cavcha1
Member
Really enjoying this combination. I've never had negatives with such good separation between tones, and the grain is pleasing to my taste. Recommended. Yet to print from these in the darkroom, but my experience says - from these negs - it will be a joy.
C
Guitar and Louis and Boot Still Life 4 by Charles Cave, on Flickr
Swan Kids 1 by Charles Cave, on Flickr
Heath Boat Pond Table Tablescloth Picnic by Charles Cave, on Flickr
Heath Pond Wall Tattoo boys by Charles Cave, on Flickr
C
Guitar and Louis and Boot Still Life 4 by Charles Cave, on FlickrSwan Kids 1 by Charles Cave, on FlickrHeath Boat Pond Table Tablescloth Picnic by Charles Cave, on FlickrHeath Pond Wall Tattoo boys by Charles Cave, on FlickrCharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
Wow - they are lovely! I would never have thought of using FX39 on Foma, but you can't argue with those results.
tightsqueez
Well-known
These are nice... what ratio are you using (1:9, 1:14, 1:19)? Next question would be how long did you develop them?
cavcha1
Member
Just went with the massive dev suggestion of 20mins at 1:9. 20 degrees. 30 seconds initial agitation, then four gentle inversions every minute. I can't fault the negs - everything is there; good shadow details, separation through midtones, and nothing close to blown out in highlights. I'll be printing from them soon in the darkroom which is, of course, always the big decider!
C
jbielikowski
Jan Bielikowski
I'm a huge fan of both FX-39 and Fomapan 200, but I use 1:19 dillution so it's wiser for me to pull it @100. I must say your results are very good indeed.
few recent samples with CV35/2.5II
few recent samples with CV35/2.5II
cavcha1
Member
They look great too! But if you need the extra speed I would recommend trying it at 400 because your results don't look too far away from mine in terms of tones, and hey it's always nice to have a 400iso film. I use FX-39 at 1:9 for 20mins. This whole experiment for me began by a hunt for a 400iso film to replace the now too expensive Tri-x. I'm really happy with Foma 200 pushed in either Rodinal 1:50 or FX-39
jbielikowski
Jan Bielikowski
They are surprisingly close, even grain at your pictures looks very, very nice.
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
Just scanning a roll of Foma 200 I souped in FX39 1:9 for20 minutes. I think the FX39 is a bit tired but it was easy to give a bit more exposure in post. Very nice indeed!
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
Really enjoying this combination. I've never had negatives with such good separation between tones, and the grain is pleasing to my taste. Recommended. Yet to print from these in the darkroom, but my experience says - from these negs - it will be a joy.
C
Wow, these are nice. I haven't used foma200 for a long time, wasn't very impressed with HC110 and didn't like it in rodinal at all.
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
By the way, those of you who are using foma, have they resolved the quality control issues? Scratched emulsion was the thing that put me off foma.
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
I haven't been through all frames yet - I've come across a couple of tiny scratches on one, but that could simply be my own cleaning technique. A recent roll of 100 had no issues at all. Certainly nothing like the Foma of old - I chucked an entire box of 400 4x5 as the emulsion was so poor 2 years ago.
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
My last roll done in FX39 was a bit too grainy when scanned, so I did what I normally do when looking to get the best out of pushed film and used Tmax developer at 1:4 for 71/2 minutes.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
Your results with this film and developer combination are excellent.
What's the shelf-life of an opened partially used bottle of FX-39?
Chris
What's the shelf-life of an opened partially used bottle of FX-39?
Chris
mteresko
Established
I've kept partial bottles as long as a few months with no problems. I always give it a shot of Bloxygen (argon gas) before recapping.
I liked these results so much, I gave it a try. Have you tried pushing in Xtol? I might try that next time to knock back the grain a little.
200611-21 by Michael Teresko, on FlickrCharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
My bottle has been open for about 6 months - I'd say it's starting to lose potency.
jbielikowski
Jan Bielikowski
so I tried same formula as the OP, and I like how it handles late afternoon light (can't say much about shooting in full sun cause I messed up the metering and those are quite overexposed), very nice tonality, grain is not harsh at all.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I agree with this guy:
https://cinematography.com/index.php?/topic/65513-filtering-super-panchro-film-for-good-pictures/
He is a Cinematography person, but his experience with film is the same as mine.
https://cinematography.com/index.php?/topic/65513-filtering-super-panchro-film-for-good-pictures/
He is a Cinematography person, but his experience with film is the same as mine.
cavcha1
Member
These look real nice. Congratulations. Glad it worked well for you! I have actually gone back to Rodinal for a while. The negs are flatter that FX ones, but print really nicely in the darkroom.
agentlossing
Well-known
Anyone tried Foma 100 at 400? They claim you're supposed to be able to underexpose by two stops and process normally, no pushing. I've shot a few rolls at 200 now and they look great, but haven't tried going all the way to 400.
cavcha1
Member
A final verdict with Foma 200 @400.
A final verdict with Foma 200 @400.
I have now tried Foma 200 pushed a stop in FX39 (see the first post), Rodinal (1:50, 1:25, and 1:100 stand), HC110, and T-max.
Hc110 doesn't cut it for this, IMHO. As for the others? There isn't a HUGE difference. But after careful consideration I have opted to go back to Rodinal. Are the negs absolutely perfect? No. The FX-39 negs have a bit better tonal separation - but not quite as "sharp". However Rodinal is so economical for many reasons, and at 1:25 (which to my eyes has no difference to 1:50) provides a nice dev time (8.30 at 20c for me) and produces really decent negs. My work with Foma 200 started after Kodak hiked Tri-X. Foma has slightly less resolution than Tri-x to my eye, but it is HALF THE PRICE. For me, it works so well as a day to day choice, especially in Rodinal like this.
More examples of Foma 200 @400 in Rodinal.
Man Head on Wall Trafalga by Charles Cave, on Flickr
St james Bird Lady 3 by Charles Cave, on Flickr
Closed Restaurant Bottles Leaves Still Life by Charles Cave, on Flickr
Rio and Crows 2 by Charles Cave, on Flickr
Irish Pub Window by Charles Cave, on Flickr
Lucas and Sophie Garden 2 by Charles Cave, on Flickr
A final verdict with Foma 200 @400.
I have now tried Foma 200 pushed a stop in FX39 (see the first post), Rodinal (1:50, 1:25, and 1:100 stand), HC110, and T-max.
Hc110 doesn't cut it for this, IMHO. As for the others? There isn't a HUGE difference. But after careful consideration I have opted to go back to Rodinal. Are the negs absolutely perfect? No. The FX-39 negs have a bit better tonal separation - but not quite as "sharp". However Rodinal is so economical for many reasons, and at 1:25 (which to my eyes has no difference to 1:50) provides a nice dev time (8.30 at 20c for me) and produces really decent negs. My work with Foma 200 started after Kodak hiked Tri-X. Foma has slightly less resolution than Tri-x to my eye, but it is HALF THE PRICE. For me, it works so well as a day to day choice, especially in Rodinal like this.
More examples of Foma 200 @400 in Rodinal.
Man Head on Wall Trafalga by Charles Cave, on FlickrSt james Bird Lady 3 by Charles Cave, on FlickrClosed Restaurant Bottles Leaves Still Life by Charles Cave, on FlickrRio and Crows 2 by Charles Cave, on FlickrIrish Pub Window by Charles Cave, on FlickrLucas and Sophie Garden 2 by Charles Cave, on Flickr