Speed & Development Confusion - Fomapan 200

Flying Penguin

Flying Penguin

Suspended / Banned
Messages
125
Name
Jamie
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

Having only just made the jump to film, I'm getting a bit confused by the information available on Fomapan 200 and I was hoping someone might be able to shed some light on my problem.

My first roll of Fomapan 200 was exposed as for ISO 200 and developed, per the recipe on digitaltruth.com, in ID-11 at 1+3 for 12 minutes. It came out ok I guess, if a little grainer than I hoped for, but I was only shooting the same kitchen scene over and over again to calibrate the focus on my Trip 35 so I didn't really have much to compare it to.

Digging a little further, it appears from reading up that Fomapan 200 is nearer ISO 125 and should be exposed and developed as such. That the actual speed is nearer 125 doesn't seem to be disputed, but it does mean I'm now thoroughly stumped as to developing :)

If I expose as for ISO 125 film, should I be lengthening or shortening the development time? The Digitaltruth charts assume a speed rating of 200. Am I likely to see any other side effects from this change in speed?

Also, is there any useful reference for film development theory? I've found lots of partial references, none of which seem to be complete or deal with reading the graphs on the data sheet.

Sorry if this is all horribly basic, I'm going round in circles here :)

Cheers,

Jamie
 
Hi Jamie,

the way i understand it and one of the more experienced lot will probably correct me is that most people ever so slightly over-expose their film by rating it less (125) than the box speed (200). They then however, develop as per the times indicated for a 200 film.

It means a lot of people shoot 400 ISO film at 320 etc or Portra 160 at 100 etc.

As for the grain - I have shot one roll of fompan 400 before and its the grainiest roll I have on record. After more research, the graininess and sheer unpredictability of fomapan is actually its appeal and why it exists. Poor quality control or something. If testing out how well I am doing my development, I would use a more consistent film with lots of info available like HP5/ Tmax/TriX etc.

But yea, wait for one of the others to chime in as well.
 
Last edited:
Develop it at the times recommended for 200, I have used a roll of Fomapan 200 and rated it at 160 and 125 throughout. I then developed it at the recommended time for ISO 200 and they came out quite nicely.

They are great films for learning B&W as their of usually reasonably good quality and are cheap (the 400 is grainy but its a 'nice' grain which gives a bit of character) but they are extremely difficult to get on the developing reel and are fairly soft emulsions. Once you've learn't a bit with them then move onto more expensive but better quality options from Kodak, Ilford etc.
 
Mel, Sam, thanks, that makes more sense.

Althought getting it onto the reel was the one thing that I seem to have down to a T, even the 120 version. Probably means I'm doing it wrong! :)
 
Flying Penguin said:
Hi all,



If I expose as for ISO 125 film, should I be lengthening or shortening the development time? The Digitaltruth charts assume a speed rating of 200. Am I likely to see any other side effects from this change in speed?



Sorry if this is all horribly basic, I'm going round in circles here :)

Cheers,

Jamie
Click to expand...

if the film is rated at 125 , and you exposed it as 200 , you have undereposed or pushed it about 2/3rds of a stop ,its not going to make a huge difference really ,,,,,but the neg would be less contrasty ,,,
normaly a film thats been pushed would require slightly more development time ,,so on 12 minutes ,,maybe about 13 to 13 and a half minutes,,,it would give it slightly more contrast
 
donutagain said:
if the film is rated at 125 , and you exposed it as 200 , you have undereposed or pushed it about 2/3rds of a stop ,its not going to make a huge difference really ,,,,,but the neg would be less contrasty ,,,
normaly a film thats been pushed would require slightly more development time ,,so on 12 minutes ,,maybe about 13 to 13 and a half minutes,,,it would give it slightly more contrast
Click to expand...

Its the other way around: i.e the film is ISO 200 at box speed but in all honesty the film is only 160 speed at the very max (more like 125) for the times that are provided so its not really a push or pull.
 
I've just got some fomapan 400 to try. I was going to do a few test sequences at different ratings and stand dev them to see what I prefer. Have you tried this film?
 
s162216 said:
Its the other way around: i.e the film is ISO 200 at box speed but in all honesty the film is only 160 speed at the very max (more like 125) for the times that are provided so its not really a push or pull.[/QUOTE]

it is ,.,,not by much ,,,but a film rated 125 and exposed as a 200 is being pushed
Click to expand...
 
The film is EXPOSED at 125 but the box rating is 200 which is very optimistic for the ISO 200 times listed as 125 produces way more balanced and better exposed results when using the recommended times, as theres no adjustment in development time then its neither a push or pull really.
 
"Nominal speed" is a phrase that probably comes into play then, It's a push on box speed, but not a push on Samuel's determined nominal speed.

The Fomapan films - a great way to learn B&W - if you can get them onto a reel, you can get anything onto a film reel. They are good for what they are (especially at the price Silverprint sells a roll for), but they quickly make you appreciate the added quality of the Kodak, Fuji and Ilford films. T-Max 400 works out to about a £1 more a roll, and for the reduced hassle, it was a no-brainer for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top