Fomapan 200 rated @ 100

OurManInTangier

OurManInTangier

An Undesirable
Local time
12:01 AM
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
2,053
Anyone got any good user advice on dev'ing Fomapan 200 @100 in HC-110?

I saw a post (via a Google search ) that suggested 5 mins in dilution B at 20c and I will probably give this a try unless anyone has any other advice.

Thanks
 
In my experience all the Foma films are rated slightly too high I use the 200 at 125-160EI in Rodinal, HC110 would be similar at high dilutions, so I'd take the MDC times and experiment.
 
I would try HC-110 diluted 1:63 (dilution h) and double the time for dilution B as a starting point. It is more forgiving of time/temp errors and a lot more economical.
 
Thanks for the tips and links everyone, I ended up going HC-110 1:63 at 20c for 7 mins and got some very nice results, well I'm pleased anyway :)
 
Only used Foma 400 ( i really like Foma film) and used digitaltruth times and added 30 secs

img414-XL.jpg
 
I have tried Fomapan 100 and 400 in medium format and 200 in 35 mm:

Fomapan 100 in Rodinal 1:50 :


Super Ikonta 530-2_03_Fomapan 100_001 von thomas.78 auf Flickr

Fomapan 100 in HC 110H:


Moskwa 5_01_Fomapan 100_007 von thomas.78 auf Flickr





Super Ikonta 530-2_02_Fomapan 100_002 von thomas.78 auf Flickr

Fomapan 400 in HC 110H:


Ikonta 524-16_04_Fomapan 400_010b von thomas.78 auf Flickr

Fomapan 200 in HC 110E:


Pentax Spotmatic SP_Super Takumar 55 1,8_01_Fomapan 200_027 von thomas.78 auf Flickr

All development times were taken from digitaltruth.com
 
I really dislike foma400 for its near-IR look. It really shows on all the pics. Look at the portraits and the almost white lips. This is not a well documented issue but it is an issue when shooting people.
Anyhow. Just thought I'd inform.
 
I expose the 200 at 160 for developing in XTOL, and am happy with the results:

5316064159_0c4abecd98_z.jpg


Rolleiflex 2.8C
Yellow Filter
Fomapan Creative 200 at ISO 160
XTOL 1+1 for 11 min. at 17.5°C
 
Hmmm, I like the way Foma looks.

I have some 9x12cm 100 & 400 to use in my Plaubel Makiflexes. 9x9cm image on 9x12cm sheet film.

Looks like it was a good move to try this stuff. Very promising.
 
Clint Troy said:
I really dislike foma400 for its near-IR look. It really shows on all the pics. Look at the portraits and the almost white lips. This is not a well documented issue but it is an issue when shooting people.
Anyhow. Just thought I'd inform.
Click to expand...

I can see what you mean from the Foma 400 post. Do you know if this affects the other Fomas? I've been shooting the 100 but only for landscapes so far.
 
lawrence said:
I can see what you mean from the Foma 400 post. Do you know if this affects the other Fomas? I've been shooting the 100 but only for landscapes so far.
Click to expand...

I've ruined quite a few portraits because of the foma 400. Nothing is uglier then IR portraits and the foma 400 comes quite close.

The 100 and 200 are very different. I love them. They have quite a following, too. Especially the 200.
 
Thomas & Clint, many thanks for your observations. Of course it's hard to be certain but I think I detect a little bit of the 'IR tendency' in the portraits above but nowhere near as pronounced as with the 400. I have to say that I very much like Foma 100 for landscapes but would now cautious about portraits, particularly with the 400. I do like the way that Foma renders highlights, however, and I guess that's due to the anti-halation properties (or lack of them). You can see a similar effect in the pictures of two of my favourite photographers, Atget & Frank, and it's something I always wanted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom