Help! Fomapan 100 overexposed at 400!

[darkkavenger]

I must've been very foolish when I changed the roll of film.... why oh why! I've ran an entire roll of fomapan 100 thinking it was fomapan 400.. How can I save my film while developing it ?

I develop my fomapan films in Ilfotec LC-29 1+19 @ 20°C, souping them for 7 minutes, same timing for fomapan 100 & fomapan 400... now if I want to have my fomapan 100 rated at 400, should I lengthen the process? I guess yes... I'll be checking around for clues, but I don't know if on the FOMA website they've thought of dumb folks like me who forget the change the iso rating...

:o

[FrankS]

For sure you will have to increase development time, otherwise you will undoubtedly have film that is 2 stops under-exposed - very thin and difficult to print!

Just a guess, but if it were me, I'd double the processing time to 14 minutes, and slightly reduce the agitation. (Warning: I am not familiar with fomapan film.)

[darkkavenger]

@Whisper : you did without changing development times ? I read on the massive dev chart that I should multiply dev time by 2.25 (2 stop push, normal developer).. that'd be about 15 minutes 45 seconds. I'll keep reading a bit more before trying my luck. I've got several shots taken with a 1951 J-3 that I'm eager to see... :)

[darkkavenger]

Oh thank you Frank! I generally agitate continuously the 1st minute then 5-10 seconds every minute. Maybe I should agitate every 2 or 3 minutes ? :) One learns from his errors it seems... so maybe tonight I'll have learned something!

[darkkavenger]

Found more on the Fomapan 100 technical sheet :

"FOMAPAN 100 Classic has a nominal speed rating of ISO 100/21o, but
due to its wide exposure latitude the film gives good results even when overexposed by 1 EV (exposure value) (as ISO 50/18o) or underexposed by 2 EV (as ISO 400/27o) without any change in processing, i.e. without lengthening the development time or increasing the temperature of the developer used."

:confused:

develop for 14 minutes or do as they say ? common sense would indicate to lengthen the time. I might do this!

[rich815]

I think you mean you underexposed it because if the camera thought it was 400 film then you shot at 2 stops too slow shutter speed and/or too closed down in aperture for the film at 100, no? If a scene should be shot at 1/125 at f/8 for 100 speed film but your camera is set for 400 the camera would shoot it at 1/500 at f/8 which would be underexposed on 100 speed film.

You should be fine with some light adjustment, I'd add 20-30% to the development time for 100.

[Xmas]

Max
If the photos were taken in contrasty situation then the highlights may blow out before you can get any shadow detail, as pushing the dev to get detail in the shadows will have the same effect on the highlights.
A compensation dev two bath or water bath, may help but it does not really work for me, Rodinal 1:100 for 60% of recommended time pour out an leave to stand in water at same temp for recommended time, without any agitation.
some one will have better technique I'm sure...
Noel

[darkkavenger]

@Richard : ah you're right, I misunderstood, somehow for me higher sensivity on the camera settings meant higher exposition while you're correct, it's underexposing (less light reaches the film, if i get it well) .. I haven't done anything yet... @30% extra time, following your advice would be to go for 9 mins. Thanks, i take note of it :) I guess it varies according to the film & developer. FrankS recommends 14 minutes, and if I follow roughly the massive devchart the rule would be to go for 15min 45secs.

@Noel : That'll be hard to say, I think I have photos taken in very dim environments and photos taken in bright sunny scenes. Unfortunately I don't use Rodinal ... but so many of RFFers do, I wonder what are its particularities. I must try it some day. Not to talk about "caffenol" !!

[FrankS]

From that thread: "it's the left image that's Ultra 100 shot at EI 400 and processed at +50% over normal"

Sounds like about 12 minutes then, and still reduce agitation so as not to blow out the highlights before building shadow density.

[darkkavenger]

Thank you for the thread, Whisper, it's nice to see some "live" results! I might go for 12 minutes, as Frank suggests. It sounds like a very nice compromise. I'll wait a few more minutes and then I'll be off to the darkroom, I think my LC29 1+19 isn't yet at the good temperature:)

[darkkavenger]

OK i'm off to the bathroom, I will go for 12 minutes!

[Xmas]

Max

LC29 will dilute to 1:29 (times should be on bottle) it it the dilutation and the reduced agitation that pulls the shadows up without frying the high lights to a cinder. The PA Rodinal ia a Rodinal analogue.

The water bath I use has a greater tendancy to pull the high lights except It never works too well for me, sorry.

Noel

[darkkavenger]

Thanks Noel, I will take a good note of this in the future. Right now the tank is besides me and i'm agitating less than usual. I'm curious to see how it'll end up. :)

[Xmas]

I wear gloves with LC29.

Noel

[darkkavenger]

Maybe I should as well. Though I never get in contact with the diluted solution, not to say about the concentrated LC29 itself.

[martin-f5]

see this:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28788&highlight=fomapan

and this:
shot in prague

http://hupfer-fotografie.de/prag2006/man-mit-pfeife.jpg

[Xmas]

Max
You must have looked at the shadows and high lights by now?
Noel

[Xmas]

Max

Have a good evening then

Noel

[darkkavenger]

I won't go sleep without having scanned the roll of film ;)

[darkkavenger]

The negative looks quite contrasty, I am trying to scan now. My scanner will ruin most of it as usual...

EDIT : Adobe Lightroom seems to bring the life out of them so far... my old scanner tends to make photos appear darker than they are on the neg (and blurrier than they are on the neg)... i checked the neg with a loupe and the sharpness appears perfect.

[darkkavenger]

first results .... picture 1 shows the scan right out of the scanner software, picture 2 is an enlargement, and picture 3 is after Adobe Lightroom processing.

This photo had a very high contrast when i took it, must've been like 1/250 f/16 or 1/500 f/16.

Contax IIIa & CV 21/4.


I'm scanning & scanning more ;)

[darkkavenger]

see this:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28788&highlight=fomapan

and this:
shot in prague


They are nice, Martin!

[darkkavenger]

OK now for some serious things. ...

1st photo was taken with the Contax IIIa and a 50/1.5 Jupiter-3 from 1951 [KMZ] that I picked up at Foto Pazdera in Prague. Photo taken @ f/1.5
Those two women are part of the staff... the one in focus is very very nice :)


2nd photo, Contax IIIa and my 1970 J3 + Yellow G3 Zeiss-Ikon filter

I cropped here @900px but the resolution is quite nice :)

[darkkavenger]

Last photos and I'm off to bed ....

Contax IIIA and 1951 Jupiter-3
indeed fomapan 100 pushed at 400
12 minutes in Ilfotec LC29 1+19 @ 20°C

1st one is out of the scanner
2nd one after processing in adobe lightroom

anyway contrast & shadows seem to be quite hard. I didn't agitate too much. now it seems my mind is clouded & sleepy :)

[rich815]

The negative looks quite contrasty, I am trying to scan now. My scanner will ruin most of it as usual...

They look very useable. But it looks like just a tad less development time would have given you less to struggle against in terms of contrast in the scanning.

[darkkavenger]

It's good to know for next time! Well.. if I do the same mistake again! I'm generally an ISO 400 person. ISO 100 makes me do all kind of quirks, my camera hates it and will do me all sort of bad tricks to let me believe it's ISO 400 that i'm using. ;)

Thanks for the help!

[FrankS]

Looks good Max. (I think I would have focused on the other woman. :))

[rich815]

It's good to know for next time! Well.. if I do the same mistake again! I'm generally an ISO 400 person. ISO 100 makes me do all kind of quirks, my camera hates it and will do me all sort of bad tricks to let me believe it's ISO 400 that i'm using. ;)

Thanks for the help!

I have an article I need to scan or reference online somewhere from Photo Techniques magazine that discusses what is lost by following the "add 50% to the time for each stop push" myth (myth being their word not mine). They simply show that little is lost but all gained by being less aggressive in the adding of development time for pushing. They also mention that they found that a 100 speed B&W film pushed to 400 but only subtley pushed in the increasing of development time by 30% or so gives practically as good contrast as 400 speed films but with less grain! I'll dig it up and at least paraphrase the pertinent parts this weekend if I have time. Interesting stuff.

[FrankS]

I don't know about myth, but I do know that it really sucks to try to get good prints from B+W negs that are 2 stops under exposed!

[darkkavenger]

Looks good Max. (I think I would have focused on the other woman. :))

She was moving too much ... the best focus would've been to take a photo of the young and gorgeous lady who usually sells me the gear... I'll do that on monday ;)

I'll pick up a crazy lens in Pentacon Six mount. More monday:)

[martin-f5]

first results .... picture 1 shows the scan right out of the scanner software, picture 2 is an enlargement, and picture 3 is after Adobe Lightroom processing.

This photo had a very high contrast when i took it, must've been like 1/250 f/16 or 1/500 f/16.

Contax IIIa & CV 21/4.


I'm scanning & scanning more ;)


Is this the Dvo?ák museum in Praha?

[darkkavenger]

Nope, it's the Kovarovic villa : see here :)
http://www.prague-pictures.cz/photos/61/prague-cubist-architecture-kovarovic-villa