traveler_101
American abroad
Anyone have any experience with Foma 400? I rated my first roll in the IIIf* at box speed and developed in D-76 and there is too much grain for my taste.
I have four rolls now and would like to try XTOL. Anyone try this combination? Should I develop in stock or 1 + 1?
* IIIf - no meter on board. How can you be precise about ISO? I take a reading with my handheld meter and start shooting usually without taking other readings. I will open or close the aperture according to my intuition. Under such circumstances I can easily see being a stop or more off.
I have four rolls now and would like to try XTOL. Anyone try this combination? Should I develop in stock or 1 + 1?
* IIIf - no meter on board. How can you be precise about ISO? I take a reading with my handheld meter and start shooting usually without taking other readings. I will open or close the aperture according to my intuition. Under such circumstances I can easily see being a stop or more off.
lawrence
Veteran
I think you'll get less grain with the stock solution. I don't have experience with Xtol but for me D76 stock, six and a half minutes at @ 20C works well. I rate this film at EI 200 only.
* The less accurate your metering the less good (technically!) the result...
* The less accurate your metering the less good (technically!) the result...
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I also rate that film at 200 iso and develop it in D76 at 1:1 dilution.
The film is grainy by its nature and you can use it for that feature if you have need for that look or you find it pleasant in certain situations.
Its biggest fault is its inconstancy in certain scenes and light. I think people on this forum find that film more to their liking in 120 format than in 35mm.
The film is grainy by its nature and you can use it for that feature if you have need for that look or you find it pleasant in certain situations.
Its biggest fault is its inconstancy in certain scenes and light. I think people on this forum find that film more to their liking in 120 format than in 35mm.
Samuel D
Established
As suggested above, it seems to be a lot slower than ISO 400 in D-76 (and most developers), according to the datasheet.
Highway 61
Revisited
It's good enough at EI 200 and developed in D76 1+3 for 17 minutes at 20°C.
Which isn't very interesting at the end of the day if you compare it with something else fully usable at EI 400 and routinely developed in D76 1+1 (Tri-X, HP5+, T-Max 400).
Which isn't very interesting at the end of the day if you compare it with something else fully usable at EI 400 and routinely developed in D76 1+1 (Tri-X, HP5+, T-Max 400).
traveler_101
American abroad
Good point about linking the grainy character of the film to appropriate subject matter.
120 format - yes, I see that on filmdev.org something like 6 of 7 formulas given for Fomapan 400 were for medium format; however, the images from the one example of 135 film in XTOL 1 + 1 were quite nice, I thought: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ulbabrab/4420576576/in/photostream/
What do you mean by "inconstancy in certain scenes and light"? Not meant for shooting backlit scenes?
I found nothing wrong with my scans in terms of shadow detail when exposed roughly at 400 ISO. Does increasing exposure reduce grain or improve tonality?
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
"What do you mean by "inconstancy in certain scenes and light"? Not meant for shooting backlit scenes?"
The anti-halation backing is either non existent or of poor quality on Foma made films.
Some shots came out looking very poor from a film quality perspective when they should not have if I was using Ilford, Kodak or Agfa film and everything else being equal.
The anti-halation backing is either non existent or of poor quality on Foma made films.
Some shots came out looking very poor from a film quality perspective when they should not have if I was using Ilford, Kodak or Agfa film and everything else being equal.