FOMA 400 5X4 for Salt Prints

[ColinRH]

Is there anyone using Foma 400 5x4 for salt prints?

I have recently been using 510-Pyro for my 135 and 120 film in Foma 100 and 400 and like the results.

Although I have been making salt prints for some 15 years I have not made any for 6 months or so and thought I would make some negatives using 510-Pyro.

Due to my financial situation these days I bought some Foma 400 5x4 film rather than the Ilford FP4+ which I have always used previously.

I have found it very difficult to get Dmax on paper in less than 24 minutes exposure, even then it is not close. As a starting point for development I used the same principle I used with my previous developer – Pyrocat HD (2+2+100) - and simply used double the amount of 510, 2+100.

BF+F was so dense that trying to achieve Dmax was never achieved.

After another couple of failed negatives I then returned to Pyrocat–HD at what had been my usual process for salts - 2+2+100 for 12 minutes at 27C. After a 15 minute exposure test print Dmax was still miles away and Dmin was almost like middle grey. So my question is

1) Is Foma 400 suitable for Salt negs if so, how?

2) If not, is there another well priced and suitable film suitable for Salts?

3) Am I destined to save my pennies until I have enough for FP4+?



Help is much appreciated.

 

[MattKing]

Is there any chance that Foma 400 is similar to TMax 100, in that there is a UV blocker incorporated in it?

 

[ColinRH]

Is there any chance that Foma 400 is similar to TMax 100, in that there is a UV blocker incorporated in it?

That may be the case although I have yet to find any information that. There has been information on the anti-halation backing which takes a bit of removal, but I've been down that route and it didn't make any difference.
Thanks for the thought.

 

[retina_restoration]

Is there anyone using Foma 400 5x4 for salt prints?

I have recently been using 510-Pyro for my 135 and 120 film in Foma 100 and 400 and like the results.

Although I have been making salt prints for some 15 years I have not made any for 6 months or so and thought I would make some negatives using 510-Pyro.

Due to my financial situation these days I bought some Foma 400 5x4 film rather than the Ilford FP4+ which I have always used previously.

I have found it very difficult to get Dmax on paper in less than 24 minutes exposure, even then it is not close. As a starting point for development I used the same principle I used with my previous developer – Pyrocat HD (2+2+100) - and simply used double the amount of 510, 2+100.

BF+F was so dense that trying to achieve Dmax was never achieved.

After another couple of failed negatives I then returned to Pyrocat–HD at what had been my usual process for salts - 2+2+100 for 12 minutes at 27C. After a 15 minute exposure test print Dmax was still miles away and Dmin was almost like middle grey. So my question is

1) Is Foma 400 suitable for Salt negs if so, how?

2) If not, is there another well priced and suitable film suitable for Salts?

3) Am I destined to save my pennies until I have enough for FP4+?



Help is much appreciated.

I have tried to use it for Salt/Kallitype work and it's clearly inferior to FP4+ for this application. The base density is too much and it makes it difficult to get a satisfactory print. It also blocks up in the high values very easily, which is an issue when developing it to the appropriate gamma for Alt Processes.

Nothing beats FP4+ for this work. I suggest you stick with that and forgo the Fomapan.

PS: I also tried Fomapan 100 and it was slightly better than the 400 film, but just barely: it still has too much base density.

 

[FotoD]

Is there any chance that Foma 400 is similar to TMax 100, in that there is a UV blocker incorporated in it?

I don't think so. The 135 version has a relatively dark film base which will give a higher b+f level, regardless of exposure. I don't remember the sheet film having a dark base, and the manufacturer doesn't mention it.

If not, is there another well priced and suitable film suitable for Salts?

Fomapan 200 works very well for traditional processes, including salt. Just remember the El is 100-125.

 

[MattKing]

I don't think so. The 135 version has a relatively dark film base which will give a higher b+f level, regardless of exposure. I don't remember the sheet film having a dark base, and the manufacturer doesn't mention it.

I don't know if this also applies to FOMA, but for Kodak the different needs, and in particular different substrates, for sheet and roll film mean substantial differences in certain behaviors between the two versions of the same films.
For that reason, one should be careful about making conclusions about many things with sheet film based on experience with roll film.
It works the other way as well of course.
That being said:
1) there are UV blockers in T-Max 100 - both 120 and sheet versions;
2) there isn't much disclosure of that in the Kodak information - the Alternative Photography crowd had to find that out the hard way when T-Max 100 came on the scene; and
3) the same concern doesn't apply to T-Max 400 - which is also not mentioned by Kodak.
All of which is to say that the lack of manufacturer mention may not tell you much.

 

[koraks]

1) Is Foma 400 suitable for Salt negs if so, how?

Sort of, but it wouldn't be my first choice. Is your film fresh?

Foma 400 as you're using it has a number of problems that make it suboptimal for what you're trying to do:
1: b+f is high on fresh film is high to begin with
2: the film acquires even more fog as it ages, and seems to do so relatively rapidly
3: 510 pyro leaves a very dense layer of base stain, which only adds to the problem
4: foma 400 struggles to build the contrast you want for a good salt print. It'll get there, but something like foma 100 or 200 is overall easier.

Is there any chance that Foma 400 is similar to TMax 100, in that there is a UV blocker incorporated in it?

Nope, this is not the case for this or any other Foma film.

I also tried Fomapan 100 and it was slightly better than the 400 film, but just barely: it still has too much base density.

I don't recognize this for the sheet film product. Not on 100 and not an 200 either. But this is with fresh (!!!) film. Also, 510 pyro is horrible in this regard. I imagine some other (esp. staining) developers will do the same, and pyrocat if left to oxidize out will eventually also produce this problem. You want to develop in a relatively short period of time, with a nice and clean-acting developer, and don't be tempted to cut development times by developing at very high temperatures, as it'll just create more problems.

2) If not, is there another well priced and suitable film suitable for Salts?

I agree with @FotoD that Fomapan 200 in sheet film format works well for this kind of thing. I use it all the time. My normal method for very long-scaled negatives is to expose it at 100-125 or so, develop for a few (3-4) minutes in a tray in ID62 diluted 1+2. Then intensify as many times as necessary to get the contrast needed for the target printing process; I use a chromium intensifier as it's clean-acting, quick and very effective. Permanganate works as well, but tends to leave a lot more stain. I sometimes use a staining developer for the last round of intensification to get a big boost in UV density. This can even be 510 pyro in which case I tolerate/accept some additional base stain, but even then I try to keep development time very short to minimize this effect. It's tricky.

24 minutes exposure

What kind of exposure unit are you using? Things like salted paper etc. work well with modern LED sources, which have become quite affordable, especially if you don't need to print very big (and 4x5" is certainly in that category). Shorter exposure times make the life of an alt. process printer much nicer.

 

[ColinRH]

What kind of exposure unit are you using? Things like salted paper etc. work well with modern LED sources, which have become quite affordable, especially if you don't need to print very big (and 4x5" is certainly in that category). Shorter exposure times make the life of an alt. process printer much nicer.

I'm using 8 x 15w BLB lights, a bit old hat these days, maybe time for an upgrade to LED's.


I have to thank all the contributors, a lot of very useful information. Not only for myself now but also for any future enquiries for this sort of use for Foma 400. Thanks all.

 

[Rick A]

My experience with Foma 100 and 400 film with PMK Pyro is to double the ratio, instead of 1+2+100 I use 1+2+50 (2+4+100) to get decent negatives for alt printing. You need to over develop to get the proper CI for VDB, Cyano, and salt. I use a homemade UV exposure box of 6x24" 18w BLB tubes @6 inches above my easel.

 

[retina_restoration]

My experience with Foma 100 and 400 film with PMK Pyro is to double the ratio, instead of 1+2+100 I use 1+2+50 (2+4+100) to get decent negatives for alt printing.

That is how I process negatives for Salt and Kallitype printing also. However, I found that the Fomapan 100 and 400 were unsuitable for making optimal alt process negs because of their excessive base density and propensity to block up in the high values.

 

[koraks]

I'm using 8 x 15w BLB lights, a bit old hat these days, maybe time for an upgrade to LED's.

Old hat, maybe; it'll still work. There's a lot to be said on the topic - you can get faster times with LED, but if it doesn't bother you, don't bother with it, I'd say. I've worked with a bank of UV tubes as well for years; I still keep it around for reference. They're still quite efficient for this purpose, just not very powerful.