Overexposing Fomapan 400 (ISO 200 & 100)

[radiant]

Big boys told me somewhere that Fomapan 400 is "OK film if you shoot it at 200". I thought I had done something terrible wrong, exposing it at 400 or sometimes at 320 (also this ISO speed is the "correct" speed told be another big boys). Maybe this why I shoot so bad photographs! Of course, this is it! I must try it!

So I did shoot a roll of 135. I shot few different scenes to see how my photography suddenly comes better. I tried to measure the scenes correctly (spot meter, zone measuring, camera measuring) and then I increased the shutter time for one stop two times - to get exposure at 400, 200 and 100 speeds.

I developed the test film at xtol 1:1 for 9min 30 seconds, so at "box speed". When I pulled the film from the tank I was like, yeah now we see some density difference! However I couldn't see any difference in the frames, I thought I did something totally wrong. I checked the camera exposure memory and yes, I had exposed everything like I planned.On any of the scenes I just cannot any dramatic changes. Or maybe I cannot even see any changes..

I was aware that negative film handles overexposure pretty well previously. One can overexpose 2-3 stops without any real "harm". Maybe a bit denser negative but nothing to worry about.

So should Fomapan 400 shot at ISO 200? If you have the extra light, sure - go ahead. Film loves light. Do you need to do that? Based on this experience, I would say I don't understand why one should. Maybe to avoid underexposure? I accidentally underexposed one frame by one stop and the film handled that well too.

Here is one video of me showing three scans (without any level adjustment with Epson V600). Right upper corner shows exposure information. Check how the exposure affects to the levels. The changes in levels is really the only real difference I can see. The negative frames are pretty similar, maybe the slowest frame is a tiny tiny bit denser. So the scans shows pretty much the reality.

 

[radiant]

.. and the question is: what did I miss? What I don't know?

 

[MattKing]

An interesting experiment, but you have incorporated a variable that you may not be in full control of.
You have a scanner in the midst of this, and that scanner and the associated software may be making adjustments that tend to even out the differences.
It is a little bit like trying to determine a film speed when your camera is set to "auto".
Also, when you are discussing things like this be very careful about the word/phrase "over-exposure". To me, "over-exposure" means exposure that is more than one wants - leading to a reduction of quality. When considering testing, I prefer to use "increased exposure".
In addition, the subject you have chosen appears to offer a relatively narrow Subject Luminance Range ("SLR" - sometimes referred to as a Subject Brightness Range "SBR"). For tests with subjects like that, one often ends up with several different negatives which yield results of similar quality. You need a subject with a wider SLR to more effectively test the capabilities of a film.
And finally, one point of pedantry - the ISO speed is essentially fixed. If you use another rating, you are using your own Exposure Index ("EI").

 

[radiant]

An interesting experiment, but you have incorporated a variable that you may not be in full control of.
You have a scanner in the midst of this, and that scanner and the associated software may be making adjustments that tend to even out the differences.
It is a little bit like trying to determine a film speed when your camera is set to "auto".

I'm aware of that. When I made the scans, I resetted all automatic settings and the scanner scanned "whole range" without any limitations. I believe it is the whole dynamic range that my scanner is able to do. I did not post-process the images, the images you see on video are just bare files from the scanner software.

I might screwed this up but in other hand looking at the negatives, the scans are not far from what the negatives look like - actually I'm pretty sure I did scan the negatives "as-is" without any correction.

In addition, the subject you have chosen appears to offer a relatively narrow Subject Luminance Range ("SLR" - sometimes referred to as a Subject Brightness Range "SBR").

Hmm. There are dark trees, snow and half bright sky so for me that doesn't seem to be narrow SLR at all? Or could you give example what I should try to shoot?

Actually I have measurements from the scene: The darkest part of the forest was f8, snow was at f22 and sky f38. That actually would need N+3 development by my calculations

 

[albireo]

I shoot Fomapan 400 regularly (in 120 though). It's a 320/400 ISO film in Xtol 1+1 for me (though technically I use Fomadon Excel, Foma's Xtol clone packaged in bags for 1L solution).

So I completely agree with your findings, apart from the following:

Big boys told me somewhere that Fomapan 400 is "OK film if [...][/MEDIA]

Fomapan is an astoundingly good film. No ifs or buts. In 120, developed properly, it's just stunning.

 

[pentaxuser]

I can't see much difference either and certainly not enough to make me want to lose even a stop of speed. You are right that most here say that Foma 400 is never 400 and is closer to 200 but on the other hand a regular user( many years now) of Foma 400 says that he always shoots it at 400.

To be honest I cannot recall how many, if any, of the people who say it isn't 400 film have shown us proof of the benefits of using half box speed.

I may be a little cynical, some would say over cynical, of various claims that tend to get made and this may be borne of a whole variety of claims such as, for instance that you have to do RA4 prints in total darkness whereas in my experience and a few others a sodium lamp such as a DUKA 50 is fine but despite this evidence the "total darkness" recommendation tends to be produced every time a newcomer to RA4 printing asks about what the requirements are

It may be a pity that you cannot do 3 darkroom prints under an optical enlarger and show us those to eliminate all scanning issues at source but clearly if the way you do prints gives no or very slight benefits of using less than box speed then box speed it is. It is what works for you

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

I'm aware of that. When I made the scans, I resetted all automatic settings and the scanner scanned "whole range" without any limitations. I believe it is the whole dynamic range that my scanner is able to do. I did not post-process the images, the images you see on video are just bare files from the scanner software.
...

I might screwed this up but in other hand looking at the negatives, the scans are not far from what the negatives look like - actually I'm pretty sure I did scan the negatives "as-is" without any correction.

The problem with this is that most scanners and scanning software essentially prohibit you from scanning "manually". The scanner and software evaluate and apply automatic settings, and the only controls available to you modify the result after those automatic settings are applied.

So the scanner and software are likely to be changing things from negative to negative.

Hmm. There are dark trees, snow and half bright sky so for me that doesn't seem to be narrow SLR at all? Or could you give example what I should try to shoot?

Actually I have measurements from the scene: The darkest part of the forest was f8, snow was at f22 and sky f38. That actually would need N+3 development by my calculations

On my monitor, I see very little dynamic range in the image in the video - thus my observation about limited SLR.
And as for zone system measurements, it is fairly unusual to incorporate the sky reading. Normally your shadow reading would be from the darkest part of the forest and the highlight reading would be from the snow. That is just a three stop range.
Even if you do incorporate the sky reading, the range is just 4.5 stops - which also is at least slightly narrow.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I hated Foma films the first time I tried one of them: foma400... I tried to push it slightly, to 800 for overcast street shooting, and the results were clearly inferior to the films I use, Tri-X and HP5+... Surprisingly horrible.
A different year I tried foma200 and foma100, of course not for pushing, and again, the tone wasn't right...
This week I read why... First, all films are in general half their speed since 1960 as it's well known, but people at foma decided to cheat, in my opinion, because they don't talk about their films' speed in terms of a standard developer as Kodak and Ilford, but based on speed enhancing developers...
So, foma400 is closer to 100 than other ISO400 films, foma200 closer to 50, and foma100 closer to 25 if we want to talk seriously.
At their box speed all of them seem underexposed to me, more underexposed than all brands of films at their box speed.
In the other hand, it seems foma100 is a wonderful film when exposed at its real speed.
I never had quality control issues: I tried the three films during the last five years only.
Anyway I never wanted to buy foma film again, though I use fomatone 131 and 132 papers.

 

[koraks]

So should Fomapan 400 shot at ISO 200?

That's entirely up to you, of course! For my taste, foma400 generally gives too little shadow detail at box speed even in xtol, which is reflected in your examples (but them again, how did you actually measure light?) Look at the group of trees in the center, which is more or less an abstract mass of solid black, with a little detail coming through at the higher exposures.

Edit: by the way, your initial post is a bit unclear about the exposure you used; in the text, you say you varied exposure by one full stop, but the video shows f/16 at 1/30, 1/45 and 1/60, which is a total range of one stop, so each shot is spaced less than one stop from its neighbor. You effectively tested EI 400, 320 and 200.

 

[radiant]

I shoot Fomapan 400 regularly (in 120 though). It's a 320/400 ISO film in Xtol 1+1 for me (though technically I use Fomadon Excel, Foma's Xtol clone packaged in bags for 1L solution).

I'm curious to know how you have determined that is 320 ISO film?

So, foma400 is closer to 100 than other ISO400 films, foma200 closer to 50, and foma100 closer to 25 if we want to talk seriously.
At their box speed all of them seem underexposed to me, more underexposed than all brands of films at their box speed.
In the other hand, it seems foma100 is a wonderful film when exposed at its real speed.

Everyone is repeating the same mantra but usually without any proof. How have you come into this conclusion? The point of this thread is to question this mantra; based on this experience the mantra sounds just wrong.

Attached is a mobile phone snap of the negative on light table:

(removed confusing strip here..)

 

[radiant]

That's entirely up to you, of course! For my taste, foma400 generally gives too little shadow detail at box speed even in xtol, which is reflected in your examples (but them again, how did you actually measure light?) Look at the group of trees in the center, which is more or less an abstract mass of solid black, with a little detail coming through at the higher exposures.

That might be true, but where should I see the difference then? If we follow the mantra, we should shoot whole film overexposed. There should be some "general" problem then to shoot the whole film. I understand compensating for single scene but don't see the reason to generalize the rule for all frames in the roll.

Should the mantra be "if you have difficult shadow detail scenes, then expose a bit more?" I think that relies to all other films as well

I would be really interested seeing any other comparison tests too!

 

[koraks]

Well, if you consistently get too little shadow detail with a film at box speed, it would make sense to consistently expose at more than box speed. That is exactly my experience with Foma400.
With other films such as TMY2 (400) or TMX, I find box speed gives me the shadow detail that I would expect. Films such as Rollei RPX400 and Ilford HP5+ in my experience also need a little more exposure than box speed for decent shadows, although less so than Foma 400.

 

[koraks]

It looks like the same strip to me (and yes, it looks underdeveloped to me as well, but I wouldn't venture a guess on development based on a digital snapshot).

 

[MattKing]

The top version of the strip looks over-developed, while the bottom version looks under-developed.
Which merely highlights how difficult it is to do this over the internet.
By the way, it wasn't me who expressed an opinion about the EI in X-Tol 1+1, it was albireo - the post quoting function seems to have switched things around a bit.
One of the challenges you are encountering here is that most of us use testing methods that are related almost entirely to shadow detail when we determine film speed. That is rooted in the fact that our tests pre-suppose that we will have darkroom (or post-processing) tools available to us to adjust mid-tone and highlight rendition in the final print (or digital display).
That contrasts with the ISO speed standard, which indirectly incorporates more of the mid-tone and highlight rendition, while still being mainly related to the shadows. That standard is at least partially rooted in the fact that most people (as compared to many photographers) are more affected by the appearance of mid-tones and highlights than they are by the appearance of shadows.
It may be that if you expose Fomapan 400 at 400, and send your films off to a commercial developing lab that makes automated prints, then the prints coming back to you will have mid-tones and highlights that appear very attractive - more attractive than if it had been exposed at an EI of 200. The shadows won't be as detailed, but the rest will be better.
If you expose the Fomapan 400 at 200 and then modify development and/or your printing/post processing appropriately, you can probably obtain good rendition in shadows, mid-tones and highlights.
Other films - the T-Max films being the examples I am most familiar with - are likely to give good shadow rendition and good mid-tone and highlight rendition when exposed at box speed, developed normally, and printed automatically.

 

[radiant]

First of all, apologies of the mixup with the two strips. They are both the same, I just brightened the second to make it easier to analyze but the explanation text between images were lost in translation.. Did not mean to confuse you!

So here is a quite huge image. The following strip was scanned on one single scan. No levels adjusted, reset all auto things on Epson scan and no post-process fixing. I only cut&copied the strips in a row but that's all there is. There aren't any scan / adjustment difference between the frames. So the negatives are pretty comparable.

All frames have increased time by half stop. The middle one have one extra too.


Here is a direct link to larger picture: http://vedos.tuu.fi/foma400.jpg

My thoughts on this issue somehow start to come clear. As overexposing or increasing exposure doesn't really do anything for the highlights other than those come "brighter" (aka denser) the increased exposure has a "real" affect to the shadows. So what we are doing when increasing exposure is helping out the shadow details and that is it. And that is totally normal. Maybe Foma 400 needs that, it is hard to say with these tests.

I still think it is wrong to say that "Foma 400 is actually ISO 200 film". However it might be true - what everyone says that Foma 400 - that you needs more exposure when you want shadow details. But still in my opinion far stretch from a statement that one should expose Foma 400 at 200 always and in all the scenes.

For example if you look at the strip and the middle scene (with four shots) there isn't any shadow details to save. Yes it is really low in SLR. But sometimes photographs are low at SLR. The negative just gets dense but one doesn't gain anything with that. Why would I need to shoot that kind of scenes at ISO 200?

Maybe the bottom line here is: "if you want shadow details, some films need one stop increased exposure" - what about this instead of the worn out mantra

 

[MattKing]

If your scanning software is on auto, the software and scanner are adjusting for each negative.

 

[radiant]

If your scanning software is on auto, the software and scanner are adjusting for each negative.

The whole strip was scanned as one image. The frames are not separated.

 

[radiant]

The top version of the strip looks over-developed, while the bottom version looks under-developed.

The mobile phone snap is bad - way way too dark. The negatives look to be developed correctly in my eyes when watching the negative itself. I have experienced overdeveloped images in my life and this is far from it

 

[koraks]

All frames have increased time by one stop.

Can you confirm this is indeed the case? As I pointed out earlier, your video showed half stop (or thereabouts) increments, not full stops.

 

[radiant]

Can you confirm this is indeed the case? As I pointed out earlier, your video showed half stop (or thereabouts) increments, not full stops.

Ah yes, those are actually half steps. The one stop increased exposure is still there but you need to skip one frame btw: sorry I missed your finding on previous post.

Actually that is a pretty good to have half steps, then we can analyze this other mythical 320 ISO

 

[bedrof]

If the problem is about the real ISO of the Foma 400 and you shoot 35mm, then I think you can expose parts of the roll at different EI (100, 250, 400), cut and develop them accordingly, then print and estimate.

 

[radiant]

If the problem is about the real ISO of the Foma 400 and you shoot 35mm, then I think you can expose parts of the roll at different EI (100, 250, 400), cut and develop them accordingly, then print and estimate.

I will probably not do any dev compensation on 35mm but on 120 film will probably do it if it is needed (complete roll shot on similar conditions).

Could anyone elaborate how one can print comparable prints in darkroom? How do you get the exposure so close that you can analyze the difference? I mean just a tiny "error" in exposure and you will get totally different looking print?

 

[macfred]

... Actually that is a pretty good to have half steps, then we can analyze this other mythical 320 ISO

I guess ISO 320 is for the liberals and permissivists ...

 

[albireo]

So, foma400 is closer to 100 than other ISO400 films, foma200 closer to 50, and foma100 closer to 25 if we want to talk seriously.

You're right - enough of these jokes. Let's be really, really serious now: Foma 400 is actually a 15 ISO film, foma200 close to 7 ISO. Don't even get me started about foma 100: it's actually an ISO 2 film.

By the way, rubbish film if you ask me - I have to spend HOURS adding the shadow detail I crave directly onto the processed negatives, using a thin brush dipped in India ink.

 

[radiant]

I think we are done now