When to apply corrections

Martin - It does seem that there are many ways of working this and as suggested only by actually taking images and plenty of notes can you see what works for your own way of working.

Keith - I have looked at a number of dealers sites both here and abroad including Foma’s own website and you are right nowhere on any of the boxes is the designation Classic, Creative or Action. I do think that your times would be more useful so I will print out the table you have linked and try that next time I buy and use Foma film. The times in the iPhone app for Classic also seem to be nearer to what I think would have worked so I will try those next time.
 
Well I never.........:eek:

I was emptying a rarely used camera bag last night and guess what fell out?

Fomapan.jpg

I was starting to think that the whole 'Classic', Creative, 'Action' film designation was a rabbit hole invented by Foma to keep idle photogs occupied but this film belies that. The expiry date is 2019 so I guess it was manufactured around 2015 'ish.

Oops! I just realised that I cut the end off the box - it is a roll of 120 film not a 5x4 box, sorry.
 
Last edited:
Hi Keith, after I posted last night I did a more general search and found the same as you. 35mm and 120 packs do have the designation on but I was only looking at 4 x 5 sheet packs and those don‘t, so that now raises the question is roll film Fomapan 100 the Classic and the sheet film just Fomapan 100 and if so why? You would think that they would coat all the sizes with the same emulsion. The plot thickens as they say.
 
On their website Foma say they do 100 Classic in 35mm, 120 and sheet film, and they say they do 200 Creative in 35mm, 120 and sheet film. These names are printed on the 35mm and 120 boxes, but for some reason not on sheet film boxes.....Confusing perhaps, but I am confident that Foma 100 sheet film is the same film as 35mm and 120 100 Classic. Regarding their 400 speed film, they call this Action on 35mm and 120 boxes, but miss the name off sheet film boxes. I have used a lot of Foma 400 in 35mm, 120, 5x4 and 5x7, and it definitely is the same stuff in all formats. Foma 400 film has real character, and gives a unique look that is easy to spot.

Alan
 
As we know, reciprocity affects the darks much more than the highlights.
I wonder if Box Speed is determined from examining the toe and the reciprocity-corrected times are what will give an “acceptable” print. Hence the differing figures. I don’t think I can define “acceptable“ any further.
 
Last edited:
I accidentally read the instruction sheet inside my box of 5x4 Foma 200. The box doesn’t say “Creative”, but the instructions do.
 
Thanks David. Possibly they use the same sheet for all the film sizes which would seem sensible. That way as they print the name on roll film boxes it would be on the instructions as well. I have been looking but not found yet my instruction sheets from my boxes of Fomapan 100.
 
I must have been lucky. Foma packaging is a bit erratic. Some films are packed in their bags with the notch "out" and some the other way round. And I really wish they'd adopt the triple-boxing that everybody else uses.
 
Film manufacturers whose documentation I've read on reciprocity have universally recommended reducing development when you must apply reciprocity correction. This is because, as noted by someone up the thread, adding time to bring up the shadows can overexpose the midtones and more so the highlights. Essentially, the film records the scene at enhanced contrast when you have to start applying correction for reciprocity "failure".

What I recall from Kodak's reciprocity documents is to reduce development by 10% for each increment up their reciprocity correction chart -- so if you're having to double your time, you'd cut your development by 10% (and compensate the exposure for the half stop loss in speed that produces), and so forth.

Like many film manufacturer's recommendations, this pretty rapidly turns into "you can't make that image in these conditions" and you have to go out on your own, make the best guess you can on exposure, and develop the best way you know how. Obviously, anything you can do in development that will improve the film's real speed will help here; developing with a speed-gaining developer, for instance (Xtol, perhaps, as opposed to something like D-23 or Rodinal), or reducing agitation and increasing time to restore normal contrast (which obviously requires having practiced and tested this technique) -- but in the end, there's generally no more than a full stop of that kind of help available, and maybe less than that for some films.

For whatever it's worth, I've seen little contrast increase in pinhole images -- in fact, they often look a little flat, perhaps due to bellow flare (the pinhole has a far wider acceptance angle than most lenses). For long exposures with a lens, however, you might well find yourself printing with a #0 contrast filter if you had to expose for minutes instead of seconds...
 
Donald Qualls said:
Film manufacturers whose documentation I've read on reciprocity have universally recommended reducing development when you must apply reciprocity correction. This is because, as noted by someone up the thread, adding time to bring up the shadows can overexpose the midtones and more so the highlights. Essentially, the film records the scene at enhanced contrast when you have to start applying correction for reciprocity "failure".

What I recall from Kodak's reciprocity documents is to reduce development by 10% for each increment up their reciprocity correction chart -- so if you're having to double your time, you'd cut your development by 10% (and compensate the exposure for the half stop loss in speed that produces), and so forth.

Like many film manufacturer's recommendations, this pretty rapidly turns into "you can't make that image in these conditions" and you have to go out on your own, make the best guess you can on exposure, and develop the best way you know how. Obviously, anything you can do in development that will improve the film's real speed will help here; developing with a speed-gaining developer, for instance (Xtol, perhaps, as opposed to something like D-23 or Rodinal), or reducing agitation and increasing time to restore normal contrast (which obviously requires having practiced and tested this technique) -- but in the end, there's generally no more than a full stop of that kind of help available, and maybe less than that for some films.

For whatever it's worth, I've seen little contrast increase in pinhole images -- in fact, they often look a little flat, perhaps due to bellow flare (the pinhole has a far wider acceptance angle than most lenses). For long exposures with a lens, however, you might well find yourself printing with a #0 contrast filter if you had to expose for minutes instead of seconds...
Click to expand...


Of late, I've been experimenting with ways to best hold mid-tone local contrast while also holding back the highlights in large SBR subject environments. It turns out that these techniques also serve to control things when having to compensate for reciprocity.

In the thread below, I had both a very large SBR AND I had to compensate for reciprocity heavily. The D-23 negative indicated 8 seconds and I exposed for 30. The EMA Pyrocat-HD negative indicated 4 seconds and I exposed for 8 seconds. In both cases, I was optimizing for mid-tone and pulling in the highlights at the same time with the choice of developer and agitation technique.

I guess what I am saying is that it is indeed possible to manage the reciprocity-highlight tail chasing you mention. Images in this thread here:

High SBR Subjects: Pyrocat-HD EMA vs. D-23 1:1

This was a subject with deep shadows on III and highlights on X. Scan of Agfapan APX100 processed as follows: D-23 1:1 - APX 100 ASA 50 - 1 min prewash, initial 30 sec agitation, 5 sec agitation every 30 sec thereafter. 7 1/2 min total time @68F Pyrocat-HD: APX 100 ASA 100 - 1.5:1:150 - 3...
www.5x4.co.uk www.5x4.co.uk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top