Fomapan 100 ISO and Development

rolfe

rolfe

Well-known
Local time
3:41 AM
Joined
Mar 18, 2006
Messages
433
A rainy day here in the Berkshires in western Massachusetts, so I took the time to do a zone system speed/development test on Fomapan 100, 35mm.

It took two tries to nail it down, but I came out with a true ISO of 100 and a development time of 6:30 in Xtol 1:1 at 20deg C. Negatives were read on a calibrated Xrite 301.

I'm posting because the Massive Development Chart has this combination at 8 minutes, which was way too hot. In case anyone has had trouble with too much contrast, maybe this is the reason. Reducing 15% gave me 6:50 and zone 8 was still just a tad hot, so I'm penciling this one in at 6:30.

Hoping this saves someone some time...

Rolfe
 
The massive developing chart is useless. When trying a new film, the best strategy is to look at the film manufacturer's tech sheets to see if they list a time for the film you want to use. If so, use that as your starting point. If they don't, then look at the chemical manufacturer's tech sheets and see if they list a time for the film.

If neither manufacturer gives a time for that film/developer, then you'll have to take an unvarified time you find online and test and retest till you get it right.
 
I've had a lot of luck shooting Fomapan 100 at 200 and developing normally. It does tend to block up shadows a bit but can be a good look if you want contrast and lessens the propensity for highlights to blow out. The below was with rodinal 1:50 at around 8 minutes, pretty much the same standard agitation method that's usually recommended, i.e. 30 sec initially and 5-10 sec each minute.

Untitled (32) by Andrew Lossing, on Flickr
 
I shoot Fomapan 100 in large format and get good results rating it at iso 50 with manufacturer’s times for 100 with Rodinal 1:50.
 
120 format Fomapan 100 looks terrific as well (haven't shot it, but really like it whenever I see it). It seems like 35mm amplifies the grain and weird dynamic range kind of like small-sensor digital does. But it has an appreciable grungy look sometimes that is a totally different character from its larger format character.
 
charjohncarter said:
I don't like any of these films (personal preference), maybe it is my process. I won't expand here, but on my last roll of 400 I got 1 good, well not good, but at least I made a print of it:
Fomapan400 HC-110h by John Carter, on Flickr
Click to expand...

This is just beautiful.

I like Foma, except the Retro stuff which is just mush. Foma 200 in FX-39 has lovely tonality (thanks for that tip to the late Roger Hicks).

I am with Chris on the MDC. Start with manufacturer times, or experiment.

Marty
 
400 is gritty stuff. It can't be treated like Tri-X or HP5+, it doesn't have a lot of latitude, but it's fun as a cheap grainy, contrasty film.
 
rolfe said:
A rainy day here in the Berkshires in western Massachusetts, so I took the time to do a zone system speed/development test on Fomapan 100, 35mm. (...) Reducing 15% gave me 6:50 and zone 8 was still just a tad hot, so I'm penciling this one in at 6:30. (...)
Click to expand...
Thank you Rolfe. I like Fomapan 100 a lot (discovered it during a trip to Prague in 2008) and besides some random QC problems (drops in the emulsion caused by the backing paper with 120, conditioning machine scuffs with 35mm...) I have been using it on a regular basis since. In spite of being an "old" film, it's a very good one indeed, with its own not really panchromatic personality (higher sensitivity to the green than any other "classic" 100 B&W film marketed nowadays).
 
Just beware if you are using it for pinhole photography that it suffers from truly monstrous reciprocity failure - I forget the figures now, but you reach a point where suddenly you need hundreds of times the length of exposure.
 
rolfe said:
A rainy day here in the Berkshires in western Massachusetts, so I took the time to do a zone system speed/development test on Fomapan 100, 35mm.

It took two tries to nail it down, but I came out with a true ISO of 100 and a development time of 6:30 in Xtol 1:1 at 20deg C. Negatives were read on a calibrated Xrite 301.

I'm posting because the Massive Development Chart has this combination at 8 minutes, which was way too hot. In case anyone has had trouble with too much contrast, maybe this is the reason. Reducing 15% gave me 6:50 and zone 8 was still just a tad hot, so I'm penciling this one in at 6:30.

Hoping this saves someone some time...

Rolfe
Click to expand...


We have to differentiate here, because there is no one correct exposure index and developing time for everyone. Period.
It is always dependent on the imaging chain you are using.
Wether you are using
- a condensor enlarger
- an enlarger with a mixed system (condensor and diffusion box)
- a diffusor enlarger.
Or if you are using a scanner. And then it depends on the specific scanner type you are using.
In all these cases you have to use different developing times (and sometimes different EIs as well) to get optimal results.
Therefore the best you can do is using a densitometer and evaluating the characteristic curve.

Cheers, Jan
 
HHPhoto said:
We have to differentiate here, because there is no one correct exposure index and developing time for everyone. Period.
It is always dependent on the imaging chain you are using.
Wether you are using
- a condensor enlarger
- an enlarger with a mixed system (condensor and diffusion box)
- a diffusor enlarger.
Or if you are using a scanner. And then it depends on the specific scanner type you are using.
In all these cases you have to use different developing times (and sometimes different EIs as well) to get optimal results.
Therefore the best you can do is using a densitometer and evaluating the characteristic curve.
Click to expand...

And, most of the time, there is far more flexibility in paper grades and/or capacity for post-processing adjustments than anyone gives credit for. And there are also aesthetic considerations, in which anything goes.

Marty
 
Freakscene said:
This is just beautiful.

I like Foma, except the Retro stuff which is just mush.
Marty
Click to expand...

In my experience Foma Retropan 320 in medium format is gorgeous - a truly unique film.

It must be developed correctly though - it doesn't suffer overexposure and overdevelopment well. Most examples you seen online are poor scans of overexposed negatives which were developed in unsuitable developers (Rodinal, HC-110..).
 
charjohncarter said:
Higher sensitivity to Blue and Red; in fact the red sensitivity goes infra-red
Click to expand...
I stand corrected, thanks a lot. Maybe it's the reason why I like it very much for landscapes.

51127086073_043d1fdf4d_o.jpg


Rollei 35S - Fomapan 100 - D76 1+1
 
Foma 100 looks very nice with rodinal at 1:25 and 7-8 min.

Untitled (29) by Andrew Lossing, on Flickr

Untitled (25) by Andrew Lossing, on Flickr

Untitled (9) by Andrew Lossing, on Flickr

I think the film is best when the contrast isn't extreme - as you see with these, it was overcast and rainy, but the tones came out really nice. I've shot it a fair amount in strong sunlight, but you can easily blow highlights and block shadows, as I think I've noted before. Maybe a little odd to think of using a 100-speed film in overcast weather, but then I'd say the results speak for themselves. Rodinal in both 1:25 and 1:50 work well, I think I'll probably stick to 1:50 in future (about 12 min) since it's a bit more economical.
 
I don't have any examples handy to share, but Caffenol is my go-to developer for Foma 100. Not sure why, but its consistently the best results for me. What's more, I have never been terribly precise about time when using the Caffenol. It may horrify some folks, but I just develop for about 12-15 mins or so. At 20C (68F) with a bunch of agitation right at start and a couple slow inversions at each minute (fairly standard agitation). Occasionally negs may come out either a little contrasty, or not, but always usable.

My other favorite developers - HC110 and Rodinal - work fine with Foma 100 too, but Caffenol just seems to do it a bit better. I have not been as happy with Foma 400 for reasons I can't remember. I have enough HP5 in the freezer that I just don't think about it - for now. Could be a while too since I'm shooting less film these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom