Question For FomaPan 200 Users

I

Ian-Barber

Admin
Registered User
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
1,713
I am trying to reverse engineer this process for small tank development instead of Jobo expert drum constant agitation.

FomaPan 200 4x5 exposed at 800 ISO and developed for 30 minutes at 20 degrees C using Jobo expert drum constant agitation
Click to expand...

To use the above in a small tank development scenario whereby you might agitate for the first 30 seconds and then 4 agitations every minute, by how much would you need to reduce the development time by.

I seem to recall that a reduction of about 30% from constant agitation to intermediate agitation is required.

Does this seem about right ?
 
I think it's the other way round.....
But I think an increase of about 15% would be more in order.
Alan
 
15% extra sounds like a good starting point. Final decision might depend partly on subject matter and partly printing style, of course.
Why not use Foma 400 and less extreme processing?
 
15% is where I shall start and go from there. Foma 400 is an option but as I have Foma 200, I shall see whether I like the results.
 
Fomapan 200 at 800 ISO ? many use it at 80 EI, I get excellent results at 100 EI, I only use inversion tanks Paterson or Jobo 2000 series,

Ian
 
Yes, remarkable indeed.
There might be a few parts of the leather jacket that have no detail but otherwise it looks fine.
Very interesting. Presumably it wasn't intentional?
 
David M said:
Yes, remarkable indeed.
There might be a few parts of the leather jacket that have no detail but otherwise it looks fine.
Very interesting. Presumably it wasn't intentional?
Click to expand...

yes it was intentional, that's the only combination he uses, FomaPan 200 exposed at ISO 800 and developed in HC110
 
David Kachel has a rather lengthy dissertation on how film works here:

http://davidkachel.com/wpNewDK/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/HowFilmWorks.pdf

In this monograph, as I recall, he makes the argument that you cannot actually increase film speed a lot with extra development, and probably not a full 2 stops as suggested here.

With that in mind, I'd love to know what the denisometric results would be for Foma 200 exposed at 800. Is this film particularly susceptible to overdevelopment driving higher effective ASA ? OR, is the "ASA 800" figure an artefact of shutters, lightmeters, or thermometers out of calibration?

In looking at he image above, there is a very fine degree of tonal rendering, shadow detail, and low apparent grain that is not at all characteristic of pushed film ... which is why I am skeptical (but will to be convinced otherwise). Of course, digital post processing can be used to hide and fix a multitude of sins, so the only real test of "is it really ASA 800) would be to reproduce the experiment with different known good shutters, lightmeters, et al..

As it happens, I have some unopened Foma 200 in my freezer so, if you find workable dev times and dilutions for non-rotary processing, please do share, as I'd like to attempt to replicate the work here.
 
Last edited:
As it happens, I have some unopened Foma 200 in my freezer so, if you find workable dev times and dilutions for non-rotary processing, please do share, as I'd like to attempt to replicate the work here.
Click to expand...

What developer would you be using
 
Ian-Barber said:
What developer would you be using
Click to expand...

I have all the usual options here: HC-110, D-23, Pyrocat-HD ...

P.S. I forgot to note that a slow shutter - quite common with mechanical shutters - will give overexposure at a given ASA thereby making the apparent ASA higher than it really is.
 
I have all the usual options here: HC-110, D-23, Pyrocat-HD ...
Click to expand...

For HC-110, he used 1+47 for the dilution at 20 degrees
Others have mentioned adding 15% onto his time because he used continuous agitation.

So... if you wanted to test it, I would do...
HC-110 1+47
34.5 minutes at 20 degrees

which should closely match his.
 
Ian-Barber said:
For HC-110, he used 1+47 for the dilution at 20 degrees
Others have mentioned adding 15% onto his time because he used continuous agitation.

So... if you wanted to test it, I would do...
HC-110 1+47
34.5 minutes at 20 degrees

which should closely match his.
Click to expand...
Old thread but I’m intrigued to know what happened. The misses shot a roll of foma 200 on the m6 and forgot that she set the meter to 400. Can’t find much useful information.

I shoot foma 200 on large format @ EI 100 in id11 1+2 for 10 mins. It’s genuinely amazing (especially for portraits) but as it’s a developing day today the id11 is finished and we only have hc110 and rodinal left.
 
Soulstar89 said:
Old thread but I’m intrigued to know what happened. The misses shot a roll of foma 200 on the m6 and forgot that she set the meter to 400. Can’t find much useful information.

I shoot foma 200 on large format @ EI 100 in id11 1+2 for 10 mins. It’s genuinely amazing (especially for portraits) but as it’s a developing day today the id11 is finished and we only have hc110 and rodinal left.
Click to expand...
Have you tried looking up a dev time on the massive dev chart for Fomapan 200 pushed 1 stop? It might at least give you a starting point.
 
Nas said:
Have you tried looking up a dev time on the massive dev chart for Fomapan 200 pushed 1 stop? It might at least give you a starting point.
Click to expand...
Hey Nas,

Yes I did. For hc110 1+63 it’s giving 18mins. Normally you add 15-20% when pushing but I know that foma 200 is actually 100 from my testing. 800 was my thinking as I’m rating the film 1 stop brighter than what I develop but I think it’s just going to be very contrasty

Ian went for 34mins rating it ei800. Thinking of it I could reduce time by 20% for 400.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nas
Is it possible that the time should be reduced by 15% because of continuous agitation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top