Foma b&w slide kit and my experience

[alessandro serrao]

Hi,

I'm here writing about my experience (or a nightmare should I say)

about using the Foma b&w slide kit.

I must be honest: I've only tried with an Ilford Fp4+, shots taken

@100.

I've followed religiously the kit instructions and added only a fix

hardener along with the fixer given by Foma.

The hardener is an alum based (Tetenal Harter).

I must say the picture turned out well: the only drawback is that

the emulsion literally peeled of the base.

 

What the hell is that? Emulsion peeled off?

 

I know that this can happen if a too acidic solution come in contact

with the film but, being the kit specifically tailored to b&w film

negative, why ever I have experienced this?

 

Someone hopefully can shed light on this.

 

P.S.: still haven't tried the foma 100r film sold for this kit.

[silent1]

You shouldn't need a hardener added to fixer for FP4+ -- it's got a prehardened emulsion similar to Kodak products. Your emulsion peeling off the base may be due to excessive gelatin shrinkage from overhardening. Try another roll without the hardener?

[alessandro serrao]

Donald: I've red somewhere on the net that the reversal process of a normal b&w negative includes some steps that make the gelatine so fragile up to the point that a hardener is required.

Kodak advices so (to using a hardener with a fixer).

Since the Foma kit is no different from the Kodak one, I intentionally tried the hardener with the Foma kit, fearing that I could ruin the negative otherwise.

 

You suggest me to not using the hardener: I'll try and get to you to see.

Thanks.

[alessandro serrao]

Donald: must I say that the emulsion peeled off when I've passed my finger on it, being the emulsion like gelatine itself (the real one, like a pudding!), plus came off also with the film dried (this time the emulsion was like carbon).

[User_502260]

Many years ago I used Kodak's Direct Positive kit for making slides with Panatomic-X. The EI was 80 and the results were quite good. Apart from the fine grain there was a difference from the regular direct positive film in that Panatomic-X did not have as clear a base. In any case the slides projected well. It seems that most people who are making or having made for them black & white slides, are scanning them. If they aren't being projected then what is the benefit of this process over shooting plain black & white print film and just scanning the negatives?

[avisualemotion]

<p>

Maybe you should use Fomapan R instead of Ilford FP4+. Fomapan R is positive b&w film. Or maybe I am mistaken and you talking about something else.

</p>

<br>

--<br>

richard vanek<br>

www.piskoftak.com<br>

[heller_harris]

1.) How plausible is it for someone with no prior darkroom skills to develop B&W slides at home? I've been shooting E6, scanning and going to B&W in PS. I investigated doing the E6 at home, but it seems like a royal PITA. Is it simpler to develop B&W chromes? I like Scala, but you have to send that off for development.

 

2.) What kind of tonal range do you produce? Is it as narrow as regular E-6? I'm looking for more range and just started testing pull-processed Astia.

 

Thanks.

[jordan_w.]

Theoretically, any B&W film can be processed to give positives using a standard reversal process: (1) Develop the negative image. (2) Bleach away the negative image. (3) Fog and develop the remaining positive image. (4) Fix away undeveloped silver, if needed. In practice some B&W films are much easier to reversal-process than others. FP4+ should be pretty good -- Ilford lists it in their PDF on reversal processing.

 

As far as I know, the FOMA kit is just a standard B&W reversal process kit that contains the materials needed to carry out the above steps. However, it is optimized to work with FOMA's own film. In B&W reversal, every film behaves differently and may need different developing times and first-developer compositions.

 

There is one commercial lab -- DR5 in Los Angeles -- that does B&W reversal processing from regular B&W negative film. People love the results but it may be too expensive for the hobbyist.

 

A lot of people home-brew their own B&W reversal chemistry (this is the only way to do it if you don't have access to the Kodak or FOMA kits). Temperature and timing for B&W reversal are more critical than for B&W negative processing, just like with colour reversal. It isn't horribly difficult but I definitely would advise *against* someone with no darkroom experience trying B&W reversal on their own.

 

I have a summary of B&W slide-making techniques here: http://www.photosensitive.ca/BWslides.shtml

 

I also have problems with the film emulsion peeling off the base when I do reversal processing. All I can suggest is to use less acid in the bleach or try bleaching for a shorter time. The film is very fragile when wet, so of course be very careful not to touch it until it is dry.

[helenbach]

Jeff asked: "If they aren't being projected then what is the benefit of this process over shooting plain black & white print film and just scanning the negatives?"

 

Potentially lower graininess and a wider density range: you can match the density range of the film image to the usable density range of your scanner. If you did this with B&W neg you might end up with high graininess. Doing the processing yourself allows you to control D-Max to match your scanner. If you are scanning rather than projecting, you have more freedom in your choice of second developer - for example the image tone produced by sodium sulphide doesn't determine the final colour of the print (or whatever). Anyway, that's why I do it when I do it.

 

Best, Helen

[alessandro serrao]

Helen. have you ever got the problem of the emulsion peeling off after processing the roll?

Is because too much sulphuric acid (I'm following religiously the Foma instructions)

What I'm gonna do to fix it?

[alessandro serrao]

Jordan: I've just finished to re-red the Ilford sheet on b&w reversal and it's the very SAME processing of Foma: same chemicals, same times, same all.

 

But Ilford doesn't advise to use the hardener, Kodak does: it's weird since both uses the same chemicals (more or less).

 

So maybe it's really an overhardening issue as stated above: someone can shed light on this, to save me from wasting another roll and precious chemicals (I've waited 3 months for the Foma kit to arrive at my doorstep) and I don't want to immerse my fingers in potassium dichromate either: here the selling of permanganate is prohibited by law.

[alessandro serrao]

Ops ---> re-red should have been re-read.

My mistake.

[christian_kolinski]

I've developed some film with the Foma-kit and results are fine till now. Film was Agfa Scala, Agfa APX (and those two are _not_ the same) and Foma 100R.

 

 

First: Never,really never touch the film till it's dry. The process is long (about 45min) and quite rude to the film. It will weaken the best emulsion and no hardenig fixer or something else can prevent this. So don't touch, and use Mirasol or Photo-flow to help drying. Even better: use the stabilisation bath from C41 or E6.

 

Second: minimize the washing times between the steps. For example: After the bleach you only need to wash till the water comes out almost clear (a little purple stain is ok).

 

Keep the temperature at 20deg C. Films that work well at 20deg C may be ruined at 22deg C. BTDT.

 

Dry at room themperature.

[juanjaviermartinez1]

Alejandro is right in this point. Sulphuric acid in the bleach solution should be just the minimum enough to make the bleaching bath work.

 

I myself crashed a Fomapan Classic 100 and ended with the film in one hand and the emulsion in the other (hehe) because of a too acid bleaching solution in conjunction with a too long elapsed time for that bath.

 

Since then I lowered the amount of sulphuric acid and began to check strictly the bath time, never allowing it to go beyond 3,5-4 minutes long shaking once every 30 sec.

 

My b/w slides from Fomapan 100 Classic look wonderful by now.

 

Cheers,

 

Juanjavier