What works for me: Fomapan 400 in Rodinal
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มิ.ย. 2024
- My images shot with Fomapan 400 may be found here: www.flickr.com/photos/1114285...
See all my content ad-free at my back-up account on the Odysee platform:
odysee.com/$/invite/@briansph...
If you found this video worthwhile, please check out "Nikon Film Cameras, Which one is right for you?", an e-book on Amazon by yours truly. It's three dollars worth of knowledge, guaranteed.
www.amazon.com/Nikon-Film-Cam...
Awesome classic analog merch available here:
www.redbubble.com/people/stil...
#fomapan #film #35mm
I fell into Fomapan by way of Arista Edu from Freestyle photo (it's actually Fomapan). I have had a lot of success stand developing it 1:100 for 1 hour with a few inversions at 30 minutes!!! I actually really love Fomapan 200 as my go to film for testing new cameras!!! I do use the Adox Rodinal and after a year i am almost ready to buy another bottle ... I do a few rolls a week!!!
Good stuff. Thanks.
I’m getting nice results in Adox FX-39, another acutance developer, but known to give film speed. Even so I rate it at ISO 320, and dilute 1+9 for 14.5 minutes. I think this is a good starting point. I’m using sheet film, so the emulsion may be slightly different for 35mm and 120. Well worth a try.
After considering the data sheets of the fomapan emulsions I figured it out. While 200 seems to be rather accurate, especially the 400 is slower. The curves there show it to be not much faster then 250. Provided that you develop at 20* Celsius. You can reach 400 with developing at 30* Celsius.
I scanned in my first role of 400 and it was amazing. Looked nice and film-like. More then HP5 for example. It’s definitely the emulsion I will try out more going forward.
So you expose them EI200 ?
i found myself using Fomapan 120 400 only with Holga camera and developing them semi-stand in Rodinal. somehow love the results i get from time to time. thank you for the info
I usually shoot it a 1600 and stand dev 1 to 100 for 60 mins gives me great results. I love the loss of detail in the shadows. I find box speed to be about 600asa for me.
Even the datasheet from FOMA BOHEMIA spol. s r.o. indicates that the ISO is somewhere between 200 and 250, if you aim for a gamma of 0.6 in various developers.
I am just shooting my first roll @ ISO 200 and plan to develop it in Amaloco AM74, just because I have an open bottle of that. I am very curious.
I also have an open bottle of Rodinal and will give it a try as well.
Thanks for your interesting video!
By the way I love the retro design of the 120 roll film box.
I shot my first roll of Fomapan 400 recently. After the first three frames I realized I had forgot to change the ISO (it was set at 100). I could have shot the whole roll at 100 but those first shots weren't important so I just reset to 400 and continued shooting.
When I developed the roll I was expecting to see those first 3 shots overexposed but the before/after negs look the same?
They were developed at the recommended time for the film on The massive Dev Chart using Ilford Ilfosol 3.
I'm not long back developing film so I'm not sure what that says exactly but I would've thought I would see a two stop difference between one frame and the next?
Rodinal was originally an Orwo product, but when the allies plundered (or what'cha wanna call it) the city of Wolfen they took the recipe and released it - kinda blessing and a curse for the product at the same time
ORWO (meaning "Original Wolfen") was the rebranding of the original Agfa factory located in Wolfen, former East Germany. This renaming was needed so their products can be marketed in the West (as AGFA Leverkusen held to the patents and naming rights). Currently ADOX holds the patent and naming rights for Rodinal after the bankruptcy of Agfa Leverkusen. So Brian was right that it was made by AGFA, but by the AGFA factory in Wolfen (or Bitterfeld-Wolfen, as both towns were merged in 2007 after a local government reform in the state of Saxony-Anhalt that year).
It's like the Zeiss debacle between Zeiss Oberkochen (the Western Zeiss) and Carl Zeiss Jena (the Eastern Zeiss, which is actually the original birthplace of the company).
Thanks for sharing. I actually agree on the Foma 400 film. I have come to only use Foma 100 which I prefer over the 400 speed.
Yes, I believe Fomapan 100 is by far the best of all of Foma's emulsions.
I agree. I shoot Fomapan 100 at 50 and develop in Rodinal...works well for me, i like it. Bulk loading this film is very cheap!
Yes, Fomapan 400 is really 200. I use D76 or HC110 and develop about 10 to 15% less than the times given for 400. In fact, it even works well at ISO 100, with even less development in bright sunlight.
Reduces the grain and contrast, and gives better shadows.
In ancient times, I used to develop it in Diafine, but can't remember at what speed.
Cool. Very useful. Thanks.
What's with the 1:49? That would be the same as 1+48.
Don't you mean 1:50 which is the same as 1+49?
Great video, thanks. My results with Foma 400 and Rodinal have been really disappointing so far.. very thin negs. :( I'll try rating it at 200 and have another go :)
That does not surprise me. Definitely rate your next roll at EI 200, and maybe even bump your developing time by ten percent.
All Foma films including the 200 have a true iso spedd 1/2 of the printed on the box. For Fomapan 100 and 200, if one used a compensating developer you could rate them @ iso 64 and 125 respectively, and for XTol 1+1 about 1/32of a stop down from the stated speed. They are also all quite insensitive ot blue light, therefore shadow detail is at a premium if exposure and development is not kept in check.
I like this film a lot and not just cos it's cheap. I use it in ID11 stock or 1+1 and it gives me a grainy photo reportage look reminiscent of news articles of the 70's shot on the old tri-x which is pretty much what I am after. One slight oddity I find is that it tends to print better than it scans where's HP5 for example is almost like it's made to scan.
That's interesting. I've never made a darkroom print from Fomapan 400. Good to know, thanks.
Hi! Do you shoot it at 400? Also, what's your development time in ID11 1+1? Thanks!
@@rrrrrrr303 I use ID-11 (equivalent to as Kodak D76) if you check Foma's datasheet it gives you some very useful info and you will see in that developer it barely hits iso 250 at 9 minutes. I used to shoot it at 400 when I started and develop longer now I shoot it at 200 and develop somewhere around 8 mins. I always write stuff down then it goes missing or forget lol Also depends on the shooting conditions at the time... Re cost, it's almost in line with Ilford films now here albeit I still like it :/
I should of mentioned stock mostly..
I have had good results with Fomapan 400 at box speed developed in Kodak HC-110 dilution B. I have also had good results with Rodinal, I definitely embrace the grain when using this method.
Everyone who uses HC-110 seems to swear by it enthusiastically. I've never tried it myself.
@@BriansPhotoShow It's worth it, Brian. Long shelf life and reusability makes it a very economical all rounder.
hi Brian
i've been shooting Tri-x at 250-320 and developing in Rodinal exclusively for the last year with good results.
As you said, not good for pushing, but at 250-320 it's good. I guess Fomapan will work in a similar manner. you can also try developing at 10C for 25min.
I haven't shot Tri-X in years. Is there anything Tri-X can do that HP5 can't?
@@BriansPhotoShow i can't answer that as I've never shot HP5. But I've seen very nice work from HP5 developed in Rodinal. personally i've had good results with Tri-x, also at 250 (same as yourself with fomapan)
I recommend Foma Retro Special Developer with Fomapan 100, 200 and 400 when shooting at box speed.
I haven't tried that. That's the stuff that was developed specifically for Retropan 320, now discontinued, correct?
@@BriansPhotoShow I am not sure if the 320 is discontinued; I live in Korea and the Foma distributor here still sells it. I have only shot 320 once and did not develop in this developer. I shoot bulk loaded Fomapan 100, 200 & 400 film and they don’t sell bulk rolls of 320.
i'm a big fan of it in xtol-r pulled 250/EI320. R09 is just too grainy for me even in 120.
Apparently Adox's Rodinal is not the same as R09's formulation and is the same as Agfa's. It's supposed to be more fine-grained but I can't verify the claim. It's been a long time since I last used Agfa Rodinal
I didn't realize that there was any difference between R09 and Adox Rodinal.
@@BriansPhotoShow me neither but I stumbled across a thread on photrio and then adoxs website . I think it came from adox's acquisition of Agfa equipment and personnel
As a budget option I get decent results (for me) with EI:320-ISO in Kodak HC110 dilution H for 12 mins at 20°C. Also, EI:200/250-ISO in ID11 1+1 is okay and Perceptol 1+3 at 250-320 for 22 mins s at 20°C. Twitter: @0neeye0pen1
Curious, being newer to film and not really well developed in pushing and pulling - when you say shoot this at 200 instead of box, are you still developing as if you shot box or are you adjusting the dev time to match the 200 iso.? Tks
I suggest shooting your first roll at EI 200 and using developing times for box speed. Then adjust according to your results.
@@BriansPhotoShow perfect thanks so much
Have you ever tried Caffenol?
I am looking for an objective grain comparison between Caffenol and Rodinal (as Rodinal is generally grainy and could be comparable) but I either find people who only religiously develop in Caffenol and don't do anything else or people who use traditional developers and heard about caffenol but don't do any research and butcher the recipe, leading to poor results.
I've never tried to develop film in beer or coffee. It just seems a bit trendy to me, but perhaps I'm giving it short shrift. What are the advantages of caffenol? Is there a good online resource for preparation?
@@BriansPhotoShow
Yeah, I agree it can be hipster-attracting. I think the main advantages are that the ingredients are readily available at local stores (with the exception of potassium bromide which is needed for faster films >200 ASA), they are also environmentally friendly and non-toxic/irritating to humans (no metol or phenidone or hydroquinone). Pricewise it can be cheaper than most developers over time (though I doubt cheaper than rodinal). Moreover it produces results similar or equivalent to "commercial developers", which are usually not specified, and this is where I am stumped.
Probably this is the best online resource is the "official" cookbook:
www.caffenol-cookbook.com/The%20Caffenol%20Cookbook%20&%20Bible%20-%20Recipes%20and%20Tutorials.pdf
From this site:
caffenol-cookbook.com
Also this blog, from one of the guys that developed the most up to date versions. (but this one needs more reading, the pdf above should get you covered)
caffenol.blogspot.com/
To push 3 stops, I use Microphen or Xr1-a Developers
I've been using Microphen for years but I'm not familiar with XR1-a.
Fomapan 400 is the worst film I ever used. Nowhere near the rated ISO. It was very sensitive to developer temperature. Negatives were either too thin or too dense. Scratches way too easily. I have just switched to Kentmere 400 and look forward to using a dependable film.
The Massive Dev Chart recommand dilution at 1+50, not at 1+49. It's not the same no ?
When calculating quantity for a given dilution, I find it easier to divide by 50 than 51.
show examples!
The link to my flickr album with relevant images is in the description below.
It's high dilution
If you had of cut the commentary down and show some results would of been better and more informative.