Unsuccessful Stand development of Foma 400

[Fotohuis]

The backing paper is OK. I have recently shot Fomapan 200 and 400 in 120 without the backing paper problem of the past. But the paper tends to unroll itself at the end of the rolls letting light in.

The base material of Foma (and also some other brands) is Polyester which curls more so you have to keep the spool tight when loading and unloading the roll film.

Rollei Retro 80(S), 400(S), IR-400 are using the same Agfa Gevaert Clear Polyester layer for it.

Some manufactureres are using tri-Acetate for it e.g. on Fuji Acros 100 but this has the disadvantage that the base material is softer and can damage easier especially because it is 100um in thickness only. 35mm Acetate is 125um-135um.

 

[znapper]

Sounds to me that the OP did just about everything to get faulty negs 🙂

- Foma 400 isn't especially grain-less to begin with, why are you developing it in Rodinal and complain about grain?
- Stand-dev is a crap-shoot, normally used when you have some unknown film and no way to know how to develop it. Notorious for uneven developed negatives, bromide streaks etc.
- Foma 400 isn't actually 400, more like 250 (In Rodinal that is probably even more true, since true-speed for most films are lower in that developer). This can contribute to thinner negatives. "Bending" the scans to get normal looking pictures, will enhance the grain even more.
- Rodinal isn't cryptonite, it can die, go bad, crystallize and loose strength, it should be stored, at least, in stable conditions.
- Foma, in it's various flavors is a cool film and often very nice looking, certainly old-school looking.
- Foma isn't the most high-resolving film, in-fact; The higher the ISO, the lower the resolution.

I Haven't experienced too many issues at all with the 200 and 400, there were issues with the 100 (blue base) in 120 in the past, but from what I've read, it has been resolved a few years back. (pinholes, streaks etc).

I often use Rodinal or HC-110 for the 100, shot at 80 (which looks superb) and HC-110 for the 200 and 400 (shot at 100 and 250 respectively) and develop normally, no issues.

Foma 100 in HC-110, B (120 format)

Fountain in the Queen’s Park, Oslo royal castle by Ole-Henrik Helin, on Flickr


Fomapan 100 in Rodinal 1:50 (120 format)

Fomapan 100 in Rodinal 1:50 (120 format)

Foma 200 creative @ 200 in HC-110 B (35mm)
(From a zombie-walk in 2012)

Fomapan 400 @ 400 (underexposed) in HC-110 B, double exposure (120-format)

Duality by Ole-Henrik Helin, on Flickr

 

[Cocal]

2014♣193 by ruggero ranzani, su Flickr
Voigtlander bessa R3M, Voigtlander Color Skopar 35 f/2,5 MC; Fomapan 400@1600, Adox Adonal (1:100) 120', 20°C. Scan from negative film.

 

[Cocal]

2014♣195 by ruggero ranzani, su Flickr
Voigtlander bessa R3M, Voigtlander Color Skopar 35 f/2,5 MC; Fomapan 400@1600, Adox Adonal (1:100) 120', 20°C. Scan from negative film.

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

Thank you everyone...Yes I made several mistakes. Grain wasnt the biggest problem. I would expect grain due to the fast film I used but lack of contrast and fog with thin result were the biggest issues. I will post some examples. Scanned images are not that bad as it can becompensated by post processing.

I dont like fast films either so I will probably stick with FP4+ which gave incredible results with Rodinal and stand development.

 

[edwliang]

i always get sproket hole streaks and uneven development with fp400 in rodinal 1:100 stand development.

 

[J enea]

I stopped stand development after 4 rolls because of streaking and or air bubbles even with a few good bangs after initial agitation.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Wring down before I forget: "FP4+, keep in camera for six mounts, 1 hour in Rodinal which was kept on sun all summer... Great results!"

But I'm also the giver.
On previous week I dumped Kentmere 400 in used Arista Lith Developer for 20 minutes and then to Rodinal 1:40 for fifteen minutes. It took 2-3 minutes for exposure by wide open enlarger lens to get image visible on the 8x10 print. Results were great!

😀

 

[Nowhereman]

The thin negatives the OP spoke about are most likely the result severe underdevelopment caused by insufficient developer.

For 35mm film you need at least 3.5ml of Rodinal per roll, and some people recommend 5.0ml, which is probably a better idea. Sticking with 3.5ml, for a 1:100 dilution you need 350ml of dilute developer per roll. Last year, a lab used a two-reel tank with a capacity of 600ml, which is less than the minimum 700ml needed for two rolls. The negatives were so thin that you couldn't have printed them with an enlarger — you could also see that underdevelopment was the problem because the TRI-X logo printed at the edge of the film was so light it was barely visible. So, you need to make sure that you have a large enough tank, and I think it's a good to use 5ml per roll, which requires a 1 liter tank for two 35mm rolls.

The digitalized film was so thin that the Lightroom histogram was just a thin sliver, and even a 1 point movement of the various LR sliders made huge changes in contrast and brightness. But, very carefully, carefully I could get the results I wanted. Here are a few of the pictures — no reason not to use stand development.



Chiang Mai





Chiang Mai





Chiang Mai




Wiang Pa Pao

_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine