Weird fomapan 200 frames.

[thronobulax]

Hey peeps,

I did a test roll of fomapan 200 to see what the latitude of the film is. It was under very controlled conditions, strobes.

I rated the film from EI25-EI800. Development was great no issues there. What I found on all frames is salt and pepper like spots. It’s all over, like a layer above the image. Under a light box I noticed them. I scanned the very first one and was amazed that it’s all over the place. It affects you finding the black and white point and editing the frame.

My question is, has anyone experienced this before and is this also something that happens on fomapan 200 sheet film? I bought a box of fomapan 200 but wanted to test on roll film with my roll back instead of burning through sheets.

Here is a cropped section of the image. The salt and salt dots is on all frames no matter how I metered.View attachment 5051View attachment 5052

Fomapan 200 in 120 rollfilm has had known problem with emulsion flaking off the negative. When I contacted Foma, they explained it's because the emulsion is a hybrid of cubic and t-grain and sometimes this causes the small bits to fall off. They said they were "working on the problem" but that was well over a year ago. I had a whole brick of the stuff that was bad and Foma made good on it.

The problem expressed itself even though I used water stop bath.

HOWEVER, if that were the case, I'd expect to see black spots in the positive, not white ones, so I am at a loss to explain this.

N.B. I have not seen this problem with 5x4 or 35mm F200.

 

[Kevin Allan]

Well I've just bought some 4x5 Fomapan 200 and the same in Fomapan 400 from Process Supplies so I'll find out soon if I have similar problems. Delivery was superquick as I purchased quite late yesterday afternoon and received the parcel this morning.

 

[thronobulax]

Well I've just bought some 4x5 Fomapan 200 and the same in Fomapan 400 from Process Supplies so I'll find out soon if I have similar problems. Delivery was superquick as I purchased quite late yesterday afternoon and received the parcel this morning.

Do report back what you find. I would expect you'll find the sheet film to be quite reliable.

 

[Soulstar89]

Fomapan 200 in 120 rollfilm has had known problem with emulsion flaking off the negative. When I contacted Foma, they explained it's because the emulsion is a hybrid of cubic and t-grain and sometimes this causes the small bits to fall off. They said they were "working on the problem" but that was well over a year ago. I had a whole brick of the stuff that was bad and Foma made good on it.

The problem expressed itself even though I used water stop bath.

HOWEVER, if that were the case, I'd expect to see black spots in the positive, not white ones, so I am at a loss to explain this.

N.B. I have not seen this problem with 5x4 or 35mm F200.

Thanks for this response. I’ve been on the busy side so not able to shoot my own stuff. I must force myself to shoot the sheet film this week end. I will report back once I’ve developed.

 

[Soulstar89]

Apologies for delay. So yesterday I shot 4 sheets of foma 200 and had zero spots on the film at all.

I developed in id11 1+2 for 11.5mins. Film is to my eyes and grey card a 100 Asa in this developer. At EI160 the neg was thin.

 

[thronobulax]

Apologies for delay. So yesterday I shot 4 sheets of foma 200 and had zero spots on the film at all.

I developed in id11 1+2 for 11.5mins. Film is to my eyes and grey card a 100 Asa in this developer. At EI160 the neg was thin.

That sounds right. With conventional agitation and times, assuming your meter, shutter, and thermometers are about right, the EI should be about 1/2 box speed.

 

[Dave_P]

Its worth noting that on the Foma datasheet they only show curves plotted that get anywhere close to the claimed film speed are for development in Microphen, and even there’s a bit of creative ‘rounding up’ going on to say the emulsions are iso 100, 200, 400 etc. So yes, they are totally cheating on the film speed there.

 

[Soulstar89]

That sounds right. With conventional agitation and times, assuming your meter, shutter, and thermometers are about right, the EI should be about 1/2 box speed.

Yes I used my sekonic l558. Shutter at 1/500th (very snappy). Pre wash, developer, distilled water for stop bath and fixer. All was 20c.

Sorry I didn’t state this.

 

[thronobulax]

Yes I used my sekonic l558. Shutter at 1/500th (very snappy). Pre wash, developer, distilled water for stop bath and fixer. All was 20c.

Sorry I didn’t state this.

I should probably clarify something. Your "personal" EI is determined both by the film/dev/process you use AND how you visualize and place shadows. The usual Zone System prescription of Zone I being 0.1 DU over FB+F is only a starting point. You may have your own ideas about just how much deep shadow should actually be rendered that might take you away from this nominal standard. Also, the shape of the film curve will influence this. Although I do not shoot much Tmax, I am told by those that do that their Zone III placement is different with that film than it is with, say, Tri-X.

The larger point is that your initial EI calibration should be understood to be a point of departure from which you will vary to achieve your sense of image and aesthetic.

P.S. I say this having done way too much denistometer testing. Once I understood this was just to get me in the general range, and that every single film/dev combo I tried was more-or-less close to an EI 1/2 that of box speed, I stopped testing and just took pictures. Modern films have enough latitude that they can absorb 1/2 stop over- or under exposure and still give good images (though not optimal ones).

 

[Ian Grant]

Its worth noting that on the Foma datasheet they only show curves plotted that get anywhere close to the claimed film speed are for development in Microphen, and even there’s a bit of creative ‘rounding up’ going on to say the emulsions are iso 100, 200, 400 etc. So yes, they are totally cheating on the film speed there.

Just before Kodak released Tmax films they had the ASA component of the ISO speed standard altered. This allowed them to use a developer and methodology of their own choice. Tmax films failed to achieve box speed in the older ASA tests. Ron Mowrey (PE) stated on another Forum ( a few years ago) that Kodak's in-house developer was Ascorbic based. This also predates Xtol, a Swedish company had a US Patent for Ascorbic developers and Xtol was released after this expired.

This ASA/ISO change allows Foma to test in Microphen.

The opposite was EFKE, they probably used the DIN component of the ISO standard for their testing. They used the Tungsten ISO speed for their film names, and also listed the Daylight ISO.

It's important to do some basic speed tests with any film not used before, to determine the best effective EI & development time.

Ian

 

[David M]

Yes indeed. Ansel himself describes (The Negative) 0.1 over fb+f merely as “useful” for translating information into the system used to create characteristic curves. His own emphasis is on practical testing.
The box speeds given by manufacturers are not the result of malice or incompetence; they are derived by using a standard procedure, so that they are all comparable.
A Personal Exposure Index is exactly what it says. It takes into account all the conditions that the image encounters on its journey to the print. So, it may well include, for instance, the exact state of your meter, your own idea of what each zone looks like in the real world, perhaps how often you clean your spectacles or your enlarging lens. The heating in your darkroom and the warmth of your hands might be important. …and so on.
Compare this with boiling an egg. I myself put the egg into boiling water, switch off the heat and wait for six minutes, during which I make my soldiers. Your pan may be bigger, you may store your eggs at a different temperature and you will almost certainly prefer a different degree of runniness. But my own Personal Boiling Index is six, using my Full Zero Agitation System, based on extensive testing.

 

[thronobulax]

Yes indeed. Ansel himself describes (The Negative) 0.1 over fb+f merely as “useful” for translating information into the system used to create characteristic curves. His own emphasis is on practical testing.
The box speeds given by manufacturers are not the result of malice or incompetence; they are derived by using a standard procedure, so that they are all comparable.
A Personal Exposure Index is exactly what it says. It takes into account all the conditions that the image encounters on its journey to the print. So, it may well include, for instance, the exact state of your meter, your own idea of what each zone looks like in the real world, perhaps how often you clean your spectacles or your enlarging lens. The heating in your darkroom and the warmth of your hands might be important. …and so on.
Compare this with boiling an egg. I myself put the egg into boiling water, switch off the heat and wait for six minutes, during which I make my soldiers. Your pan may be bigger, you may store your eggs at a different temperature and you will almost certainly prefer a different degree of runniness. But my own Personal Boiling Index is six, using my Full Zero Agitation System, based on extensive testing.

Can I come over for breakfast?