traveler_101
American abroad
Fomapan 100 in R09 1:50 @ 9 minutes. For some reason these seem "washed out" to me. Is it simply over exposure? There were quite a few similar shots on this roll, though I had better results in the shade. Taken with Voigtlander 35/2.5.
icebear
Mentor
If there is some detail in the sky for example you just need to adjust the printing time. In case the negatives a slightly overexposed it means they are dense (dark) so your paper will need longer exposure. Unless information is lost in the negative (shadows totally clear or highlight pitch black) in the first place you can still get a decent print - just a matter of your taste.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Even on my iPhone I can see detail (clouds) in the sky of shot nr. 2. Either correct exposure for printing (read above) or correct levels after scanning to get good results. Shots look pretty decent to me as they are.
traveler_101
American abroad
Thanks for the suggestions. Adjusting brightness and contrast levels gets me closer to what I am after. I'm just wondering whether anyone has tried this film in D-76 or another developer?
znapper
Well-known
I've developed Foma in Rodinal (1:50), HC-110 and Tetenal Ultrafin, works well in all of them, very nice tonality to it.
The nicest contrast I've gotten out of fomapan 100 so far, is in Rodinal.
If the scans look washed out, remember to set your black and white points on the level adjustment slider first and foremost, after that you can play with the middle-gray slider to get the contrast you want.
- Some people prefer the curves-tool, which basically is the same thing, only a bit safer concerning black and white clipping, it also gives you better control over the contrast adjustment.
An clear, upswept curve on the landscape scan makes it pop nicely and pulls down the sky a bit, and a very slight "S" shaped curve on the portrait, makes that one pop really nicely also.
The nicest contrast I've gotten out of fomapan 100 so far, is in Rodinal.
If the scans look washed out, remember to set your black and white points on the level adjustment slider first and foremost, after that you can play with the middle-gray slider to get the contrast you want.
- Some people prefer the curves-tool, which basically is the same thing, only a bit safer concerning black and white clipping, it also gives you better control over the contrast adjustment.
An clear, upswept curve on the landscape scan makes it pop nicely and pulls down the sky a bit, and a very slight "S" shaped curve on the portrait, makes that one pop really nicely also.
kiemchacsu
Well-known
this was souped in D-76 1+1, the output is ok but IMO I prefer the look of combo Rodinal and Fomapan
1207_20_Vanchuong_Fomapan100_2 by kiemchacsu, on Flickr
kiemchacsu
Well-known
Photo_Smith
Well-known
I use it in Rodinal find the tones quite nice:
With 4x5 Sinar
With Rolleiflex
Indoor shot with Leica M4P
It has good tonality, I think your shots look over exposed or over developed (possibly)
With 4x5 Sinar
With Rolleiflex
Indoor shot with Leica M4P
It has good tonality, I think your shots look over exposed or over developed (possibly)
konicaman
konicaman
Have dipped Foma in HC110, Rodinal and FD10. They all worked pretty well but I got the best tonality in FD10.
As mentioned above; Your shots do not look so bad, should only be a matter of printing or scanning technique.
As mentioned above; Your shots do not look so bad, should only be a matter of printing or scanning technique.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I like it in D-76 and in PMK Pyro. Your photos actually just need some post processing. They look like they came straight out of the scanner, and negatives scanned always look flat, and often too light. I took one of yours and edited it by darkening it and increasing contrast, and then dodging the dark trees on the left side. Its not perfect, but I just spent a couple minutes playing with it. I've attached it here for you to compare to your version.
On my website I have a scanning tutorial that shows how you can improve scans by adjusting them using curves in Photoshop.
On my website I have a scanning tutorial that shows how you can improve scans by adjusting them using curves in Photoshop.
Attachments
traveler_101
American abroad
this was souped in D-76 1+1, the output is ok but IMO I prefer the look of combo Rodinal and Fomapan
1207_20_Vanchuong_Fomapan100_2 by kiemchacsu, on Flickr
Looks quite nice to me.
traveler_101
American abroad
I use it in Rodinal find the tones quite nice:
With 4x5 Sinar
With Rolleiflex
Indoor shot with Leica M4P
It has good tonality, I think your shots look over exposed or over developed (possibly)
Really, really nice shots! I think you are right:
mine are over-developed. I am using Foma's R09. Apparently, it should have been 6-7 minutes in R09 @ 1:40 whereas I used 9 minutes @ 1:50 which is the recipe for Rodinal. R09 is related to Rodinal, but not exactly the same formula. I found the right times on the Freestyle site after reading about Fomapan on an old thread. Note your shots are in open shade. I read that this film must be handled specifically for very bright conditions: rate it at 80 (overexpose) and then develop it less, 6 minutes I'm guessing. So I over-developed it by at least 50%.
If anyone reading this is using this film, here is the link to the old thread:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75994
traveler_101
American abroad
Thanks for your efforts, Chris. Much appreciated. Absolutely: these have not been post-processed. I posted because I was baffled, at first, that these shots seem so bad compared to the scans from a roll of Tri-X I took on the same trip with the same camera and lens. That roll was developed in D-76d and scanned without any adjustments on the scanner. Now I see that these shots with Fomapan 100 are over-developed. It will be interesting to see what happens with the two remaining rolls. I will develop one in R09 (Rodinal), hopefully properly this time, and the other in D-76d.