I’ve experimented with this film, to find good tonal separation. The best developer for 35mm film I’ve found is Kodak D-23 1+2 .21 minutes. For 4x5 film I use Adox FX-39 1+9 14 minutes. I always rate the film in the 200 - 320 iso range depending on subject contrast levels. I haven’t yet tried the 120, but would imagine D-23 would work well. Thanks for sharing your experience with Foma 400.
Just started shooting a lot of this film. First rolls at 400 in ID-11 look pretty good. The pushed ones (800) in Rodinal 1:25 and 1:50 seem to have less shadow detail, especially the 1:50 one. Pity I needed the 800 speed, but the results are still ok. Might go for HP5 for the next shoot though, let's see (8 more rolls to develop tomorrow). Great vid!
Hello David, it has been a long time since I discovered your channel and the truth is that it is very informative. Thank you for the information that you give to everyone. I have a question, I want to scan my 35mm negatives with a four-thirds camera and I have a Nikon Bellows and a 50mm lens, which is a 100mm equivalent on the Olymus 4/3, my question is if I use 100mm to scan, will the negative suffer some type of distortion due to it being a very long focal length? I also have a macro lens for the Olympus but I can't adapt the lens to the bellows because it doesn't have a manual diaphragm aperture and I don't know what to do. Thanks for your help.
ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-CjwSnDIpgpg.html Hey, Oscar, the video I linked is a few years old but shows how I digitize 35mm negatives. A 100mm lens should work fine UNLESS the lens is of low quality. If you have a 100mm macro lens, then you're going to probably be in good shape. I use enlarger lenses for 35mm digitization because they're designed for it and I use a bellows on my cameras to digitize. Using a bellows with an enlarger lens, you're going to need to multiply the standard focal length of your film format (50mm for 35mm film) by your crop factor (2X for M43) because when you digitize with an enlarger lens you're effectively using it in reverse and as a reduction lens. So you'd need a 100mm to 105mm (the latter being FAR more common) enlarger lens. A 100mm macro lens ought to work as well, especially if you have a bellows you can use it with. A couple of other things to do, make sure yo stop your lens down a hair -- maybe two stops -- to maximize the sharpness. Also use a full-spectrum light source for the best results in terms of tonality (with black and white film) and color accuracy (with slide film.)
The most comprehensive filters comparison I have found on the internet so far! Thank you for this video. Actually I'm wondering about the red filter, which obviously adds contrast to Foma 400. Isn't it something we can easily configure in post? I develop it in Adox XT-3 (replacement of XTOL) and it already comes out not so bad (fine grain and good contrast) from the scanner. I sometimes tune up the black point a bit on the histogram (I use Silverfast for scanning).
Thank you! The results you get in post will be highly dependent on your digitization workflow, approach, and quality. If you scan to jpeg from a scanner, you'll have limited results. If you use a good macro or enlarger lens on a bellows to digitize your negatives with a camera and edit the raw files, you will have tons of control.
I am partway through the video so I have not seen everything yet at the time I comment here but I have mixed feellings about the small amount of foma 400 I shot and developed i n120 film. Rodinal 1+25, at massive dev chart times, produces relatively thin negatives... However, for the price, and for the fun of playing with the very cute Flexaret camera I recently got, it is worth experimenting more. I will try to rate it at lower ISO, I may try some other developers.
My favourite films by Foma are the 100 and 200 but I must say I like the 400. Thanks for the tips. I´ll start do develop my films myself and I´ll take advantage of your oppinions. Thank you.
Great stuff! I really liked the first roll I shot of this in 35mm which was developed and scanned at a lab. I enjoyed the halations/highlight bloom especially. However, after coming back to this and developing in Ilfotec HC at home and digital camera scanning, I was less than impressed and had similar thoughts to you. Kinda grainy, ok tonality, and certainly hungry for light. I loved the results I got from Foma 100, but I don't think I'll be coming back to this at least in 35mm.
Thank you and I concur. I have tons of this in 35mm and am thinking of developing it as reversal film, just for fun, and for a future video on this stock.
Hi David, you usually have D76 on your tests, a standard amongst Developers. Hard to get for some these days, but easy to make up this formula. I'm not sure why you get such ordinary results from your Green filter, I use a Hoya HMC X1 Green and does as the instructions say. Thanks for doing these tests, its not a film I would try as I like highlight and shadow details so I can edit the prints with a grade filter in a darkroom.
Yeah, I had a moment writing this script where I said 'did I really miss D-76 with this stock?' It's such a ubiquitous chemistry that I try to include it across all my videos. Somehow, I just missed it here. For the green filter, it honestly could be down to the dye used in the glass. There are definitely differences in that across brands and if the glass uses a terrible dye with relatively poor transmission then that would be expected to affect the results. That said, it should still show, roughly, the character that each film has with filtration.
I love all the Fomapans (mostly 100 and 400 though), good portion of that love is probably just a sentiment, cause it was the first B&W film I used back in the 90s, but I also genuinely like how they work and what effects they give, I like that not pristine look, heavy grain on 35mm, its contrast, I don't know, there's something wonderful about it. I never used them in 120 though, I need to try it one day, but at the momen film photography is out of my financial reach, even with Fomapan. Will you be making such deepdive video about Fomapan 100?
I do like that 400 has a distinct character and I totally get why people like it. For Foma 100, someday. In the interim, I recently released a video on Arista EDU 100 and I would suggest that video performs much like Foma 100.
As I’m stilling figuring out my favourite b&w stock, but Foma’s films have been at the top of my list. I particularly enjoy Foma 100 and Foma 320 (120). I would be curious to see how any of their films perform on 4x5. Did you end up using the Gibelini for sheet film tests?
Foma 100 and 320 are both good, but 320 is a hair flat and can be muddy sometimes. I'm planning on the Foma 320 AAF for 2025 and the recent Arista EDU 100 ought to have results similar to Foma 100. I do have a good number of Foma 400 samples on 4X5 throughout the video, but, in editing it, I realized I never shot it on 8X10. I should have as I think this would be awesome on that format.
Good morning, I wanted to ask a question regarding the development of the fomapan 400-120 film, I read in some forums that this film has anti-halation treatment and gets the developer green, some say that a presoak step can be performed to avoid this. I would like to know your point of view, I just bought a fomadon excel w27 developer and this film will be the first to be developed. According to the manufacturer, this developer can be used to develop 12 rolls and I would not like to ruin it on the first one, because where I live it is not a cheap or easy-to-find product. Thank you so much
So most all films turn rinse water some color. Generally, I believe that to be due to sensitizing dyes in the emulsions. Film emulsion is sensitive to the same wavelengths -- it's a property of the silver halide. So different films use different dyes in the emulsions to alter the wavelengths that film crystals "see". I have always been under the impression that the colors that come out of rinse water are those dyes being removed, which is why different films turn rinse water different colors -- different combinations and types of sensitizing dyes are used.
@@DavidHancockThank you very much for your answer, so do you recommend performing a pre-wash on this type of film? The manufacturer does not specify anything, it simply indicates the developer as a first step.
@@user-pb4hz6gx1v good question and I don't know. I know a lot of people swear by a presoak. I don't do it. I have before but have never noticed a difference in the results.
I would point out that 90lp/mm out-resolves the vast majority of legacy film lenses. While relatively speaking it's not a whole lot, it should be enough to capture all the detail most lenses can muster 😂 Now, If you are sporting a Sigma Art 40mm F1.4 that resolves 220lp/mm, yeah I wouldn't use this stock😊
That's fair point, especially at larger formats where sharp is considered something like 75 lp/mm, BUT, this is where the datasheet is unclear and may have a translation issue, it indicates 90 LINES per mm, not line pairs. Now this does not look like a 45 lp/mm film stock, but compared to TMax 400 (IIRC, 200 lp/mm), and Tri-X and HP5+ (both at around 100 lp/mm) it's less sharp than newer emulsions and on par with legacy emulsions. And, also, softer films for subjects like people often work better anyway.
It does. IIRC from researching that video, it has such fine resolution that humans don't have the equipment needed to ascertain the actual lp/mm rating.
@@DavidHancock I personally used the Sony A7R4 for my testing and it was insufficient, even using high resolution compositing. I don't have a dark room at the moment, but if I did I would have attempted a large print and then scanned it using the v850, which I expect would have been interesting. I have seen it quoted in many places that digital conversion is more lossy than analog to analog, but I've never tested that myself.
I can't say with certainty as UltraFine, to my knowledge, has never indicated that. I'd say that the performance characteristics are essentially identical.
