Another Fomapan 200 thread

Discussion in 'Black and White' started by alan_rockwood, Mar 16, 2015.

  1. I got some Fomapan 200, or actually, the Arista Edu Ultra equivalent. I have been testing it using a densitometer and I'm consistently getting a speed point equivalent to an exposure index of about 50. I expected a speed loss compared to 200, but 50 seems a little too much loss of speed to me.
    I have run quite a few rolls of film under various processing conditions, but here is a typical condition: LMAX developer (T-MAX clone) at a dilution of 1+6 processed for 3:00 minutes in a Phototherm rotary processor at a temperature of 75 F. The Gbar contrast was 0.54, and the exposure index worked out to be 40 (rounded off). This was done in two replicate runs.
    For some other runs under more rigorous development conditions the Gbar was higher (~0.65) and the speed points worked out to give exposure indexes of 50 or 64 (rounded off).
    I am using a criterion that the speed point is four f-stop units way from the neutral gray exposure.
    For those who have done instrument-based testing, how do these results compare.
    By the way, when I did some similar testing on Plus-X a few years ago (using T-Max developer) the exposure index worked out to be 125, i.e. box speed, so I think my testing technique is probably not too far from wrong.
     
  2. The Massive Dev chart has that film and developer combination listed at 5-6 minutes at a 1+4 dilution. Unless you wanted less contrast and or less speed you would want to increase time at a dilution of 1+6.
     
  3. John, thanks for the suggestions, but based on my measurements at 1+6 dilution and 3 minutes, which gave a Gbar contrast of 0.54, going to a dilution of 1+4 and 5 or 6 minutes development would be very high, probably way over 0.75.
     
  4. Additional info.: at 1+5 dilution and 3:00 development the Gbar was 0.65 and the calculated exposure index was 64.

    Based on an interpolation of the information in my several posts, a dilution of 1+5.5 should give a Gbar of about 0.60 and an exposure index of about 50.
    As I mentioned in my first post, this seems an unexpectedly low exposure index. I had expected something closer to 100 for Fomapan 200.
    On the other hand is it possible that most people are using an exposure index that would put base plus fog at three f-stops below neutral gray rather than four? That could account for my calculated exposure index of ~50 whereas most people seem to recommend ~100 for Fomapan 200.
     
  5. Please note that since they changed the FP200 emulsion in 2012 the real speed has gone down 1/3F stop to the original emulsion. In R09/Rodinal the film has hardly iso 100 now. (Was iso 125).
    The problem is a special ingredient for the production of this film which was not available anymore from one of the Foma suppliers so they had to modify it in the film production process.
     
  6. A number of years back Shutterbug Magazine tested Paterson Acupan 200 (which was said to be Fomapan 200) When processed in FX-39 its speed was around 125. So I guess this film has a history of delivering less than box speed. I have one roll of it that was outdated last year. I may try it to see how it does in Kodak's HC110.
     
  7. You can reach box speed with Diafine (2-bath). Even in Microphen you're close but just not iso 200. A good alternative Xtol/Fomadon Exel W27 1+1 of PC-TEA 1+50 on E.I. 160.
    http://foma-cz.cs4.cstech.cz/en/fomapan-200
    Y=0,6-0,65: iso in between 160-200 with Microphen, see above FP200 data sheet.
     
  8. Robert. I wonder why I am getting an exposure index in the range of only 40-64. LMAX developer is a TMAX developer clone, and TMAX developer is known as a speed enhancing developer. At another discussion site one person suggested that using a zone system testing strategy results in about 2/3 stop speed loss, which could account for part of the discrepancy.
     
  9. Well I hope you have a calibrated densitometer. If you get iso 64, it is how it is. I have never done the test with Lmax (or Tmax developer) and FP200. However I did with Xtol/Fomadon Excel W27 and Diafine. However Diafine was somewhere in 2009 with the old FP200 emulsion.
     
  10. [​IMG][​IMG]
    In 2005, Prague and Fomapan 200 in R09/Rodinal. Old emulsion E.I. 125; N+1 E.I. 160.
    M7+ Elmarit F/2,8-28mm with Y-filter (Heliopan).
     
  11. Robert, the densitometer is calibrated. I check it periodically with a calibration reference slide and the calibration seldom changes and never changes by much.
     
  12. Then it is as you measured out with Lmax: iso 64. The question is how compatible the Lmax is with original Tmax developer from Kodak which is a TM and not a completely published formulae.
     
  13. I hope to test my remaining roll of Fomapan 200 during the upcoming week. I am testing it in Kodak HC110 and will try different exposure indexes to see which works well. I don't have a densitometer so I will base my findings on how the scans look. BTW, the Shutterbug article I mentioned earlier was written by Roger Hicks.
     
  14. BTW, the Shutterbug article I mentioned earlier was written by Roger Hicks.​
    I know the article. Fomapan 200 was at that time sold (T200) under Paterson 200 film. In that era they had also a T800 film (before 2001), it was also sold under Paterson 800 film.
     
  15. Robert,
    Here is what the vendor's website says about LMAX. "Legacy Pro chemicals are brand name black and white chemicals with the same or similar formulations as Kodak chemicals. They produce the same high quality results at a great value, so compare and save." The rest of the description reads like a drop in replacement for TMax developer, and other sources say it is a TMax clone.
    With regard to the exposure index, I got several values, depending on the dilution and development time, but in general the results bounced around between 40 and 64. The best value I can come up with is an exposure index of 50 if I want a Gbar of 0.60 . I will probably use that exposure index for medium format, but I might bump it up a bit and use a value of 64 for 35mm.
    At one point I wondered if the bulk roll I got was mislabeled and was actually Fomapan 100. My test results would seem to indicate that this could be a possibility, but the roll I got has no edge markings because it is the generic Arista brand equivalent of Fomapan, so there is no way to test that theory.
    I wonder if prehaps LMAX/TMax doesn't match well with Fomapan 200. TMax developer is generally considered to be speed enhancing, but I suppose this property might depend on what type of film is being developed.
    What is your favorite developer for Fomapan 200?
    By the way, I have probably already burned up about $25-30 worth of bulk film doing these tests.
     
  16. My favorite FP200 developer is Fomadon Excel W27/Xtol in 1+1 or PC-TEA (Pat Gainer) in 1+50 working as Xtol 1+2
    developing times. According my TRD-Z densitometer values I got almost iso 160 with it. I can do the test with 3 pcs.
    cutting FP200 135-36 film.
     
  17. I like using FP200 and I push it to 800 in Xtol/W27 at 68 degrees for 13:30 with agitation at one minute.
    For me the grain is acceptable and for sure in R09 it would be much stronger:
    http://www.photo.net/photo/17987032
    http://www.photo.net/photo/17987031
    http://www.photo.net/photo/17987028
     
  18. [​IMG]
    FP200 E.I. 160 in Xtol 1+1. Zorki-4K with J-8 F/2,0-50mm.
     
  19. Mike Gammil I was wondering what you got for an exposure, and developement of 120 Fomapan 200 in HC110 delution B? I just shot a roll at 150 ASA (shows how old I am) and will develop in HC110. The lighting was overcast the day I shot so might I want to extend the developement time a little to bring up the contrast?
     

Share This Page