainy. But this grainy?

 

[V-12]

I think you nailed it PDF, the grain looks to me like over sharpened grain as opposed to a sharpened photograph after or during scanning.

Some scanners are prone to accentuating grain and you have to be careful anyway about sharpening in post processing so as not to accentuate the micro contrast which is the region where the grain lies.

In this case I like the look of it, but can appreciate the problem if it isn't what you wanted. I don't know what your workflow is but only sharpen after scanning with good software. If you use something like Nik Silver Efex Pro avoid using the 'structure' settings to excess and especially 'fine structure'.

 

[pdh]

hehehe you better turn off autocorrect, V-12 (or add my username to your personal dictionary) 😀

 

[KevinVH]

I think you nailed it PDF, the grain looks to me like over sharpened grain as opposed to a sharpened photograph after or during scanning.

Some scanners are prone to accentuating grain and you have to be careful anyway about sharpening in post processing so as not to accentuate the micro contrast which is the region where the grain lies.

In this case I like the look of it, but can appreciate the problem if it isn't what you wanted. I don't know what your workflow is but only sharpen after scanning with good software. If you use something like Nik Silver Efex Pro avoid using the 'structure' settings to excess and especially 'fine structure'.

This is the way it came out of the scanner. I used the epson software, which I like beter then any 3rd party software, I turned the unsharpen mask of, and I didn't touch it in lightroom yet. Is there some way of developing for less grain. Less agitation or something like that?

 

[benlees]

Fomapan 400 is an old school (if that is the right term!) film. It is different than Tri x or Hp5+. It is grainy. I used it in 120 and the grain was not subtle! Lots of scratches and blotches using the same work flow as other films which had none of those problems. I switched back to Tri x.

I use an Epson v700 and my scans looked similar to yours.

 

[KevinVH]

Ok thanks. So it's not only me, although I have seen some fairly decent pictures from foma too. Guess I'll have to find a good use for it. How is it if you push it to lets say 800? Then I could use it for concerts( in my F2 with 50 1.2), which would give the pictures a good look.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Fomapan is grainy compared to Tri-X and HP-5, but it has nice tonality. I think you're overagitating. Do it for just the first 30 seconds, then two inversions of the tank every 30 seconds. That works well for me with it in D76, but it is grainier than modern Kodak and Ilford films.

 

[KevinVH]

Fomapan is grainy compared to Tri-X and HP-5, but it has nice tonality. I think you're overagitating. Do it for just the first 30 seconds, then two inversions of the tank every 30 seconds. That works well for me with it in D76, but it is grainier than modern Kodak and Ilford films.

The thing is I have a patterson thank with the stur stick, if I turn it over it leaks liquid.

 

[grapejohnson]

Fomapan looks way better in Rodinal. Fomapan 100 is one of my favorites, but I recently shot a roll and developed it in D-76 at 1:1 out of curiosity and was very disappointed. I didn't get any of the high contrast or sharpness I expected, a lot of middle grays instead. Initially I thought it was just that I tried it in a new camera, but maybe it's just one of those film/developer combinations that isn't as good.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The thing is I have a patterson thank with the stur stick, if I turn it over it leaks liquid.

All developing tanks leak a little, that's unavoidable. The stir stick is not a good way to agitate because the film near the outside of the spool gets a lot more agitation than the film near the center.

 

[Photo_Smith]

To help with leaks; after initial inversion agitation and tap push the centre of the Patterson rubber lid down and release the air from inside–you will now have a good seal.

Fomapan 400 is more akin to the old Agfa APX400 i.e more grain than Tri-x/HP5+; its real speed in D76 being EI200 certainly no faster in Rodinal.
For better speed try Microphen or DDX.
I use this film at EI200 in medium format and Rodinal where tonally it is lovely with a nice sharp grain.

The Fomapan films 100 & 200 (rated 64EI and 160EI) are a better choice if you are adverse to grain especially if scanning...

 

[KevinVH]

Ok thanks, all very helpful tips.

I don't have the option to get Rodinal, so that's out of the question. I'll try inversions instead of the stick from now on, I hadn't really thought about the fact that the outside gets more movement than the inside.

So if I use the the film at the ASA you suggest, do the developing times change or can I use the massivedevchart times?

 

[Clint Troy]

Fomapan 100 and 200 are nothing short of extraordinary!!
Fomapan 400 is extremely sensitive to red making it impossible for photography of people. I don't like fomapan 400.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Clint try this; type "Fomapan 400" into Google then click 'images' (don't do this if you are at work, have under 16's or a wife over your shoulder)

Tell me what you think of the skin tones 🙂

 

[gsgary]

Fomapan looks way better in Rodinal. Fomapan 100 is one of my favorites, but I recently shot a roll and developed it in D-76 at 1:1 out of curiosity and was very disappointed. I didn't get any of the high contrast or sharpness I expected, a lot of middle grays instead. Initially I thought it was just that I tried it in a new camera, but maybe it's just one of those film/developer combinations that isn't as good.

Plus 1 i always use Rodinal with Foma 400 and love it, i'm also very gentle when agitating, this is Foma 400 in rodinal

 

[Clint Troy]

Clint try this; type "Fomapan 400" into Google then click 'images' (don't do this if you are at work, have under 16's or a wife over your shoulder)

Tell me what you think of the skin tones 🙂

Fantastic skin tones!! 🙂

Those examples do't show what I'm talking about which raises another point: Who knows what rebranded film are they using as their 400 film? Looks like a switch somewhere along the production line. Or Maybe their 120 film is quite different then their 35mm film? All I know is that the lastest batch I purchased is unusablew for portraits and humans in general as it makes their lips go white and gives a general unnatural look that is quite distasteful.

That's the reason why one should really stick with Kodak, Ilford and Fuji as you know the Quality check is perfect. Forte, Foma, Orwo and all the others can be really shady at times.

 

[pdh]

Foma don't rebrand film.

They manufacture film at their own factories, at least since the 1920s, and they respond to quality issues rather well these days. The last I heard of a manufacturing problem was with Foma 200 in 120 format, which they then withdrew until they had it fixed, and this was at least two years ago.

Apart from not liking the grain of Fomapan 400, what other evidence do you have of their being "really shady at times" ?

 

[Fotohuis]

Arista EDU film is rebranded Fomapan film because in this way they get rid of the first less good production film when starting up a new production run.

Fomapan 400 is grainy (especially in 35mm). But if you have A-49 in 1+0 you can suppress the grain a lot compared to D76.

Further the film gives iso 250 in D76 (see data sheet), in fact it is not a real iso 400 film. Underexposed it gives even more grain.
Expose on E.I. 200 and put it in your A-49 1+0 and the grain will be much better however the sharpness will be less.

In Rodinal/R09 you normally get even more grain compared to D76. Rodinal is a high acutance developer but you will get very sharp negatives. By less agitation you can control the grain, also by a lower developing temperature. But in a regular agitation 1+50 dilution I won't recommend Rodinal for Fomapan 400.

Best regards,

Robert

(Dutch Foma distributor )