fomapan 400 @ 800 HC110 vs. XTOL

Film Photography & Darkroom discussion

Moderator: Keith Tapscott.

Post Reply
mexipike
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 7:49 pm

fomapan 400 @ 800 HC110 vs. XTOL

Post by mexipike »

I've got a whole bunch of fomapan 400 and wanted to know opinions on pushing it to 800. I know it supposedly doesn't push well but I know it's possible. I have a bunch of XTol and HC110 on hand and I'm not going to buy anything else. That being said I've heard that XTOL reclaims fomapans real rating of 320 to 400 so I was thinking of trying it for the push. On the other hand HC110 in dilution H stand development has done wonders for me in the past with push processing. So which is better for the push XTOL or HC110 dil. H, which would be better to push to 1600.
Incidentally I also have a bunch of fomapan iso 100, and plan on shooting it normal, which of these two choices would be best, could this push to 400, or I'm crazy?

Thanks,
John

Ornello
Posts: 879
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: fomapan 400 @ 800 HC110 vs. XTOL

Post by Ornello »

mexipike wrote:I've got a whole bunch of fomapan 400 and wanted to know opinions on pushing it to 800. I know it supposedly doesn't push well but I know it's possible. I have a bunch of XTol and HC110 on hand and I'm not going to buy anything else. That being said I've heard that XTOL reclaims fomapans real rating of 320 to 400 so I was thinking of trying it for the push. On the other hand HC110 in dilution H stand development has done wonders for me in the past with push processing. So which is better for the push XTOL or HC110 dil. H, which would be better to push to 1600.
Incidentally I also have a bunch of fomapan iso 100, and plan on shooting it normal, which of these two choices would be best, could this push to 400, or I'm crazy?

Thanks,
John
No film can be successfully 'pushed'. To be sure, you can overdevelop it, but it accomplishes nothing. You simply end with an underexposed, overdeveloped negative, with excessive grain and no shadow detail.

Foget about 'pushing' film. It doesn't work, never has, and never will. The sensitivity of film is not 'elastic', but fixed at the time of manufacture. If you need more speed, buy a faster film. Generally speaking, optimal quality is obtained at about 2/3 ISO with development also about 2/3 of that recommended by the mfr. I shoot most ISO 400 B&W films at about EI 250, with development appropriately curtailed. I get very fine-grained, sharp images.

Wirehead
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:58 pm

Post by Wirehead »

Ornello overstates his case.

I've pushed Fomapan 400 to 800 and it's merely OK. Given that fomapan 400's more like a 250-320 most of the time, it's going to give up a lot of shadow detail. If you want to push, you might want to at least start with a film like Tri-X which still looks awful good at 800.

I tried a roll just to spite Ornello (and to know what would happen if I was in a pinch) Here's some examples:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyberspace/388112224/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyberspace/388112755/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyberspace/390308819/

You won't notice the grain because I shot in 6x7. :)

Ornello
Posts: 879
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello »

Wirehead wrote:Ornello overstates his case.

I've pushed Fomapan 400 to 800 and it's merely OK. Given that fomapan 400's more like a 250-320 most of the time, it's going to give up a lot of shadow detail. If you want to push, you might want to at least start with a film like Tri-X which still looks awful good at 800.

I tried a roll just to spite Ornello (and to know what would happen if I was in a pinch) Here's some examples:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyberspace/388112224/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyberspace/388112755/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyberspace/390308819/

You won't notice the grain because I shot in 6x7. :)
The photos lack shadow detail, as is to be expected. Gradation is also harsh. Notice how in the first one how the hair of the women disappears into the dark back-ground. I find this completely unsatisfactory.

No film is 'meant' to be pushed. Films don't care what you want to do. They are not susceptible to emotion or desire, only to light. Their sensitivity is fixed at manufacture, and this cannot be changed by 'pushing'. If you underexpose film, there is no remedy.

mexipike
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 7:49 pm

Post by mexipike »

Thank you Ornello for your comments but I disagree that you can't push film. Maybe for your standards where everything in a negative has to be exactly perfect with perfect grays, and extremely fine grains. however, while i prefer perfect negatives, when it's dark and I don't want to use a flash and i don't have enough money to have eight different films on me or I just didn't expect on being in low light, I like to push film. Lots of people push film and push film often, including myself, and often times I quite like the effect. I know that fomapan can be pushed and by pushed I mean be made so that images will appear and be printable, obviously larger grain, and less shadow detail will occur. My question is more directed towards what developer works best to reduce the problems? So basically I will not give up pushing film as you mentioned and I doubt I'm going to give up drinking or smoking anytime soon either :D

Ornello
Posts: 879
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello »

mexipike wrote:Thank you Ornello for your comments but I disagree that you can't push film. Maybe for your standards where everything in a negative has to be exactly perfect with perfect grays, and extremely fine grains. however, while i prefer perfect negatives, when it's dark and I don't want to use a flash and i don't have enough money to have eight different films on me or I just didn't expect on being in low light, I like to push film. Lots of people push film and push film often, including myself, and often times I quite like the effect. I know that fomapan can be pushed and by pushed I mean be made so that images will appear and be printable, obviously larger grain, and less shadow detail will occur. My question is more directed towards what developer works best to reduce the problems? So basically I will not give up pushing film as you mentioned and I doubt I'm going to give up drinking or smoking anytime soon either :D
Don't get me wrong. I used to push all the time. But, I got over it. You don't really need all that many films: 2 or 3 will suffice. If you know you're going to be shooting in a dark place, take along some Kodak TMZ or Fuji Neopan 1600. Expose either at about EI 650-800 and develop for about 2/3 the time recommended by the mfr. You'll be thoroughly amazed at what you can get.

You can indeed 'push' film, but it doesn't do anything, or actually improve what you end up with: underexposed film. There is nothing whatsoever to be gained by overdeveloping film.

mexipike
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 7:49 pm

Post by mexipike »

I see your point Ornello. I guess I;m just sensitive cause I'm broke right now and can't buy any Neopan 1600, and already have a bunch of fomapan. Next month I'll try and get some neopan.

Ornello
Posts: 879
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello »

mexipike wrote:I see your point Ornello. I guess I;m just sensitive cause I'm broke right now and can't buy any Neopan 1600, and already have a bunch of fomapan. Next month I'll try and get some neopan.
The Neopan is not particularly expensive. Film quality varies enormously between the first-tier firms and the lower-tier firms. It's definitely worth it to get the best.

Post Reply