Full Foma-based B&W processing pipeline - recommended for a beginner?

A

albireo

Established
Local time
8:55 PM
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
68
Hello everyone,

I've been shooting film for a long time but for many reasons never tried processing my own film. I have now moved and in this city getting B&W film processed takes a looong time (~10 days) so I thought I'd try doing it by myself.

I've been really happy with Fomapan 100 and 200 film in medium format, which is, coincidentally, also really cheap where I live.

I noticed Foma chemicals are cheap too. I was wondering if they're any good and if you'd recommend them for beginner.

If it's any help, one of the labs I used for my Foma processing told me they develop using X-tol. I loved the results I got with this combo. Looks like Foma makes an X-tol clone.

So in short worth faffing around with foma chemicals or should I invest in old tried and tested Kodak/Ilford products at a higher price? Thanks!
 
Foma products work fine. I spent a lot of the 1990s shooting Foma 200 and 800 (no longer available) developing in Fomadon Excel (Xtol clone) and fixing in Fomafix Rapid fixer. Learn good technique; the films are delicate.

Marty
 
Freakscene said:
Foma products work fine. I spent a lot of the 1990s shooting Foma 200 and 800 (no longer available) developing in Fomadon Excel (Xtol clone) and fixing in Fomafix Rapid fixer. Learn good technique; the films are delicate.

Marty
Click to expand...

I can't speak to the Foma chemicals because I've never used them, but I can say that when emulsions are soft, a hardening fixer is often a good idea. I don't know if Fomafix Rapid is a hardening fixer or not.
 
Spending more money on chemistry ? Not my first choice , with practice any of them can produce a good image , heck I'm now using Caffenol (that's cheap also) and the results are getting much better with some experimentation ( and chances are you'll be experimenting with any combo ) . YMMV , Peter
 
Thanks everyone - that's right: I'm happy to try several combos but I predict my failure rate, at least initially, will be quite high. So I thought I would initially invest in the cheapest decent chemicals I can find.
 
Foma film, no experience, but Fomabrom variant 111 is (to my eyes) equal to Ilford Multigrade, and cheaper, either locally or from fotoimpex.
 
albireo said:
Thanks everyone - that's right: I'm happy to try several combos but I predict my failure rate, at least initially, will be quite high. So I thought I would initially invest in the cheapest decent chemicals I can find.
Click to expand...

I would not bet on your initial efforts being poor - it's really not a terribly difficult thing to do. The chemistry is pretty basic for B&W, and most often it's down to the skill one has in loading the reel. For this, I would suggest allocating some money for decent equipment and perhaps doing some practice with a sacrifice roll of film in a darkroom or changing bag. Loading on the reel, then remove and inspect in the light to see how you did. Unload, go into the dark and load again. You can use one roll of sacrifice film over and over again to check your skill in loading the reel. This is a skill you can only teach yourself; it takes the 'touch' to do it right and most people can do it - but it does take practice.

The chemicals will largely work no matter what. Some thoughts...

'Agitation' is important but it doesn't mean vigorous shaking. Some don't seem to know that. You're just moving the liquid around, not changing zip codes with it.

A dilution that requires a longer processing time is less sensitive to errors in timing than one which requires shorter time. A 30 second error in a three minute developing time is a bigger error than the same 30 second error in a 9 minute bath. Same is true for minor errors in temperature or any fat-fingering of getting the stop bath introduced. Use longer developing times to even out errors.

When in doubt, fix longer. It won't do any harm. Short fix is the cause of many errors. People get excited and want to see their film. Let it sit.

Rinse longer than required.

Hang in dust-free areas to dry if you can.

Let it dry - don't get anxious.

And number one is to have fun. There's something magical about it. Hope you catch the bug and find it a lifelong hobby worthy of pursuing.
 
Awesome advice, thanks man. I'm going to copy and paste your points in my logbook.

May I just ask - regarding reels and ease of loading 120 film: I read the Paterson setup is not the best with MF film and that I'm better off with an AP-branded one. What do you think?
 
albireo said:
Awesome advice, thanks man. I'm going to copy and paste your points in my logbook.

May I just ask - regarding reels and ease of loading 120 film: I read the Paterson setup is not the best with MF film and that I'm better off with an AP-branded one. What do you think?
Click to expand...

Others may have better advice than I do. I like Kodacraft aprons, which is a whole different scheme, but many hate them. I have used and do like Nikor reels for 35mm, but no experience with 120 for those.

Paterson plastic reels are terrific for film that is utterly dry. If your hands or the film has any moisture, they become difficult to work with in my experience.

Stainless steel reels work really well in all conditions - it's just that you need to gain that experience we talked about loading them. Most common failure is that you will load the reel, it will 'feel' OK in the dark, but some small part of the film will be touching another part and that won't be developed properly. That's why it's vital to practice loading in the dark and then examining the result in the light, over and over, until proficiency is built and confidence gained.

In the end, all the methods of loading film work - experience rules.
 
Kodacraft aprons - sounds like exotic stuff :)

Anyway thanks again for the advice, I feel already my wallet getting lighter!
 
All of bmattock's points are spot-on. No black magic involved with film developing, just maintain fairly consistent temps and develop a routine that works for you. Everyone screws up at some point, but those will be the lessons you will never forget.

If Foma products are affordable and available for you, by all means use them. It's best to stick with the same films and materials until you get comfortable, before experimenting with other films or developers. I've never used Foma Chemicals, but love Fomatone 131 paper for Lith printing. I would imagine your results with Foma dev won't be hugely different from what you get from the lab. I find that using different films makes a much bigger difference than changing developers, for the most part.
 
The Hewes film reels are the best, IMO. Very well made, easy to load (once you've practiced!), durable. They are expensive, but I see them as a one-time investment.
 
oldwino said:
The Hewes film reels are the best, IMO. Very well made, easy to load (once you've practiced!), durable. They are expensive, but I see them as a one-time investment.
Click to expand...

Thanks, googled these - I see what you mean, they give an impression of durability. However I think I'd like to start with cheap plastic tanks initially, at least until I know if I will keep doing this home processing thing. It is nice to think I will have an added degree of control over the process.

One thing I haven't properly assessed is if the initial investment will pay for itself in the long term. I spend 5.95 euro per developed roll currently. In my basket I have, at the moment, about 130 euro of processing gear, including chemicals.

So it looks like it will take me about 22 rolls to break even - at my current pace, about 10 months of photography.

One factor to consider is that, if I know I can get immediate results from my B&W (rather than waiting for 10 days as I currently do) I might end up shooting much more B&W and less, or no, C41.

Anyway, food for thought, and the whole thing is certainly worth for the fun of experimenting at least. Thanks for all the advice!
 
I've had many years of experience using Foma's powdered developer and can recommend it heartily. Foma also makes an R09-equivalent developer (a Rodinal clone) which is very economical as it is typically used at very low dilution (1:25 or 1:50) and has a very long shelf life. Macodirect carries Foma chemistry if you're unable to buy it in your city.

Cheers, Robert
 
Bottle of X-Tol will lasts very long time and for many films.
If you have time, then dilution H instead of B. With dilution H it is going to be several bulks of Foma on one X-Tol bottle.
 
albireo said:
So in short worth faffing around with foma chemicals or should I invest in old tried and tested Kodak/Ilford products at a higher price?
Click to expand...

I have never tried Foma chemicals but I love the FomaPan 100 film because I can get it in 35mm, 120, 4x5, and 8x10 for less cost than the Ilford equivalent. I develop the film in Kodak D76 diluted 1:1 and then discarded.
 
albireo said:
Awesome advice, thanks man. I'm going to copy and paste your points in my logbook.

May I just ask - regarding reels and ease of loading 120 film: I read the Paterson setup is not the best with MF film and that I'm better off with an AP-branded one. What do you think?
Click to expand...

I recommend a JOBO developing tank. Because
- perfect quality
- excellent system, can be easily upgraded if you want to go further (tank extension, processor use)
- very flexible for using both 135 and 120 film
- they need significant less chemistry compared to Paterson or AP tanks, so in the mid- and long term you have the lowest development costs with them.
 
I shoot mostly Fomapan 200 (as opposed to 100 or 400) and develop in either Foma LQN or XTOL. Happy with results.

For APX100 film (cheap Agfa film I bought expired) I use Foma R09 substituting Rodinal. Again, happy with results.

35mm Foma 200 in LQN (V700 scan):

25261118459_5f526790a9_o.jpg

last days of summer #542 by lynnb's snaps, on Flickr

35mm expired APX100 in R09:

26774891311_34f9c4ecf6_b.jpg

informal portrait #147 by lynnb's snaps, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom