FOMAPAN 100, image samples

Slumgullion said:
I think it's important to note that Fomapan 100 (like the rest of the their films) is not true to box speed. It's a 50-ish ISO film.
Click to expand...

I love the look of pushed medium format Foma 100 @666 developed in 26C in Rodinal 1+25. Also recently tried half frame @200 with dev time for 400, Rodinal 1+25.

Ignorance is bliss.
 
Slumgullion said:
I think it's important to note that Fomapan 100 (like the rest of the their films) is not true to box speed. It's a 50-ish ISO film.
Click to expand...


Depends how it is developed. Pretty much all conventional cubic grained films are about 1/2 box speed (and I have tested a bunch of film/dev combos on a densitometer).

However, that's only because conventional development will not leave the film in solution long enough for full shadow speed to be achieved. When developed (semi)stand, pretty much every film I've used has hit box speed or, perhaps, 1/3 stop slower.
 
chuckroast said:
Depends how it is developed. Pretty much all conventional cubic grained films are about 1/2 box speed (and I have tested a bunch of film/dev combos on a densitometer).

However, that's only because conventional development will not leave the film in solution long enough for full shadow speed to be achieved. When developed (semi)stand, pretty much every film I've used has hit box speed or, perhaps, 1/3 stop slower.
Click to expand...
Can you show film and development combination curves that show this?
 
Freakscene said:
Can you show film and development combination curves that show this?
Click to expand...
I haven't kept that data for ages. But pretty much everything I developed conventionally hit 0.1 DU above FB+F for Zone I at about 1/2 box speed.

After I saw this pattern across many dev/film combos, I put my densitometer away.

But... this is not cast in stone. People will get different EIs depending on how they agitate, accuracy of their meters, accuracy and resolution of their thermometers, and even water composition. Also, everyone meters differently.
 
chuckroast said:
. . . .

But... this is not cast in stone. People will get different EIs depending on how they agitate, accuracy of their meters, accuracy and resolution of their thermometers, and even water composition. Also, everyone meters differently.
Click to expand...
xactly.
And how the light and dark areas in the image are distributed and in what quantity. The exposure meter displays this information accordingly. A slight tilt or pan towards the highlights or shadows can already make a difference of one f-stop.
 
chuckroast said:
Depends how it is developed. Pretty much all conventional cubic grained films are about 1/2 box speed (and I have tested a bunch of film/dev combos on a densitometer).

However, that's only because conventional development will not leave the film in solution long enough for full shadow speed to be achieved. When developed (semi)stand, pretty much every film I've used has hit box speed or, perhaps, 1/3 stop slower.
Click to expand...
That is interesting. Possibly related... when I first tried Foma 100 I didn't like it as it seemed kind of muddy. I was developing in HC110 but at a faster concentration, can't remember which one. I stopped using it for a bit. When I tried it again and developed it stand at 100:1 I really like it and shoot it probably more than anything else and I shoot at box speed.
 
50847096537_23d197f44a_h.jpg


Fuji G617, Foma 100

51946794550_e36242b856_h.jpg


Minox LX, Foma 100
 
49049429237_9bf650014c_h.jpg


M3, Collapsible Summicron, Foma 100

52570366118_ce9fa53804_h.jpg


Kraken 612, Schneider 47mm f5.6 (fixed focus) Fomapan 100 @f16

51896622959_03d59dd6aa_h.jpg


Kraken 624 Schneider Symmar-S 180mm f5.6 @f16 Fomapan 100

BTW, Foma 200 is really nice too.
 
Alpsman said:
xactly.
And how the light and dark areas in the image are distributed and in what quantity. The exposure meter displays this information accordingly. A slight tilt or pan towards the highlights or shadows can already make a difference of one f-stop.
Click to expand...

I will say that, if people have decent thermometers, meters, and use distilled water for the developer, they can pretty decent results without having to buy a densitometer (!) when using the following protocol with cubic grain films. At least it will get them in the ballpark:

  • Set the light meter to 1/2 box speed
  • Meter the darkest shadow where you want some slight detail and reduce the exposure two f/stops from what the meter indicates
  • Develop the film with normal agitation but 20-25% less than recommended on the time/temp charts
The challenge is that exposure and development have to be tailored to the Subject Brightness Range of the scene in question and - more importantly - how and where you want the tonal map to land in the final image. No simple rule can conquer all that. I've been doing this for five decades and I'm just getting the hang of it 😉

Tschüss
 
shawn said:
That is interesting. Possibly related... when I first tried Foma 100 I didn't like it as it seemed kind of muddy. I was developing in HC110 but at a faster concentration, can't remember which one. I stopped using it for a bit. When I tried it again and developed it stand at 100:1 I really like it and shoot it probably more than anything else and I shoot at box speed.
Click to expand...

There is some magick in there not discussed enough. Semistand will give you full box speed and some degree of highlight compensation. But it gives you something else: expanded midtone contrast/separation. The power of most monochrome images is found in the midtones, so this drives images that "pop".

I suspect that this is what you're responding do, perhaps even subconsciously.

You do have to be careful, though. Semistand uses rather high developer dilutions as you note above. This tends to make most developers bias in the direction of increased acutance. This is normally yet another benefit of semistand, but you can get too much of a good thing. If your subjects is highly textured with a lot of detail, like say a rough brick wall, the combination of midtone tonal separation and increased sharpness can yield garish results that almost look like a cartoon or graphical novel drawing. This too can be used as an aesthetic device but requires a gentle hand.
 
chuckroast said:
The challenge is that exposure and development have to be tailored to the Subject Brightness Range of the scene in question and - more importantly - how and where you want the tonal map to land in the final image. No simple rule can conquer all that. I've been doing this for five decades and I'm just getting the hang of it 😉
Click to expand...
This is curious to me - the image you posted, to my eye, has a very compressed tonal range. It could just be my monitor...but it doesn't make sense that sheet film Foma 100 would give the impression of less gradation than 35mm, but I've never shot it in large format (it's also entirely possible that it's a slightly different emulsion than 35mm). So my question is, given your above statement, was that your editorial choice? Was that the tonal map you wanted? I ask this with all due respect, you are clearly knowledgable and put a lot of thought into these topics, so I would love to hear your thoughts on how you made your image.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Kentmere 100 - latest samples
Replies
6
Views
1K
Sanug
S
F
Fomapan 100 defects or user error..?
Replies
5
Views
692
Fwatson1990
F
J
  • Article Article
The Leica as a work of ART: Selling the image of elegant exclusivity
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Pioneer
Pioneer
J
  • Article Article
The Rise & Fall of the Kodak Empire:Part 2: How the Colossus of Film was broken by a disruptive technology
2
Replies
23
Views
4K
Muggins
Muggins
J
  • Article Article
Weird & Wonderful Scale Focusing 35mm cameras: 11 cool models of bygone era that are still fun user-collectibles!
Replies
10
Views
897
Muggins
Muggins
Back
Top Bottom