Fomapan 200 noob help needed

freeranger

freeranger

Well-known
Local time
7:07 PM
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
433
Hi, I've just started into developing my own film and, because it is cheap, have started to learn with fomapan (so far with mixed results).

I read that fomapan 200 can give better results when exposed at EI125 ... so this is what I have done. I plan to develop this roll in Rodinal 1:50.

My question is this: Do I give it a development time to correspond with film speed of 200 or do I develop it as rated at 125?

Thanks in advance to any of you experts out there!
 
Fomapan 200 is only ISO 200 (and then, only by courtesy) in speed increasing developers.

The emulsion is loaded with development accelerators, so dev times are short. Pick any reasonable-looking (short) dev time and use that.

If the resulting negs print OK on grade 2, you're OK. If they're contrasty (grades 2-1-0) then cut dev time by 10-15%; if they're flat (grades 3-4-5), add 30-50%.

If you're scanning, well, much the same, but there's more flexibility and you don't want too much exposure or contrast or the scanner won't chew through the maximum density.

Cheers,

R.
 
Thanks Roger, that is the problem I have been having: the contrast is way to high in my negatives for scanning.

Can you recommend a development time and agitation pattern for development in Rodinal for 200 rated at EI125?

Thanks
 
freeranger said:
Thanks Roger, that is the problem I have been having: the contrast is way to high in my negatives for scanning.

Can you recommend a development time and agitation pattern for development in Rodinal for 200 rated at EI125?

Thanks
Click to expand...

'Fraid not -- I never use Rodinal. Try a 15% cut. If that's not enough, try another 10%. If it's too much (i.e. negs too soft) then split the difference between the original and the new. It's a process of homing in on what works for you.

Don't worry too much about agitation. ANY consistent pattern will work. Likewise temperatures: pick a temperature at 18-24C, 65-75F. Consistency is all that matters.

Cheers,

R.
 
I'd like to sneak into this thread, and ask Roger, what dilution FX39 does he use with Foma200 - I know he likes this combination for the tonality - I have just got both this film and developer for the first time, and so I'm a bit undecided where to start. I'd personally prefer a higher dilution to retain more of the DR and keep the neg flatter for scanning...
 
mfogiel said:
I'd like to sneak into this thread, and ask Roger, what dilution FX39 does he use with Foma200 - I know he likes this combination for the tonality - I have just got both this film and developer for the first time, and so I'm a bit undecided where to start. I'd personally prefer a higher dilution to retain more of the DR and keep the neg flatter for scanning...
Click to expand...

Put it this way: !+9 is as strong as you want to go, BUT I've done better with short 1+9 times than with longer 1+14 times. I suppose I could try (say) 1+12.5 (20 + 250) but I've never got around to it.

I'm reasonably confident that fine-tuning 1+14 (20 + 280, 25 + 350, 30 + 420) would work as well as 1 + 9 but I've never taken the time.

And, of course, I always print wet. Optimum dev. times for scanning are usually shorter than for wet printing.

Incidentally, at any normal dev time, you can't easily 'blow' the highlights for wet printing. What your scanner can see through is another matter. As a very general rule, the more expensive the scanner, the greater the Dmax it can penetrate.

Film rated at 125-160 with spot meter, 100-125 through-lens.

Cheers,

R.

Cheers,

R.
 
OK .. out of the soup and looking much better than some previous efforts. I developed at 1:50 for 10 mins (as per Massive dev chart recommendations) but I also cut down on the amount of agitation I gave it (2 gentle inversions every minute). From the looks of the negs my contrast problems have diminished greatly.
Thanks for your help guys!
 
hailthequeen.jpg


Here is a scan from the negs. A calamanca cat makes an excellent test chart :D
 
The first time I used this film under the Acupan 200 brand I rated at 200 and got it lab developed. WAY under exposed. Expose as per Fp4+
 
I just have bought from Mike Goldberg some 20 films of Fomapan 200, which I will have to learn how to process.

Many years ago I did my free doctorate on Tri-X, by the method of David Vestal, which I will reproduce once again with Fomapan, since I am utmostly suspictious about Kodak.

David Vestal method, as far as I remember, starts with the axiomatic goal that good negatives show only at the time of printing, and that in order that you keep most of the printing options on your side, you should fine tune your processing so that they will easily print at contrast No 2 degree.

Then whe should find the best processing time for the ISO recommended by the manufacturer. A full roll will be taken of the same subject, carefully metered. From this roill we may cut a small piece and process by the manufacturer recommendations.

According to the results when printing at contrast No. 2, which will lead us to look either for more or less contrast, (more or less processing time) we will extract another small piece of the roll and process. And so for until WE find OUR best processing time, corresponding to our agitation customs, climate, music, etc.

The best subject to be photographed for that roll will be an image containing both a white shoe under direct sun, and a black shoe under shadow. Most of the chances are that when selecting the best print, i.e, the most easily printable print, at No 2 contrast, we will never have one with both detailed whites and detailed blacks. This is to be expected unless Fomapan surprises. But the closest one is the chosen one. And this difficulty is purposed.

Ok, thats' good for the first month of work, and for ISO 200. But for those among us eager to know more, we may be curious if Fomapan may surprise us at another ISO, or/and how it will behave at ISO 50, 100, 400, 800. Here we can either act out of general knowledge or acurate testing.

For acurate times, there is a simple method, but it will make this post too long - so at another oportunity. Or perhaps Roger will like to develope this issue.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In my above post I have dealt with Fomapan as an "X" film, i.e. anykind of film, without any previous info - which is indeed the case.

From knowing the accurate personal processing times for different ISOs we may use it, and having for comparizon in front of us 8x10 prints representing the best result from each ISO, a treasure of info may be at our hands.

We may find for example at which ISO Fomapan excells in our darkroom, how much it can be pushed without any significant loss of detail, and the approximate degree of detail loss when pushing it to a certain ISO.

Dave Vestal used to write: help your negatives (when exposing and processing) and they will actively help you back (when printing)

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Here's my feedback - the first roll of Fomapan 200 @ISO 125, developed in FX39 1+19 7 min at 24°C - I could not use lower dilution because of excessively short dev time. The result looks promising, good sharpness, nice grain and good tonality - the lighting was too flat really to produce anything better, will try harder in the future... Shot on Rolleiflex Planar 2.8 F

2762687062_3292bc34cf_b.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom