• 0 Bewertung(en) - 0 im Durchschnitt
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fomapan 400
#1
I bought a few (10) rolls of Fomapan 400 along with some Fomapan 200 and Adox CHM400. Since the catalogue recommends ADOX ADX49 so highly, I decided to go with it. My first roll was developed in a 1:2 dilution for 17 minutes (nothing special, just the recommended starting time).



I exposed at EI 400 even though I've heard it will be lower. I feel it worked out ok for me.



[Bild: 06v04-0008.jpg]



Some other samples are at: [url="http://dlridings.se/blog/?p=6"]Some first Fomapan 400 experiences.[/url]



I was pleasantly surprized. With this message I just want to thank Fotoimpex for providing such good services for b/w photographers.



Daniel Ridings

[url="http://dlridings.se/blog"]blog[/url]
  Zitieren
#2
It has been a frustrating week. I have shot most of the Fomapan 400 now and I was a little worried.



Each frame was speckled with what seemed to be some kind of chemical fall-out. I had to clone out literally a hundred small specks on each frame.



At first I thought it was my water. I have been using the set up I have for years and have never run across this. I filter my water but I thought maybe something had happened.



So I bought a few liters of distilled water and worked with it.



Still speckles and here and there something that appeared to be flakes, small flakes.



I started to suspect ATM49, the only other variable in my set-up. I have never used ATM49 before.



I was even getting speckles with the ADOX 400 film, which is supposed to be HP5, a film I use a lot and I've never had this kind of result. It definitely was not as prominent with ADOX 400. The FOMA films were really a chore to clean up. Not so with the ADOX.



So today I shot and developed a roll in HC110. Sure, it's not fine-grain, but the negatives were as clean as a whistle. There is something here that doesn't work well with ATM49. It's a pity, because the results, otherwise, are really nice.



I don't think I'd like to have HC110 as a standard developer for Fomapan 400, though I've printed out a couple and they look just fine. The grain is there, but grain doesn't bother me a whole lot.



I'll probably try D76 and Xtol. I won't use Xtol if it can't be diluted.



Still ... I like this film. I was pleased to see that the speckle problem wasn't inherent in the film but was due to a combination of factors.
  Zitieren
#3
[quote name='dlridings' date='Feb 5 2006, 04:56 PM']...

Each frame was speckled with what seemed to be some kind of chemical fall-out. I had to clone out literally a hundred small specks on each frame.



At first I thought it was my water. I have been using the set up I have for years and have never run across this. I filter my water but I thought maybe something had happened.

...



Still ... I like this film. I was pleased to see that the speckle problem wasn't inherent in the film but was due to a combination of factors.

[right][post="6370"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]



I am starting to wonder if the problem with specks might have something to do with the time in the developer. I forgot to mention that I have been diluting ADX49 at 1:2 and not 1:1. That gives 17 minutes in the developer. HC-110 only required 6 minutes.



Could the amount of time in a developing solution cause this. It looks like hundreds of tiny pieces of dust ... that is, you can actually see them on the negative with a loupe. When you scan them in they really come out. The are so small that it wouldn't surprize me if you didn't even see them on a diffusion enlarger.



Anyway, I am away from home now for over a week, but when I get back, I'll try ADX49 diluted at 1:1. I like the look the developer gives so I really want it to work with Fomapan 400.



All of this might sound like criticism. I just have to say that it is not enough to keep me from using Fomapan. I like the film.
  Zitieren
#4
I don't know if people care or not ... but I'm still impressed by Fomapan, both 200 and 400 (in 35 mm).



I have also been partial to Xtol and there has not been as much documentation for Xtol in its various dilutions.



I do a "Picture a Week" (PAW) and this week has been using Fomapan and Xtol 1:2.



[url="http://dlridings.se/paw/2006/25.html"]Fomapan and Xtol 1:2[/url]



That was for 13 minutes. All in all, I might either go with shorter times (11-12 minutes) or probably a little higher ISO in order to get the negatives I like (a little thinner). This was shot at EI 400.



I made a mistake on the roll and underexposed one frame by 3 stops. The negative is still useful. I will probably end up being one of those who rate it higher rather than lower.



Nice film, no matter how you look at it.



Daniel
  Zitieren
#5
Yes, the latitude is rather high with this film.

But if you are doing some sensiometric tests you can see it's difficult to get the full iso 400 out of this film. You can see this also on the detailed graphics shown on the Foma website:

[url="http://www.foma.cz/Upload/foma/prilohy/F_pan_400_en.pdf"]http://www.foma.cz/Upload/foma/prilohy/F_pan_400_en.pdf[/url]



The grain of this film not not very fine but regular and compared with a simmular film like APX400/Rollei Retro 400 it's about the same maybe in the margin better.



Also a good combination with Fomapan 400 on E.I. 320 is RHS/AM74 1+9 6:30min on 20 degrees C. Certainly with the 120 rollfilm where the grain is less important.



best regards,



Robert
  Zitieren
#6
[quote name='fotohuis rovo' post='7967' date='26-06-06, 19:24 ']Also a good combination with Fomapan 400 on E.I. 320 is RHS/AM74 1+9 6:30min on 20 degrees C. Certainly with the 120 rollfilm where the grain is less important.



Robert[/quote]



Thanks Robert.



Yes, I've always heard that it, technically, doesn't reach up to EI 400, but I guess that depends on how you meter and work. For me 400 works out fine.



But I am not familiar with RHS/AM74. What kind of developer is it.



Best,

Daniel Ridings
  Zitieren
#7
[quote name='dlridings' post='6370' date='05-02-06, 09:56 ']It has been a frustrating week. I have shot most of the Fomapan 400 now and I was a little worried.



I started to suspect ATM49, the only other variable in my set-up. I have never used ATM49 before.



I was even getting speckles with the ADOX 400 film, which is supposed to be HP5, a film I use a lot and I've never had this kind of result. It definitely was not as prominent with ADOX 400. The FOMA films were really a chore to clean up. Not so with the ADOX.



So today I shot and developed a roll in HC110. Sure, it's not fine-grain, but the negatives were as clean as a whistle. There is something here that doesn't work well with ATM49. It's a pity, because the results, otherwise, are really nice.



I don't think I'd like to have HC110 as a standard developer for Fomapan 400, though I've printed out a couple and they look just fine. The grain is there, but grain doesn't bother me a whole lot.



I'll probably try D76 and Xtol. I won't use Xtol if it can't be diluted.



Still ... I like this film. I was pleased to see that the speckle problem wasn't inherent in the film but was due to a combination of factors.[/quote]

[font=Garamond]

Hi there, I'm new to this Forum, and soo glad to find it. I've been thinking about trying the Fomapan 400 also, as a replacement for APX 400. Your results in ATM49 do look very impressive. As with you, I don't think HC-110 would be the way to go with it.



I've tried the Fortepan 200 in HC-110 (1:50 from syrup) and while grain wasn't much of a problem, the tones just weren't there for me. Maybe I should have tried Rodinal or (my standard) Rodinal Special (aka Studional). This developer is just wonderful. Fine grain, and beautiful tones.



What paper are you printing on? I'm down to my last 10 sheets of 16x20 Agfa MCP, and have been testing Foma, and while it certainly doesn't have the inherent contrast, or "bite", there are some nice shadow details which show up better with it.



Here is an example of the Fortepan in HC-110. Camera is Rolleiflex 3.5E Planar 75mm.



Rolleijoe
  Zitieren
#8
[quote name='Rolleijoe' post='7980' date='30-06-06, 16:31 ']What paper are you printing on? I'm down to my last 10 sheets of 16x20 Agfa MCP, and have been testing Foma, and while it certainly doesn't have the inherent contrast, or "bite", there are some nice shadow details which show up better with it.[/quote]



I've just been using Ilford's paper the last few years, since Agfa Portriga Rapid disappeared.



I'm studying what is available here at Fotoimpex to try some new ones, but I haven't gotten that far yet.



Fortepan looks pretty good. One thing is for sure, we don't have to worry a whole lot about Agfa or the other big ones disappearing. There are some good alternatives on the market.



Daniel
  Zitieren
#9
[quote name='dlridings' post='7984' date='01-07-06, 03:34 '][quote name='Rolleijoe' post='7980' date='30-06-06, 16:31 ']

What paper are you printing on? I'm down to my last 10 sheets of 16x20 Agfa MCP, and have been testing Foma, and while it certainly doesn't have the inherent contrast, or "bite", there are some nice shadow details which show up better with it.[/quote]



I've just been using Ilford's paper the last few years, since Agfa Portriga Rapid disappeared.



I'm studying what is available here at Fotoimpex to try some new ones, but I haven't gotten that far yet.



Fortepan looks pretty good. One thing is for sure, we don't have to worry a whole lot about Agfa or the other big ones disappearing. There are some good alternatives on the market.



Daniel

[/quote]





[color="#FF0000"]Thanks Daniel. I've started using Foma Variant paper with good results so far, except as stated above. Hope to do more experimenting (like you) with Fotoimpex. I stopped using all Ilford products years ago. There were several quality control issues with the materials I was receiving, so I went back to Agfa.



I studied you PAW link, and the Fomapan does look quite promising. I must say I prefer the look of the recommended developer 1st, then X-tol 2nd. I noticed you made some shots also with a 3.5E, so those were extremely helpful for me.



I know what you mean about the big boys going under, but I do hope APX comes back as well as the Agfa papers, that would make my life so much easier!
[/color]
  Zitieren
#10
About the AM74 developer:



[url="http://www.amaloco.nl/pdf/am74_nl.pdf"]http://www.amaloco.nl/pdf/am74_nl.pdf[/url]



or French:

[url="http://www.amaloco.nl/pdf/am74_fr.pdf"]http://www.amaloco.nl/pdf/am74_fr.pdf[/url]



Foma 400 in Rodinal I can not recommend due to the very low E.I. you will get for an iso 400 film.

Some more Fomapan 400 tested combinations:

[url="http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/Ontwikkeltijden.pdf"]http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/Ontwikkeltijden.pdf[/url]



Best regards,



Robert
  Zitieren


Gehe zu:


Benutzer, die gerade dieses Thema anschauen: 1 Gast/Gäste