Foma 100 Help Please

[Michael Kadillak]

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]

My experience with the film in a variety of developers is an EI of 40-50.

[Peter Yeti]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.