Fomapan films - suitability for tray development

Adrian Lambert

Active Member
Registered User
Joined
Nov 10, 2018
Messages
32
I've been using fomapan 200 for a while and whilst I love the look it gives I'm now interested in using it for 8x10 pinhole photographs.

Ideally I'll tray develop which will be new to me, so I daresay there'll be a bit of trial and error whilst I get in the zone. What is worrying me though is that I damaged the emulsion of too many sheets of Fomapan 200 4x5 (all from the same production batch I think) so kind of ended up regarding it as a film for hybrid analog/digital workflows. As I expect to fluff a few sheets up here and there using Fomapan makes sense provided I could expect to avoid damaging the emulsion layer once I've got my eye in. I've seen talk here about tray developing fomapan sheets but this wasn't the topic of the post so I'd like to ask specifically for advice or experiences of this. Is it worth it? And out of the 200 and 400 speed films would one have a more durable emulsion than the other?

Thank you.
 
If you are happy to process one shert at a time, you could use either the Paterson Orbital or the Stearman 10x8 tank. Neither involve handling the film beyond putting it in and taking it out. Apart from loading, everything can be done in the light. As this is dry, you used probably do it in a large changing bag or tent. The Orbital is currently being discussed on another thread of this forum.
Otherwise, you can shuffle-develop several sheets, as did Saint Ansel. With reasonable care, you shouldn’t scratch anything, but it’s wise do do a few dummy runs to get, quite literally, the feel of the process. Wet sheets of film have a mind of their own.This needs a roomful of darkness for the whole process.
 
I would suggest going for te Fomapan 200 as it has better tonality the 400 is quite flat. I've made it my choice of 10x8 film when I finish my stocks of EFKE Pl 25 and Fortepan 200.

I shoot Fomapan 200 @ 100EI, I did some reciprocity tests and found it nowhere near as bad as Foma's own datasheet, but this is something you will need to take into account and experiment with.

Ian
 
Thanks. I’ve looked at the stearman tank. I used the 4x5 version so unknown they’re good. I’ll process around 16 sheets in a session so I’m thinking 4x 4 tray dev is going to be efficient. What I’d most like to know is about the durability of the fomapan emulsion of their 200 and 400 speed sheet films though as I’ve identified those as being most suitable. Either one of those or HP5. But I have to weigh costs. I like the foma look but I don’t want to deal with too many scratches.
 
It seems that neither of us had had a major problem with damaging Foma emulsions. Perhaps it’s a handling issue. The corners of all LF films are very sharp.
 
It seems that neither of us had had a major problem with damaging Foma emulsions. Perhaps it’s a handling issue. The corners of all LF films are very sharp.
I had suspected because I bought a load of fomapan 200 4x5 in one hit that it could be a batch issue. Some of the scratches were coming from loading and unloading in the DD and the SP445. And I was being super careful. I’ve loaded more DDs than I’ve had hot dinners as a commercial assistant in the 80s and 90s so I’m well versed. Perhaps i just got unlucky and it’d worth another punt.
 
Plenty of other similar reports but I realise you have to take this with a pinch of salt. I figured this group could be relied upon for a pragmatic response.
 
Regarding the choice between Foma 200 and Foma 400....The 200 has a real speed of 100, but the 400 is a true 400 film. This may be a consideration for pinhole work.
Regarding damage to the emulsion... I have used plenty of both and have not had a problem with either.
Regarding tonality... Ian says the 200 is best, but the 400 is a film with real character, and would probably be my choice for pinhole photography.
 
Thanks for the comments about aesthetics. I have my own thoughts on this but ultimately my final choice will be based on in a number of factors.

To help you understand my thinking, if I see scratches on the film I’d like to be able to distinguish at the onset between a poor tray developing technique and a poor quality emulsion.

If anyone has experience tray developing fomapan 200 or 400 - good or bad. The more the merrier. I’ll be hugely grateful for your input.
 
Thanks for the comments about aesthetics. I have my own thoughts on this but ultimately my final choice will be based on in a number of factors.

To help you understand my thinking, if I see scratches on the film I’d like to be able to distinguish at the onset between a poor tray developing technique and a poor quality emulsion.

If anyone has experience tray developing fomapan 200 or 400 - good or bad. The more the merrier. I’ll be hugely grateful for your input.

I have worked with Fomapan 200 in 5x4 and Fomapan 100 in 12x9 sheet films. I have seen no problem with structural integrity of the film, scratches, emulsion breaks etc.

I have seen problems with Fomapan 200 in 120 rollfilm (which they acknowledged and made right with a replacement of goods of equal value). Apparently, this is the experience of a number of other people as well. I have also used Fomapan 200 in 35mm without incident, though there was a recent report on Photrio of that film size now experiencing issue. I've no widespread confirmation of same.
 
I have worked with Fomapan 200 in 5x4 and Fomapan 100 in 12x9 sheet films. I have seen no problem with structural integrity of the film, scratches, emulsion breaks etc.
Did you tray develop the 200? Either way that’s encouraging to see. Thank you.
 
Did you tray develop the 200? Either way that’s encouraging to see. Thank you.

I develop all film in open tanks whether rollfilm or sheetfilm. Sheets are suspended using older style Kodak development hanger that only have two clips on them, no frame. Rollfilms are developed on reels that are suspended off the bottom of the tank by either a rubber stopper or a small inverted funnel.
 
Last edited:
@Adrian Lambert These are the clips I use. I hasten to add that a regular framed hangers are fine as well. (For most things: There are rare and esoteric conditions when the framed hangers don't do the job - hence the use of the frameless ones. However, this will not be something you likely have to deal with for a long time, if ever.)

I chose this route over tray processing because I wasn't confident I could tray process multiple sheets without scratching them, but many people have found good success with tray processing, so my experience in this matter is irrelevant.

1689027438573.png
 
@Adrian Lambert These are the clips I use. I hasten to add that a regular framed hangers are fine as well. (For most things: There are rare and esoteric conditions when the framed hangers don't do the job - hence the use of the frameless ones. However, this will not be something you likely have to deal with for a long time, if ever.)

I chose this route over tray processing because I wasn't confident I could tray process multiple sheets without scratching them, but many people have found good success with tray processing, so my experience in this matter is irrelevant.

View attachment 4122
Yeah I’m familiar with these and other types. I’d like to be able to pack this stuff away. My under construction darkroom won’t be as generous as I might like.
 
I’ve had no problem, except when making one, one-time, obvious mistake. That was to dig the edge of one sheet into another. Never again.
The unremarkable system is this.
A tray one size larger than the film size. This keeps the sheets together while giving space to get your fingers underneath. The film lies in landscape mode while the tray is portrait. Thus, a 5x7 tray for 5x4 film and 10x12 for 10x8. Do not imagine that “plenty of room” is an advantage. It allows the sheets to become unruly and damage each other.
I have found that trays with raised ridges rather than the more common Paterson grooves are easier to use and minimise contact between film and base. As film is virtually weightless in water, there is no significant increased pressure on the reduced area of the ridges.
A batten under the far edge of the row of trays, to give a gentle slope towards the operator. This keeps the sheets organised automatically without any extra handling.
Trays laid out thus: water bath, developer, stop (I use another water bath), fix and if you have space, another water bath.
Almost needless to say, but the trays must be clean, your hands must be clean (that is, freshly washed, extensively dried) or clean latex-type gloves.
Don’t overfill the trays. Enough is enough and you will just make a mess.
Look at your arrangement. Put a hand on where the film will be when you open it.
Now switch on the darkness. Look around you for light leaks. Do this every time.
It’s best to have unloaded the film holders and put the film into a light-proof box. Take it out and arrange it neatly, fanned out so you can grasp individual sheets without fumbling. Propped crosswise in the open box seems to work. By now, the film will have realised that it’s going to be murdered and will be devising ways to escape. In the dark, it’s cleverer than you.
For the next operation you need both wet and dry hands. Three hands would be useful, but we compromise by having two dry hands and a wet finger.
Take the first sheet and place it emulsion-side up on top of the first water bath. The long side of the film against the short side of the tray. Emulsion side up so that all contact is with the back of the film. Put the near edge down first and swipe or roll it onto the surface. Do not slide it in as you would with a print. Just place it lightly onto the surface, near edge first. If it helps, touch it against the near edge of the tray. Keep that hand dry.
Now, with just the tip of your little finger on the other hand, push it under the water and let it sink. Gently.
Now, in a very leisurely way, take the next sheet and do the same. Gently. Don’t press the sheets together, ever. If the film is properly wetted, it won’t stick together. If it isn’t, it will and it will be both tricky and damaging to get them apart.
When all are in the water, slide all your fingers under the stack and slide the bottom one away from you and out. Place it gently on the surface as before and push it gently under. Keep count, so that each sheet gets the same amount of movement. Soak for your preferred time.
You do the same for each stage of development. You must transfer to the fix (or stop) one at a time, because the abrupt change in pH makes the emulsion contract and the sheets can stick to each other.
Each cycle of agitation is one shuffle through the deck. As a starting point, use the standard times (or your own tested times) as though for ordinary tank development. That is, shuffle continuously for thirty seconds at the beginning, returning to the same order in the stack, then one shuffle every thirty seconds. Naturally, you will be making your own adjustments. Stand development is not possible as far as I know.
It is possible to lift out the whole stack if it’s 5x4 film, propping it between two fingers and a thumb without touching the surface, but not for 10x8. The film is never grasped, but lies flat on your open fingers. Wet film is very slippery indeed.
If you are proposing to re-use your developer (But why? Developer is cheaper than film and film is very much cheaper than your time.), you may need a water-bath, rather than stop, because of the possibility of backwards contamination.
Some people like to turn the stack around during development, so that the sliding is in different directions. Around - not over. I’ve not seen any difference and the extra handling is another scratching hazard.

It would also be possible to process one sheet at a time in a tray, by pouring the successive stages directly in and out of the tray, but one of the tanks mentioned above would be much more convenient. Agitation would be by lifting one edge at a time.

That’s all the precautions I can think of. My apologies for the simplistic tone. Other members may have more detailed and better advice.
 
Very much appreciated @David-M. I've read a bunch of different write ups on this so I'll be reviewing all of this information when I get to that stage.
 
Very kind.
One more thing pops into my head. If it’s a faulty batch, the damage might be visible on an undeveloped sheet. Might be worth the sacrifice.
 
Very kind.
One more thing pops into my head. If it’s a faulty batch, the damage might be visible on an undeveloped sheet. Might be worth the sacrifice.
Thanks but I think the emulsion was being scratched during loading or unloading as the marks were varied and always in the areas that you'd expect that. There were some other surface anomalies that I would say aren't characteristic of the higher priced Ilford/kodak films. I came away with a feeling that the emulsion layer was thinner and softer than my other fave HP5, and that in areas it was weak enough to crack apart probably when drying on the backing or after developing. I didn't test this though, so as per your suggestion maybe it's worth doing that.
 
That might suggest giving the holders a good seeing-to. I don’t mean to sound patronising, so I apologise.
 
Back
Top