Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,496   Posts: 1,543,030   Online: 869
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hertfordshire
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by srs5694
    My subjective impression is that Fomapan 400 is slightly less grainy (in terms of grain size) than Tri-X, but the Fomapan grain tends to be more distinct (as in sharply-defined grains). I don't have any quantitative measures on this, though; it's just from me "eyballing" prints and scans.
    Interesting point, about the grain size I mean. I used Orwo years ago, some said it was I****D under a different badge yet the grain looked wrong, sort of lumpy? Then again, maybe my developing skills were real crap back then compared to being just crap today! Still; forty years of pure enjoyment can’t be bad.
    No problemo Jon, I make the same mistake with whisky and tea; can’t remember now which one makes my eyes go blurry…think it’s the tea!
    Hi Mike. What dev time/agitation do you give it in D76. Is it as sharp a Tri x? The guy who gave me the film said it was “Creamy sharp” “Great for portraits.” Hope so, took a portrait of the wife….need all the help I can get!
    Hi Mac; yeah I’m looking to try HC110 with Neopan 400, normally use ID 11 or Rodinal but that seems to be getting a little thin on the ground of late, I wonder why? I don’t think we get the real (HC110) thing over here, think it’s a watered down version (Pepsi anyone) which is a real pity, guess I’ll have to order some from across the pond before Kodak pulls the plug!. Is the curl that intrusive?

    Thanks guys; for the info and your time.

    B.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Woonsocket, RI USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,725
    Quote Originally Posted by shadesofgrey
    Is the curl that intrusive?
    I've not noticed particularly objectionable curl from Fomapan 400 in 35mm. I normally dry it by taking it off the spool, hanging it from a hangar with a clip on it, and putting a clip (similar to a clothespin, but it came with a kit of developing hardware) on the bottom of the long strip as a weight. I then let it dry for at least two hours. Perhaps the curl would be worse with some other drying regimen, or in another format.

  3. #13
    Mike-D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by shadesofgrey
    Hi Mike. What dev time/agitation do you give it in D76. Is it as sharp a Tri x? The guy who gave me the film said it was “Creamy sharp” “Great for portraits.” Hope so, took a portrait of the wife….need all the help I can get!
    It seems that I was using 5.5 minutes at 75f in straight D-76. Probably 8 minutes at 68f, 20c. My usual agitation is ten seconds/minute, but for short development times I agitate every thirty seconds. I tried a few other developers but they were mostly M/Q variants that I mixed up myself and none were much improvement over D-76.

    Quote Originally Posted by srs5694
    My subjective impression is that Fomapan 400 is slightly less grainy (in terms of grain size) than Tri-X, but the Fomapan grain tends to be more distinct (as in sharply-defined grains). I don't have any quantitative measures on this, though; it's just from me "eyballing" prints and scans.
    I can't quite disagree with this. I never did get the Foma to be as smooth as the Tri-X.

    Mike D

  4. #14
    eagleowl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    127
    I like Foma 400.
    When I first got my c33,I bought a pack of tri-x and a few rolls Foma,to see which I preferred.
    There was just something about the tri-x which didn't appeal to me-but then,I simply don't like ANY Kodak film.
    I develop the Foma in Fomadon(basically Calbe under a different name)R09,and the grain looks fine to me.
    A common mistake people made when designing something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

    Computers are incredibly stupid,but they are capable of being incredibly stupid many millions of times a second.

    Both said by Doug Adams

    Only put off until tomorrow that which you are prepared to die having not done-Pablo Picasso

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    98
    The 400 layer is not totally opaque, so if it has that extra layer it will show up. Which is not to say that said highlights will necessarily be easily accessible, and they will be dense.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by outofoptions
    I don't buy it. The 400 layer would block up well before you would get anything useful out of some 'lower' layer, especially if it was at speed 50. If it was there, I think the manufacturer would probably advertise it as a double layer film. Sounds like an 'urban legend layer' to me. ;-)
    Disclaimer: I do not have any idea whether Foma 400 has this extra layer. However, I maintain that it would still be useful if it existed. The idea being that if the 400 layer blocks up, then it represents a constant density that the 50 layer adds to. Even "bulletproof" negatives are still transparent, after all.

    Mathematically: if the 400 layer blocks up at, say, a density of 0.6, the 50 layer is only three stops slower than that and is already into the midrange of its curve; additional exposure will push the 50 layer up its curve but not alter the 400 layer's density at all. Conversely if there isn't enough light to expose the 50 layer but is for the 400 layer, the 400 layer will be a little thin but retain shadow detail.

    Of course there are unsharpness problems involved in doing this with actual physical layers and there are a bunch of technical tricks to get around them but as I understand it the pictorial value is similar to what it would be if they were distinct layers.

    This is not a new technique. Ilford, for one, has been known to use layers differing by two stops in its Delta films.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoeinx Arizona
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,343
    I don't have any information about an extra layer for the highlights, but I shot at a Rodeo with Forma 400, TriX, and Tmax 3200 rated at 1600 and developed in HC110. It was midday and very bright, the cowboy hats cause deep shadows, Forma 400 developed in Microdol X stock gave the best tonal range with good hat shadow detail, while the Tri X gave the best grain, the Tmax had good grain and sharpness but poor details in the hat shadow. I am experimenting with Edwal 12 and Defender 777 and I plan to shoot a few rolls of Forma 400 in the fall.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hertfordshire
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    82
    [Quote]
    Supposedly Fortepan 400 has an extra iso 50 layer to help preserve details in the highlights, but I haven't shot enough of the stuff to really see if that helps much.

    Fortepan again? Must be good? Must try some! Okay gurus, thinking caps on! Jessops Econodev Universal 2 is, I think........Ilford _________? Please fill in the blanks. Dilution on bottle reads is 1-24 or 1-49. Shelf life not stated? Anyone played/playing with it? Thought I'd give it a try as they didn't have any Rodinal in stock? Think they're running down the Dev/print side of things: been to 2 stores today and both had very little in the way of chemicals. Their "Own brand" filters look okay for the price: yellow 52mm £11.99 (made in Japan) 1/2 the cost of a Hoya MC. Any of you glass experts know/suspect who the manufacture is. Oh; before I go. Ran out of distilled water last night (wife decided to do some ironing; TV must have broken down!) gave the sainsbury's Caledonian mineral water a glance; decided to wait til this morning and buy some more distilled. Nearly tried it though: only a test roll so nothing important. Can't be any worse that tap water, can it?
    Take care guys.

    B.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    98
    Oh, make no mistake, these layers look plenty weird on their own. It's not like the film suddenly shifts over from being ISO 400 to being ISO 50; even before the 400 hits its shoulder the 50 is being exposed, and if you make the 400 layer so it shoulders off gradually it's not like hitting a brick wall. You have to tweak the curves of the two layers so you get a straight line, of course.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin