FomaPan Sheet Film Question

[IanBarber]

Can I first say that I do not use a darkroom, after the development, I scan.

I hear a few people talk about how FomaPan film build sup contrast quickly.

If I understand them right, I believe they are saying that the contrast on the negative has built up early on in the developer.

Would I be correct in saying that to reduce this contrast, I should be looking at reducing how often I invert the developing tank during the developing time and maybe the number of inversions.

Thanks

Ian

[Peter Gomena]

Time, temperature, agitation, developer and developer dilution all affect contrast. So do film characteristics. Pick your variable.

You have a film that builds contrast quickly? Reduce time, reduce agitation, increase dilution of developer (which will affect time.) You'll have to do some testing.

[interneg]

Would I be correct in saying that to reduce this contrast, I should be looking at reducing how often I invert the developing tank during the developing time and maybe the number of inversions.

Not as a starting point, no. Reducing developing time, & increasing dilution of developer would be where to start.

Look at the data sheet & see the time/gamma curve relationship - http://foma-cz.cs4.cstech.cz/en/fomapan-100 and http://www.foma.cz/en/catalogue_bw_photo_materials_and_developing_information (pg.6) for some pointers on where to go. Helpfully the data sheet also gives an idea of effective film speed at different gammas. Fomapan is somewhat faster developing than some films - and because of this it'll build contrast in less time. That's all there is to it. For what it's worth, 6-7 mins in ID-11/D-76 1+1 at 20c is likely to be pretty good for most normal, non-studio contrast ratios if you are printing on MG paper. Effective film speed in the 64-80 range from the datasheet.

[Alan9940]

I develop Foma 100 regularly using a somewhat high dilution of Pyrocat-HD following a minimal agitation technique, and I've never had any issue with contrast getting out of hand. But, a bit of testing using your developer and technique will tell you all you need to know.

[Doremus Scudder]

The easiest variable to change when wanting to reduce contrast is development time. After that, and I mean, if that doesn't work, then developer dilution would be my next choice. Changing developers is a third choice, especially if you change to a developer that is known for taming highlight or its compensating effects.

Temperature is also a variable, but best standardized. Time is easier to deal with.

Altering the agitation scheme can have other, unwanted consequences, i.e., unevenness. It's also the least controllable of the variables. Once you've arrived at an agitation method that works for you, stick with it. If you need less contrast, adjust elsewhere.

Best,

Doremus

[Rich14]

Fomapan 100 is problematic with many developers and developer dilutions. Soot and chalk has been the most frequent complaint.

I have had no problem at all with contrast using HC110 at 1:64 dilution, D23 or Xtol.

However, try as I might I can't get any decent images with this film. I simply do not like it's look at all. For want of a better term, everything I shoot with it has a gritty, "dirty" look. It's simply not an emulsion I can get under control. Equivalent scenes on TMax 100, TMax 400, Acros, or FP4 are fine.

If you use it, I'd like to know your experiences.

Rich

[peter schrager]

Fomapan 100 is problematic with many developers and developer dilutions. Soot and chalk has been the most frequent complaint.

I have had no problem at all with contrast using HC110 at 1:64 dilution, D23 or Xtol.

However, try as I might I can't get any decent images with this film. I simply do not like it's look at all. For want of a better term, everything I shoot with it has a gritty look. It's simply not an emulsion I can get under control. Equivalent scenes on TMax 100, TMax 400, Acros, or FP4 are fine.

If you use it, I'd like to know your experiences.

Rich
Rich I've come pretty close to taming Foma100. I use a semi developing method with xtol 1+2
less is more with this film but I really feel it's a sleeper. another film to try is the 4x5 film from the New55 people. it's VERY nice too and not expensive

[Alan9940]

Rich, I've not had any problem taming Foma 100 and prints on Adox Lupex developed in Amidol are something to behold...IMHO. I do have to reduce highlight density more than I normally would for "standard" printing papers, such as Ilford MGWT (which I like a lot, too), because Lupex has a somewhat strong inherent contrast. Please understand I'm talking 8x10 contact prints. Is Foma 100 good for everything? Of course not. I use FP4 when I anticipate plus/minus development, and Acros when I know I'll be shooting very slow shutter speeds. I guess it might be pertinent to mention that I only shoot Foma 100 in 4x5 or 8x10; mostly, the latter.

[Rich14]

Peter,

Thanks for the suggestion about Foma 100 and Xtol 1+2. Actually, I have been using Arista EDU Ultra 100 from Freestyle, which I have been told is repackaged Foma 100 (at a lower price).

I'll give the New55 Atomic X a trial. It's only $1.00 an exposure - the same as Arista EDU Ultra 100.

Rich

[Goldman]

I am using 4x5 Foma 100 for the last 2 years. I like the film. It is very "strict" about the developer temperature. I use D76 (1:1) at 20 degrees C. If the temperature is above 22 it is always getting contrasty. One time I tested a 35mm film and I think I did over agitation and it appeared contrasty.

Bill

[IanBarber]

Rich I've come pretty close to taming Foma100. I use a semi developing method with xtol 1+2
less is more with this film but I really feel it's a sleeper. another film to try is the 4x5 film from the New55 people. it's VERY nice too and not expensive

Can you explain a little more about your semi stand methods with Xtol and Fomapan please Peter

[Cor]

IMHO the biggest problem with Fomapn100 is it's awful reciproke failure which works even in a "normal" scene. If you make a photograph of say a scene in the woods with lots of shadows, some of these shadow parts simply do not register on film due to the reciproke failure. To overcome you could expose longer resulting in more contrast in the mid and high tones, increasing contrast on an already inherently contrasty film.

Semi stand routes help somewhat, but in my hands this is hard to control, I more than once anded up with images with too much adjacent effect, almost chiselled out images, sometimes this works, most of the times not.

Good luck,

Cor

[Pete Oakley]

I usually use Foma 200. I develop it in D76H 1-1, I use a water stop bath (5 rinses) and an alkali or neutral fix, no problems!

[IanBarber]

I usually use Foma 200. I develop it in D76H 1-1, I use a water stop bath (5 rinses) and an alkali or neutral fix, no problems!

How do you find the contrast and Reciprocity Peter with FomaPan 200 and

[Rich14]

I think the Foma 100 and 200 films are quite different animals. It's not just a difference in sensitivity. The contrast and reciprocity characteristics are not indicative of a family of products.

[IanBarber]

I think the Foma 100 and 200 films are quite different animals. It's not just a difference in sensitivity. The contrast and reciprocity characteristics are not indicative of a family of products.


Ive just ordered a box of FomaPan 200 to try. Comparing the 2 data sheets for reciprocity, the fomapan 200 looks worse than the 100. I was going to start off by using the 100 reciprocity chart as a starting point

[Rayt]

I found a method that works for me and here is mine. Foma 100 is my second film of choice after TMY. When I first started using the MOD54 I was so worried the film would jump out of the slots with the inversion I slowed down the inversion process considerably. After pouring in the developer I invert gently and slowly for 30 seconds and then I let it stand for one minute so at the 1.5 minute mark I invert for 5 seconds slowly. At 2 minutes I invert for 5 seconds. From then on I invert for 10 seconds every minute. In the end I would add one minute to the times but just let it stand, no agitation. I use Rodinal 1:50 using the Massive Film Development times and add one minute. I like how the negs come out so that works for me! Your mileage may vary but do experiment.

[interneg]

Almost all the problems of 'soot & whitewash' are down to insufficient shadow exposure & overdeveloped highlights. It's not an inherent fault of this film, but rather one of your process control when exposing & developing. Altering agitation intervals might be a final refinement, but they won't solve fundamental errors in exposure & process.

The Foma 200 is a wonderful film (tonally speaking, I'd argue it's Foma's best film), but don't expect it to hit box speed - 100-125 at realistic contrast ranges. Again, keep an eye on developing times - they can be quite short.

[David Karp]

I used the Arista.edu version of Fomapan 200 when I first started shooting 5x7. It was a beautiful film. I stopped when they had to reformulate it. Does the new version of look like the old?

For what it is worth, I developed it in a divided developer similar to Divided D-23 and the results were very nice. I shot it at 100.

[Ron (Netherlands)]

'My formula': HC-110, dilution H, i.e. 1:63 for 12min @ 24C and not much agitation, provides lots of detail in the shadows
example (13 x 18 flatfilm): https://www.flickr.com/photos/zorki_2007/30700303071/in/dateposted-public/