Fomatol/Fomadon lqn paper developer. misclick at ordering.
Hi there guys,
First of all let me start with saying i have recently started working with analog film. So far my main experience has been in shooting with a digital canon slr.
As a bridge in between for a while i have been using film camera's after which digitizing the negs. However i feel it is time for me to start working with real paper.
So last night i made an order at fotoimpex.de. I ordered some fomatone paper, and fomadon lqn developer. So this morning i had another peek at the data sheet given out by Foma. And it was not until then that i found out there is a developer called Fomatol lqn and fomadon lqn. Ofcourse i placed an order for the wrong type, that being fomadon.
As far as i can tell, they both are phenidone/hydroquinone developers. Now to get to the real question. Is it a no go to use this fomadon developer for my fomatone paper?
I just received word that my order has been shipped, so correcting this issue is no longer possible. And il therefore have to work with what i got:S
One way or another, thanks in advance for thinking with me.
Welcome to APUG .
Never used Foma developers, but I did used many paper developers with Foma papers, and also film developers like Rodinal and D76 (for playing and testing). They all worked fine.
My guess is that this developer you have will work just fine.
Alright. Thanks. I do got some rodinal. So that shouldnt be a problem for that matter. I also ordered some Xtol. So in that case im sure i can come up with something usable. And besides, perhaps the dilutions with the fomadon lqn will be somewhat different. I supose il have to run some tests on smaller pieces of paper first. Once i have tried the fomadon lqn with the paper, il report back how it worked. As im sure there will be others with a similar question.
Also let me note that so far i mainly have been using Rodinal. A great developer if you ask me. I was quite astonished when i first saw the excellent sharpness and adorable grain. However after switching from fomapan to ilford hp5+ i find that developing in rodinal gives some issues with hp5. The negs seem to lack detail in the highlights. From what i understand Xtol should yield better results with this film. And hell, in time i might even try the more daring approach of combining the 2 developers.
Once again thanks.
I use Rodinal as well for 95% of my work. With HP5+ I use HC110. But Xtol is awesome developer (look on http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...?pq-path=14053 ).
Most important --> have fun, and don't hesitate to ask whatever here on APUG
Yeap. Well you hear very mixed messages about Rodinal on the interwebs. Some people love it, some people hate it. So far my conclusion is that it has its uses. In my opinion, not with hp5+. The results as said with fomapan are great. http://www.flickr.com/photos/rowanbl...7640328043305/ Here's a link to my first results with rodinal and fomapan.
What i find sort of suprising is the results you get with cheap c41 color film. http://www.flickr.com/photos/rowanbl...7641182513234/. some examples there. I used the cheapest film i could get. Agfa vista 200/400. Very nice and contrasty results. However the grain was a bit sharper with this film. Main issue i found is the dreadful base the film is produced on. Its very thick and brown. Making "scanning" the negs with my dslr a hell. When making it positive it leaves you with a very bright blueish result.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
If the highlights are more dense than the scanners DMax you won't see any details in them...
Originally Posted by RowanBloemhof
People who do hybrid film/scanning need to avoid dense negatives.
In the past there were two development times one for condenser enlargement one for ground glass/opal lamp so that one printed on normal paper grade 2 in either case.
Now there needs to be three times.
HP5 should have highlight details it is a long scale film, if you want less dense highlights you need to reduce development time or dilute more.
If you need repeatability you need to control the whole process, mixing developers won't necessarily help.
Hmm good one. But in this instance i wasnt so much talking about density. but more in terms of detail. The shadows and midtones contain rather much detail. But the highlights seem to lack this. Take this foto for instance. The detail in the darker parts of the image are very articulated. All the leaves and stuff can be seen fine. But the same thing can't be said for the highlights.
Now i am fully aware that i cant expect all parts of the image to be perfectly exposed. But even when chosing a shorter exposure time, details like clouds etc seem to vanish under the grain. And tend to become a greyish plaque. Where as with foma the clouds are very articulated and detailed. click example.
Sorry if i use the wrong jargon here and there. But i hope my explanation is clearer now.
note: so far my work has been all arround digitized negatives by using an enlarger w/o lens and a dslr hooked up to it. The noted issues could have to do with this. But i reckon i would have had the same issue with the foma film in that case.
Last edited by RowanBloemhof; Yesterday at 07:50 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Rowan, which filter(s) are you using? Do you have yellow filter on the lens?
@darko, Nope. Cant say i have been using filters so far. Just an uv filter as guard for my lens. But nothing besides that.
I btw utilize a Canon Eos 300 with an 18-50 sigma lens. The lens is officially made for cropfactor camera's. But the only issue that gives is some nasty vignette at 18mm. This as it has no protruding elements on the mount side. But its a cheap mans solution for wide angle photography.
I do however have some yellow and red filters for the 50mm. But those dont fit on the sigma lens as it has a diameter of like 67mm:S