Ouch! This hurts!

[paulbarden]

About 2 weeks back it was widely discussed that Freestyle was having a really great sale on "short dated" Foma films. I bought some 5x7 Fomapan 100, and for the first time I also bought Fomapan 400, in 8x10 size to try (At $1.70 per sheet, I figured I could be more liberal with my film usage!) I've made a couple of photographs using the Fomapan 400 and I have been very pleasantly surprised by the results. It has a really beautiful tonal scale in a "Tri-X from decades ago" kind of way, and it handles very nicely in both PMK and 2-bath developer, but the surprise for me is how much better the results are when processing it in a 2-bath developer (in this case, Thornton's version of divided D-23): much better separation of values, especially in the high end, and significant suppression of grain. It also gives the impression of greater acutance.

Here is the Thornton processed photograph:
(compare it with the PMK negative)

And here is a 100% magnification of the two negs for comparison:

The difference in the rendering of the high values, and the appearance of improved sharpness of the Thornton negative (thanks to the finer, less clumpy grain) is significant.

I know there are some who think Fomapan is a second-rate film, for novices and those restrained by budget concerns, but I'm really impressed by the 400 speed Fomapan and I plan to include it in my cache of films going forward, sale or no sale. But I am certainly glad I took advantage of the Freestyle sale - at $1.70 per 8x10 sheet, this feels like a real gift.

PS: I have two sheets waiting to be processed - one of which I will be developing in double strength PMK for Kallitype printing. I am hoping the Foma 400 is suitable for alt processes (not so much base density as to get in the way).

[Kino]

Beautiful!

[paulbarden]

Beautiful!

Thanks V much.

[Kino]

Did you tray develop this?

What's your opinion of using 2 bath developers in Jobo processors?

[Drew Wiley]

Foma 400 also looked a bit annoyingly clumpy grained for me too using PMK. If you want a wonderful smooth grained yet high acutance edge effect in a fast film, use PMK in conjunction with HP5 instead.

I suspect the high rotation speed and oxidation level of Jobo rotary processing would defeat the whole point of the soaking effect of two bath treatment. But you could test for that yourself if in doubt. I haven't done two bath D23 for a long time, and then in relation to former sheet films like Plus X Pan, but do know one doesn't want to be aggressive with it.

[Michael R]

An issue above is the difference in contrast, which makes evaluating graininess and perceived sharpness problematic. The image on the right looks more contrasty to me but not sharper. Although development times are relatively short in two-bath developers I would expect somewhat lower graininess from this divided metol-sulfite developer than PMK which has no solvent effect. That seems to be the case when looking at the scans above.

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, D23 in general relies on a lot of solvent effect. There might be a way to tweak it with sodium chloride to improve acutance; but I've never tried that.

[paulbarden]

Did you tray develop this?

What's your opinion of using 2 bath developers in Jobo processors?

My sheet films are always developed in a tray. I don't own, nor have I ever used a rotary tube processor. (never will) The whole idea of working with a 2-bath developer is that the best results are obtained by employing a very limited, gentle agitation technique. A drum processor with continuous agitation would not be compatible.

[AuditorOne]

I develop by rotation quite often but I usually do it by hand so I can control the rate of rotation. I rarely use the Jobo itself unless I am developing color film. At the price of large format color sheet film being what it is today that doesn't happen very often and when it does it is usually expired film.\

Very nice shot. I do like the tones in Fomapan.

[paulbarden]

An issue above is the difference in contrast, which makes evaluating graininess and perceived sharpness problematic. The image on the right looks more contrasty to me but not sharper. Although development times are relatively short in two-bath developers I would expect somewhat lower graininess from this divided metol-sulfite developer than PMK which has no solvent effect. That seems to be the case when looking at the scans above.

I didn't say that the Thornton image was sharper - I said that the less coarse grain gave the appearance of greater sharpness. But my takeaway of the test is that the improved tonal rendering when using the divided developer was worth the effort, not to mention the more subdued grain. Contrast, of course, is something that can be manipulated to suit needs and tastes.