PDA

View Full Version : Foma 100 Help Please



Michael Kadillak
20-Apr-2014, 21:26
A while back in my interest to consider alternatives to TMY in 8x10, I acquired a 50 sheet box of Foma 100 and have had a heck of a time getting it to cooperate. I tray develop the film and contact print 8x10 on Azo/Lodima.

So far I have tried it in Pyrocat HD, Rodinal 1:50 and ABC pyro and I consistently find my negatives lack the density that I find appealing as they are thin. I am rating the film at 80 and just want to give this emulsion a fair shot. Any ideas?

jumanji
20-Apr-2014, 22:04
Try Xtol 1+1, constant agitation, EI 50 (I put the shadow on Zone IV), 8.5 - 9 min at 20 degrees C.

lbenac
20-Apr-2014, 22:23
I use it with DD23 ISO 25 (bellow extension factor in) 6 minutes in A and 3-4 minutes in B in a Jobo 3010 on Uniroller.

analoguey
21-Apr-2014, 01:54
I use foma 100 in 4x5 with xtol 1:3 at ~25c.
Pretty decent results with that so far.
Usually use the tube within the tray instead if direct tray development.

Regular Rod
21-Apr-2014, 02:05
I use it in 8x10 for reasons of cost. It is good film and I now get negatives exactly as required using either 510-PYRO or OBSIDIAN AQUA.

HOWEVER(!), it seems to need rating at something slower than the makers' box speed. I use the Zone System to calculate the exposures with a Pentax Spotmeter V set at 80 ASA instead of 100...

http://u1.ipernity.com/24/01/93/15500193.50f340d2.1024.jpg
With 510-PYRO



http://u1.ipernity.com/24/04/27/15500427.e508b010.1024.jpg
With OBSIDIAN AQUA

RR

mdarnton
21-Apr-2014, 04:25
What's the problem now; what do you want to change?

Regular Rod
21-Apr-2014, 04:38
What's the problem now; what do you want to change?

He was wanting to obtain greater density in his negatives...

RR

Michael Kadillak
21-Apr-2014, 07:07
He was wanting to obtain greater density in his negatives...

RR

Bingo. I can get bullet proof negatives that I like from T Max 400, Efke 25, FP4+, Delta 100 and even HP5 under the right conditions. Foma 100 (or as I understand Arista EDU 100) seems rather elusive in giving me the robust results I want. The costs are a strong incentive and I inherently like to have a plan B and C with my photography.

peter schrager
21-Apr-2014, 07:46
michael..use the T200 instead..no problem with density
best,peter

sanking
21-Apr-2014, 07:50
Bingo. I can get bullet proof negatives that I like from T Max 400, Efke 25, FP4+, Delta 100 and even HP5 under the right conditions. Foma 100 (or as I understand Arista EDU 100) seems rather elusive in giving me the robust results I want. The costs are a strong incentive and I inherently like to have a plan B and C with my photography.


Michael,

But is your low density caused by lack of exposure or underdevelopment? Any of the developers you mentioned should be capable of giving sufficient contrast for AZO development with appropriate exposure and development. Especially ABC Pyro since it has a lot of kick. I suspect that for some reasons your negatives did not receive adequate exposure in your initial tests.

Sandy

Michael Kadillak
21-Apr-2014, 08:04
Michael,

But is your low density caused by lack of exposure or underdevelopment? Any of the developers you mentioned should be capable of giving sufficient contrast for AZO development with appropriate exposure and development. Especially ABC Pyro since it has a lot of kick. I suspect that for some reasons your negatives did not receive adequate exposure in your initial tests.

Sandy

I rated it at 80 Sandy using the incident meter system (stopped using the spot meter a while back - Thanks!) and it still looked weak. I will kick it up a notch and half the film speed and see what happens. Guess I am just being impatient as it relates to results. So used to seeing full figured negatives as a standard that a lack thereof is disturbing. Thanks to all for responding.

Jim Noel
21-Apr-2014, 12:36
My experience with the film in a variety of developers is an EI of 40-50.

Peter Yeti
21-Apr-2014, 14:51
I'm surprised. Many people complain that Foma 100 gets very dense and contrasty. I rate it at 50 and develop in Pyrocat HD with very nice results. However, I use a Jobo processor rather than tray. I usually print on FB paper of grade 2 or 3. How about prolonging development time?

Colin Robertson
21-Apr-2014, 15:01
Using 5x4, EI 50 in PMK pyro. I tray develop for 7.5 minutes at 20 centigrade.
Good density, prints at grade 3 in a diffusion enlarger.
Lovely tones but VERY soft emulsion when wet.

Michael Kadillak
21-Apr-2014, 15:05
I'm surprised. Many people complain that Foma 100 gets very dense and contrasty. I rate it at 50 and develop in Pyrocat HD with very nice results. However, I use a Jobo processor rather than tray. I usually print on FB paper of grade 2 or 3. How about prolonging development time?

That is the next iteration. I would be elated if I could get this film to work. Does the 200 speed Foma have as much density building character as the 100 speed film is supposed to have?

ic-racer
21-Apr-2014, 15:10
find my negatives lack the density that I find appealing as they are thin.

You will have to determine if the negatives are under-developed, under-exposed or both. What metric are you using to determine appropriate negative development time to match that paper? How are you determining your exposure index?

Can you post some representation of the negative in question?

Peter Yeti
21-Apr-2014, 15:32
That is the next iteration. I would be elated if I could get this film to work. Does the 200 speed Foma have as much density building character as the 100 speed film is supposed to have?

I use both films and with neither I have a problem. For me, they behave rather similar. On the other hand, I've only heard complaints about the Foma 100 not the 200 (doesn't mean much, though). I should have mentioned that I use a Zone VI cold-light head, so I need a slightly higher contrast in my negatives.

Domingo A. Siliceo
22-Apr-2014, 22:32
I also develop Fomapan 100 with Pyrocat-HD diluted 2:2:100 for 11 minutes. My EI is 50 too.

If I make no mistakes measuring light, negatives are dense and contrasty.

JeRuFo
23-Apr-2014, 01:15
I shoot it at EI 32. Fomapan 100 is very forgiving in the highlights, but it's easy to block up the shadows, so dense negatives are definetely better. When I have trouble with it, more light is almost always the answer (besides the obviously visible over- and under development). The chart that floats around to counter reciprocity failure is pretty much spot on for me, for the longest exposures I use 4 stops.

uhner
23-Apr-2014, 03:35
I believe that it is a case of underexposure. I get nowhere near an EI of 100 with this film.

If you want I can send you the curves for D76 1+2 and Rodinal 1+50 for the BTZS plotter. I suppose that they at least could serve as a starting point.

Michael Kadillak
27-Apr-2014, 19:07
Thanks for your time in response mode folks. I shot some additional negatives at ASA 50 and processed them in a tray with 2:2:100 pyrocat HD and have arrived at the conclusion (with the assistance of the manufacturers exposure versus density chart) that the 100 version of this film is technically incapable of building density to the degree that I am used to ( and value immensely) with TMY2 and FP4+ stand developed just to name two examples. It just is what it is. That said I looked at the 200 speed version of this film on the density versus exposure chart and I am probably going to give this a try as I feel it is a better fit for what I want to accomplish. Time to move on.....

Domingo A. Siliceo
28-Apr-2014, 03:09
Talking about the Foma 100...

This morning I was washing some Foma 100 sheets in distilled water and Ethanol diluted 3% for one and a half hour. At the end, the water turned a bit blue (that Foma blue, you know...), so a couple of questions arose: 1)is this normal (since I'm new to Pyrocat-HD, maybe is a collateral effect) and 2)could be that blue water a bad processed film symptom?

IanG
28-Apr-2014, 05:52
I've been using Fomapan 100 & 200 for a few years now, once you nail your personal EI and dev times for normal contrast they are excellent films, they are both excellent in Pyrocat HD but need about 70% of the dev times of other films otherwise they build up to much density.

Ian

Michael Kadillak
28-Apr-2014, 06:49
I've been using Fomapan 100 & 200 for a few years now, once you nail your personal EI and dev times for normal contrast they are excellent films, they are both excellent in Pyrocat HD but need about 70% of the dev times of other films otherwise they build up to much density.

Ian
How long a water pre-wash do you use Ian and what are your EI's that work for you? The technical data says that the 100 speed film has less density building character than the 200 speed version by a significant amount.

IanG
28-Apr-2014, 07:11
How long a water pre-wash do you use Ian and what are your EI's that work for you? The technical data says that the 100 speed film has less density building character than the 200 speed version by a significant amount.

I shoot both the 100 & 200 at half their box speed, but I never use a pre-wash with any B&W films 35mm through to 10x8. I've found the Foma data not all that helpful and did some practical tests to find my effective film speeds, I also tested the reciprocity in the typical low light conditions I sometimes shoot in and found it ws nowhere near Foma's recommendations, I suspect down rating the films helps significantly.

Ian

Michael Kadillak
28-Apr-2014, 09:03
Talking about the Foma 100...

This morning I was washing some Foma 100 sheets in distilled water and Ethanol diluted 3% for one and a half hour. At the end, the water turned a bit blue (that Foma blue, you know...), so a couple of questions arose: 1)is this normal (since I'm new to Pyrocat-HD, maybe is a collateral effect) and 2)could be that blue water a bad processed film symptom?

Seems reasonable to me that some additional protective coating came off the back side of the film during your wash. My reaction is that maybe this is an indication that the wash times were a bit short.

Delfi_r
28-Apr-2014, 11:48
I'm on my first steps on LF. I process Foma 100 on a Jobo 3006 tank.

As was suggested in another thread, I pre-soak the film for 5 minutes to get development times more realistic with DevChart tables. The results are great so far (perhaps EI is really 50 but I need to calibrate the shutter of my lenses, in the meantime I read exposition at ISO 100)

I use Rodinal at very low dilution (1:100) and low rotation speed for 10 minutes at 20

I have no densitometer, but lights are dense and shadows are not washed.

The water from the pre-soak it's blue-green.

The wash water comes out without any tint after two cycles of replenishment.

Roger Cole
29-Apr-2014, 04:51
I pre-soak Foma 400 before development in my Jobo as I do other films. No problems. I rate it at EI 200 though an effective speed of 400 IS possible if the light is fairly flat - IOW I think it's a 200 speed film that pushes to 400 easily. But generally I get really good results at 200 in D76 1+1, reduce development about 15%-20% from the spec sheet.

I've no experience with the 100 but would expect it to be similar just two stops slower.

UlbabraB
29-Apr-2014, 06:25
Hi,

I shot a lot of foma 100 and developed it in several developers trying to get the right contrast and density to print pt/pd and kallitypes. I obtained the best results with pyrocat (-MC and -HD) 2:2:100 and exposing it at EI25 (developing time around 10 minutes for SBR7 IIRC).
With this combination I can achieve a DR of 1.8 measured with the UV channel of the densitometer, which is good for pure palladium or kallitypes (and the prints reflected this). Increasing the developing time or developer dilution resulted in more fog without a significant increase of hilight density. Beware of the emulsion defects, the quality control is not up to other brands.