Unsuccessful Stand development of Foma 400

[LeicaFoReVer]

I made some mistakes. I ended up very low contrast grainy and foggy negatives. Where did I make mistake or mistakes? The film also sat in the camera for 6 months. Rodinal has been out in my balcony where 40c degrees was the temperature in the summer. And I used 1 hour development at 1:100. I think everything I did was with a mistake...gosh...:bang::bang:

Can rodinal (R09) go bad?

 

[Mr_Flibble]

Stand development in Rodinal of fast films isn't the greatest idea, I'm told.

 

[charjohncarter]

Grainy and fogged come to mind with Rodinal stand; luckily you didn't have streaking. Thin negatives could be many thing though.

I'm sure many members have real times for Rodinal and Foma 400. I think even I do:

AristaEDU Ultra 400 (250) Rodinal 1+50, 11 minutes, 30 sec, 3 inversions per 3 minutes, 68 degrees

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

Foma indicates 1+200 with 60 min on their site so there is one of the mistakes I made. I saw under another topic on rff site that 1+50 gives good results with Foma 400.

 

[Trius]

Grainy and fogged come to mind with Rodinal stand; luckily you didn't have streaking. Thin negatives could be many thing though. I'm sure many members have real times for Rodinal and Foma 400. I think even I do: AristaEDU Ultra 400 (250) Rodinal 1+50, 11 minutes, 30 sec, 3 inversions per 3 minutes, 68 degrees

Bang on - but we both knew that right?

I have found that 11 minutes with ANY b&w film is good. It may not be perfect, as I haven't done controlled tests for every film I've used.

My take is that at high dilutions such as 1:50 Rodinal is developing to exhaustion, so extended times at higher dilutions doesn't gain anything. And agitation affects grain structure more than anything else. Again, these are unscientific observations.

For 1:25 use 6 minutes, 1:100 is 19 minutes. The fact that you can get very good to excellent results with these starting points for nearly all films is wonderful.

I loved how CHS 100 looked in Rodinal; haven't tried CHS II yet. And Pan F+ is superb.

 

[presspass]

Foma 400 is touchy, as you've discovered. It's grainy by nature, and can fog easily. It's also very soft and prone to scratching. I've had decent luck with a compensating developer - D-23 - either diluted 1:3 for 20 minutes at 68 degrees F or with D-23 straight replenished at 8 minutes. It's far from my favorite film, although I do like the Creative 200, also developed with a compensating developer. Stand developing has its fans, but it is condemned almost as often as it's praised.

 

[Fotohuis]

I've had decent luck with a compensating developer

Indeed, a compensating type developer but not R09/Rodinal for this iso 400 film (in fact iso 200/250) which is a pretty grainy type.

Here an example of FP400 E.I. 250 in Rollei Supergrain, in fact an Amaloco AM74 copy, a semi-compensating type developer, 1+9 6:00 minutes at 20C.

 

[ravilamir]

I made some mistakes. I ended up very low contrast grainy and foggy negatives. Where did I make mistake or mistakes? The film also sat in the camera for 6 months. Rodinal has been out in my balcony where 40c degrees was the temperature in the summer. And I used 1 hour development at 1:100. I think everything I did was with a mistake...gosh...:bang::bang:

Can rodinal (R09) go bad?

Hi!
I only use Fomadon R09 (rodinal clone) and stand development 1+100 for 1 hour. I do 4 inversions at the start.
I have never seen a problem or "foggy" negatives with Fomapan 400, one of my main films.

See if this is what you thing is thin and foggy. Remember you are seeing here are "scans" done by a very cheap "scanner" and no corrections of whatsoever were done. All shot at ISO 400:

1-28-2016_026 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

1-28-2016_023 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

1-20-2016_020 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

1-28-2016_021 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

 

[xayraa33]

I have had good negatives with D76 1:1 for 10 min at 20 deg. C with that film.

It is one of my favourite films.

 

[Rayt]

Finally I am getting good negatives @250 souped in HC-110 (B) 6 minutes 20C. Before I souped it for 6.5 minutes and was getting really dense negs. Overall I won't shoot this film again especially since HP5+ is only about 60 cents a roll more. Also I can't seem to avoid light leaking into the last two frames when I open the back to change films.

 

[teddy]

You probably did everything right. This looks to me a manufacturing fault because the SAME THING happened to me, and I didn't stand develop. I use D-76 and the results were horrible. I didn't make a mistake, the temperature was at a constant 20 Celcius.

I'm not buying FOMA 200 or 400 - too unreliable.

Why bother with it when if I'm unsure wither the film was fogged or not coated properly? Any shot I may get could be ruined, every shot is precious.

 

[teddy]

I made some mistakes. I ended up very low contrast grainy and foggy negatives. Where did I make mistake or mistakes? The film also sat in the camera for 6 months. Rodinal has been out in my balcony where 40c degrees was the temperature in the summer. And I used 1 hour development at 1:100. I think everything I did was with a mistake...gosh...:bang::bang:

Can rodinal (R09) go bad?

1:100 with Rodinal is fine. I do 1:100 @ 60 mins, 20 inversions first minute - then 5 inversions every 15 mins (to get consistency).

FOMA films too often for me appear with manufacturing faults. I'm sick of it.

The most reliable film was FOMA 100 - but not 400 or worst 200.

🙁

 

[ravilamir]

Finally I am getting good negatives @250 souped in HC-110 (B) 6 minutes 20C. Before I souped it for 6.5 minutes and was getting really dense negs. Overall I won't shoot this film again especially since HP5+ is only about 60 cents a roll more. Also I can't seem to avoid light leaking into the last two frames when I open the back to change films.

You probably did everything right. This looks to me a manufacturing fault because the SAME THING happened to me, and I didn't stand develop. I use D-76 and the results were horrible. I didn't make a mistake, the temperature was at a constant 20 Celcius.

I'm not buying FOMA 200 or 400 - too unreliable.

Why bother with it when if I'm unsure wither the film was fogged or not coated properly? Any shot I may get could be ruined, every shot is precious.

1:100 with Rodinal is fine. I do 1:100 @ 60 mins, 20 inversions first minute - then 5 inversions every 15 mins (to get consistency).

FOMA films too often for me appear with manufacturing faults. I'm sick of it.

The most reliable film was FOMA 100 - but not 400 or worst 200.

🙁

Would the gents above post images or even better shots of the negative as they are against a backlighted window, please?

I've been using Fomapan 100 and 400 for some years now and never had a single problem.
To badmouth one of the few manufactures that still do R&D and have introduced a brand new emulsion in the last year is really poor.
To me it seems the above gents are Digitographers that are not used to old style films.
Foma films are unique as they are the last emulsions that are very soft and delicate when wet. They damage easily when not properly handled.

So, please, provide proof of what you are saying.
Thanks.

 

[zauhar]

There is a 'stochiometric' approach to stand development, I think 3.5 ml of rodinal concentrate for each roll of 135 film. Thus, the dilution depends on number of rolls (essentially you let all the developer react with the available film surface). I got good results (to my eyes) using that protocol in the past.

Randy

 

[charjohncarter]

Would the gents above post images or even better shots of the negative as they are against a backlighted window, please?

I've been using Fomapan 100 and 400 for some years now and never had a single problem.
To badmouth one of the few manufactures that still do R&D and have introduced a brand new emulsion in the last year is really poor.
To me it seems the above gents are Digitographers that are not used to old style films.
Foma films are unique as they are the last emulsions that are very soft and delicate when wet. They damage easily when not properly handled.

So, please, provide proof of what you are saying.
Thanks.

Ricardo, I feel the same way, I still use Kodak but I also use these film. And I will go to Ilford if Kodak doesn't feel it is necessary to make film. Foma films are different, but I like them especially when you get used to know them. You can use them in the situations where they shine, when you get EI, metering, and development right (just like any film) you will have success.

I did not like these film at first but that was ignorance.

AND I don't use stand with Foma films (or any others).

 

[Rayt]

Would the gents above post images or even better shots of the negative as they are against a backlighted window, please?

I've been using Fomapan 100 and 400 for some years now and never had a single problem.
To badmouth one of the few manufactures that still do R&D and have introduced a brand new emulsion in the last year is really poor.
To me it seems the above gents are Digitographers that are not used to old style films.
Foma films are unique as they are the last emulsions that are very soft and delicate when wet. They damage easily when not properly handled.

So, please, provide proof of what you are saying.
Thanks.

Sir are you accusing me of being a "Digitographer"? I do not digitograph and do not even own a scanner. 🙂 As I stated in my post I am getting good results with Fomapan 400 @250 in HC110(B) 20c 6 minutes. I also shoot Foma 100 in 4x5 and Foma 200 in 135 and like them but for 120 I don't know if I'd want to shoot Foma 400 again. First is the backing paper. I am getting light leaking into the last two frames post exposure when I open the camera back. Sure I can find a dark spot while street shooting with my Rollei but it is not convenient. Also I need the speed and I can get box speed and higher with HP5. Nothing again against Foma and I use their other emulsions.

 

[charjohncarter]

Sir are you accusing me of being a "Digitographer"? I do not digitograph and do not even own a scanner. 🙂 As I stated in my post I am getting good results with Fomapan 400 @250 in HC110(B) 20c 6 minutes. I also shoot Foma 100 in 4x5 and Foma 200 in 135 and like them but for 120 I don't know if I'd want to shoot Foma 400 again. First is the backing paper. I am getting light leaking into the last two frames post exposure when I open the camera back. Sure I can find a dark spot while street shooting with my Rollei but it is not convenient. Also I need the speed and I can get box speed and higher with HP5. Nothing again against Foma and I use their other emulsions.

I don't know what dark spot is, but I do agree about the paper backing.

 

[ravilamir]

Sir are you accusing me of being a "Digitographer"? I do not digitograph and do not even own a scanner. 🙂 As I stated in my post I am getting good results with Fomapan 400 @250 in HC110(B) 20c 6 minutes. I also shoot Foma 100 in 4x5 and Foma 200 in 135 and like them but for 120 I don't know if I'd want to shoot Foma 400 again. First is the backing paper. I am getting light leaking into the last two frames post exposure when I open the camera back. Sure I can find a dark spot while street shooting with my Rollei but it is not convenient. Also I need the speed and I can get box speed and higher with HP5. Nothing again against Foma and I use their other emulsions.

Sorry and thanks for clarifying what you meant for light leaking.
About backing paper for 120, there has been a series of reports about problems with backing paper for some Kodak and Ilford emulsions.
Now, I don't know how many manufacturers are there for backing paper and how coincident would be that Kodak and Foma would have the same backing paper.
But, it is the first time I've seen mentioning the backing paper on Fomapan 400.
Years ago there were some problems with Fomapan 200 in 120.
They were sorted with a new base film.
I hope if there is any problem with the backing paper that will do as well.
I'll suggest you send to Foma what you think is a defective backing paper together with the negative so they can examine it and find a solution.

 

[Rayt]

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. In certain backs such as newer Hasselblad back where there is a "stopper" to keep the spool tight this is not an issue but for more primitive cameras like the Rolleiflex where there is nothing to keep exposed rolls to spring open when I open the back this is a problem.

 

[charjohncarter]

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. In certain backs such as newer Hasselblad back where there is a "stopper" to keep the spool tight this is not an issue but for more primitive cameras like the Rolleiflex where there is nothing to keep exposed rolls to spring open when I open the back this is a problem.

Right!! Even my 60 year old Kodak Duaflex IV and my Agfa Isolette II have these 'tightening' features. But with some of my other cameras that are newer I've had problems; I'll have to check them for a the 'tightener.'