Had to push Fomapan 100 to 1600 using Rodinal. Here are some results

[fub]

Went to the local christmas market and all i had was a bulk roll of fomapan 100. I made two rolls that i had to push to 1600 to get 1/30s on my trusty Fed-3 using an Jupiter-8 F.2 lens. I was messing abit with stopping down the lens to F2.8 and F.4 but i think all the pics i took on i.e. F.4 and 1/15s came out to shaky. Next time i will stick to 1/30s and F.2 and increase shutter speed, rather than stopping down the lens. The Jupiter-8 does a pretty good job wide open.

I was using Rodinal since it is the developer i am most familiar with and for comparisons sake to other Foma 100 pics. I have some XT-3 at home and will do another test using that developer.
The results were a bit surprising. Common internet-knowledge is that Rodinal is not good for pushing and that Fomapan 100 is not good for pushing. The results are grainy but for me totally usable. I was not expecting that to be honest.
Dillution 1:25 for 22 minutes at 20°C

Happy Holidays!

 

[caila77]

Nice and very interesting results.
The Foma 100 is certainly not known for being pushed, I used it up to 400 ISO with satisfactory results for me.

 

[Alpsman]

Interessant was alles geht. Sehr tapfer!
Vier Blendenstufen bei den ach so schlechten Foma Filmen.
Dafür kommt das oft bemängelte Glühen des Filmes gut zur Geltung 🙂
..................
Interesting what's possible. Very brave!
Four exposure stops with those oh so terrible Foma films.
But the often criticized glow of the film really stands out 🙂

 

[fub]

The Foma 100 is certainly not known for being pushed, I used it up to 400 ISO with satisfactory results for me

1600 might not be really professional graded. even though the picture of the half closed champingion saucen shop turned out very good i think

 

[caila77]

1600 might not be really professional graded. even though the picture of the half closed champingion saucen shop turned out very good i think

the result is probably unconventional, but interesting and with a particular character that could be useful in certain situations to create certain atmospheres

 

[skopar steve]

Well done. Nice results. I'm surprised you had such good results.

 

[Coldkennels]

I used to push-process Ilford Surveillance P3 in Rodinal with surprisingly good results, but the most I ever did with any success was a two stop push (400 to 1600). I can't imagine trying a four stop push from 100 to that speed!

This has inspired me a bit, though. Maybe I'll take a 24exp roll of Fomapan 100 and see how it handles a two stop push in Rodinal. Can't be worse than Foma 400 in Rodinal, anyway...

 

[fub]

Interessant was alles geht. Sehr tapfer!
Vier Blendenstufen bei den ach so schlechten Foma Filmen.
Dafür kommt das oft bemängelte Glühen des Filmes gut zur Geltung 🙂
..................
Interesting what's possible. Very brave!
Four exposure stops with those oh so terrible Foma films.
But the often criticized glow of the film really stands out 🙂

ich liebe dieses Fomapan Glühen. Ortho 400 muss ich noch mehr testen, aber die Rolle die ich geschossen hatte, schien sehr gut für glühende Lichter
I love Fomapan glow. Ortho 400 glows very well too, but i have to try it again to really judge

Well done. Nice results. I'm surprised you had such good results.

me too! me too! I think the Jupiter 8 is part of the reason. First time i actually took that lens out. Usually go with Fed-10 or Indu-22, F.3.5 and whatever happens at 1/25th. I am officially a Jupiter-8 fanboy now. I might post some more comparisons once i got the roll developed. Such a great lens!

I used to push-process Ilford Surveillance P3 in Rodinal with surprisingly good results, but the most I ever did with any success was a two stop push (400 to 1600). I can't imagine trying a four stop push from 100 to that speed!

This has inspired me a bit, though. Maybe I'll take a 24exp roll of Fomapan 100 and see how it handles a two stop push in Rodinal. Can't be worse than Foma 400 in Rodinal, anyway...

At least it won't give you these black lines that i got both times i shot Foma 400. Stayed away from that for that reason. Still have a roll left. I much prefer Ortho 400 at that Iso. Very good film imho. It seems to be a bit fragile at 35mm though. I'll shoot some over christmas

 

[Coldkennels]

At least it won't give you these black lines that i got both times i shot Foma 400. Stayed away from that for that reason. Still have a roll left. I much prefer Ortho 400 at that Iso. Very good film imho. It seems to be a bit fragile at 35mm though. I'll shoot some over christmas

I like Foma 400 a lot, but it's definitely not suitable for Rodinal in 35mm. 120 yes, 35mm no. They have had some shocking QC issues in recent years, though.

But Fomapan 100 and Rodinal? That's a strong combo in any format. I don't know why I've never thought to push it. If I do give it a go, I'll report back.

 

[lynnb]

I’m very surprised your results were this good. Thanks for posting this.

 

[fub]

i did some more tests! i shot another roll at that christmas market with same development (still have to scan it) and a test roll on my new to me 1938 Welta Weltini with a f/2.8 Tessar. I basicly shot wide upen at 2.8 and at 1/25s to still be able to shoot without tripod. Not sure if that is still Iso 1600, it is just the most light possible for that camera in my hands.
The development was changed to two stand developments at 1:100 each. Basicly just refill the tank after 60 minutes and start again. i noticed that that way i can get ok results if there is a picture that would be totally overexposed for the 22 minute 1:25 development. There were some shots on the 22 minute roll, that were just insanely overdeveloped, because i was able to put the camera down and use 1 second shutter. On the stand development roll i also did some f/2.8 at 1 second shots which were not that were still ok in terms of overdelopment. With 22 minutes they were unusable.

Here are some of the pictures:

 

[fub]

same shot with same lights but exposed and developed for 100 iso (also using Jupiter-8 at f/2)

dim lights at house entrance. very grainy at f2.8 1/25s

if there is no direct dim light, it is not working at 1/25s

 

[fub]

these shots were taken at 1 second and f/2.8. the last one was on a roll that was developed using 1:25 for 22 minutes, the others were on the stand development roll. Stand development wins big imho, because if there is a overexposed (for iso 1600) shot on the roll, it will not get crushed to looking like a 110 film crop



lovely uncoated 1937 Tessar! The RF on the Weltini is very bad in low light. At least we still have focus somewhere on the flowers in the back


loaded the Fed with a Kentmere 400 today. I will push it to 1600 and we will see how the results will turn out!

 

[p.giannakis]

Like most people said, very surprised to see these results from foma100 - especially in Rodinal.

Looking forward to seeing more pictures.

 

[fub]

Like most people said, very surprised to see these results from foma100 - especially in Rodinal.

Looking forward to seeing more pictures.

results are crazy, aren't they? once i get to it i will make 3 small cassettes with about 10 shots each. It will make me able to directly compare stand to 1:25 and also double stand to normal stand. any other ideas how i should make a comparison? I think i will shoot all these pictures indoors to be able to control the lights.
also still have that one roll of fomapan 400 which could enter the comparison but not sure if its worth trying and potentially wasting that roll.

 

[p.giannakis]

results are crazy, aren't they? once i get to it i will make 3 small cassettes with about 10 shots each. It will make me able to directly compare stand to 1:25 and also double stand to normal stand. any other ideas how i should make a comparison? I think i will shoot all these pictures indoors to be able to control the lights.
also still have that one roll of fomapan 400 which could enter the comparison but not sure if its worth trying and potentially wasting that roll.

I'll be interested in seeing a 100 Vs 400 film pushed to 1600.

 

[fub]

yes, the stand turned out better imho than the 1:25. i wonder if double stand is even necessary. i'll do the kentmere 400 i have in the camera now at 1600 iso and just do one stand in 500ml 1:100.
for further tests i might actually skip 1:25 since it ruins overexposed shots. would be great to find a middle ground for stand where you can get away with a certain iso range rather than having to be precise.
i am basicly going for the slowest handheld speed and the widest aperature. would be cool to be able to get ok results if the shots are within the 800-3200 range.

you can see above by the picture of the portable toiletts what happens when one is not critical of the scene and just shoot right away. it does not work.

 

[caila77]

Stimulated by this post, I decided to take advantage of this particularly gray winter day to try pushing Fomapan 100 to 1600 ISO, developing the film in HC-110. I did not expect to get good results because I was convinced that HC-110 was not suitable. Instead, I must say I was surprised by the reduced grain. Minolta 50/1.4 lens. Below I leave the photos exactly as they came out of the scanner, without PP.
HC-110 dil E
20°C, agitation for 60'' than 2 agitation every 3' - total time 17'