Last edited by Roberto Nania; 27-Apr-2020 at 09:30. Reason: unquoted images
Pressing the shutter is the only easy thing
The 200 product is unique in having the longest straight line of any film currently on the market, so you can obtain superb deep shadow separation even in high contrast scenes. But it is nowhere near a true 200 speed; I rated it at 100 for PMK. The long exposure characteristics are awful. It develops exceptionally fast. The 2-pc clamshell boxes aren't always light tight at the corners, so after you remove the film from the inner wrap, I recommend putting it in a 3-pc clamshell from another mfg. Worst of all, both batches of 8x10 I purchased had a lot of quality control flaws on the emulsion consisting of fine cracks and zits. I'd be very interested in hearing if this is still the case, but from people who actually enlarge the film and not contact printers.
Foma 200@800 - 1+47, 20C, 30 min
Foma 200@160 - 1+47, 20C, 13:30 min
If Foma 200 is exposed at 800, all you're doing is lopping off 3 zones of shadow value and then making up the density at the other end with longer development. It's not going to recover what not exposed down there to begin with. But in a very low contrast scene it might work. Are you sure there's not a typo, and that he was wasn't referring to Foma 400 at 800 instead?
Drew, maybe show a picture as good as Deardorffusers....
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
I'm busy mounting hundreds of prints. Web presentations can wait. I already did that kind of thing once fifteen years running. But that has no relation to the obvious in this particular case. A film with almost no toe gets the bottom clipped off awfully fast with gross underexposure. That's just basic sensitometry. That's why I asked if a typo was involved. Right on that image he indicated that he shoots 200 @ 160 and (?) 200 @ 800. That doesn't make sense. It would be logical if he meant shooting 400 Forte @ ASA 800, but the 200 product at only 160. Note his previous examples on this thread, which are plainly labeled 160. Have you ever actually worked with this "200" product, Peter? Not only does it have little toe, but it is horrible at significant plus development. That's why the late Michael Smith hated it, and tried to stockpile as much trusty old Super XX as possible. Under its various relabels like Classic 200 and Arista 200 it might have been advertised as analogous to old Super-XX or Bergger 200, but other than the long straight line, it's actually very different and much less flexible in terms of development contrast. But it is finer grained and now has its own special niche as the only remaining "straight line" film. Under the right circumstances, I've gotten superb images with it, but couldn't put up with the quality control issues.
Foma200@800
Guy's suit blacks at second picture look pretty good for me. Will try it at 800ASA this weekend
Best wishes,
Igor.
Bookmarks