Fomapan 100 in Diafine – No Speed Boost Here!

I decided to test some Fomapan 100 large format 4×5 sheet film in Diafine because this film is a popular choice of Diafine developers.  You can get Fomapan in 4×5 sheets from Freestyle for about $45 for a box of 50.  If you prefer a cheaper alternative Freestyle offers Fomapan under their own label as Arista.EDU 100 Ultra for a cheaper price.  You can get 25 sheets of 4×5 for $17 making this a lot cheaper than the Fomapan.  I have no idea if the chemical composition or the film base has any differences between the Fomapan and the white label so I am not able to comment on that.  Both films are made in the Czech Republic and have a good reputation with users of Diafine.  The issue with Diafine is that it is a compensating developer and in theory you have very little control over your personal EI rating and contrast.  Large format zone system users would probably snub their noses at this combination, but I personally try and stay open minded about everything and over time I have learned that options are usually good.

I looked around on the web and as expected found all sorts of opinions on which EI rating was “best” and knew the only effective way to know anything for certain was to conduct some tests on my own.  I am not sure what “best” means so I tend to avoid that type of language when it comes to art and photography.

The Test

I think in order to form a proper opinion I will need to photograph a few different scenarios that are common to my photography before I can have an official opinion.  My style of photography typically includes macro, landscape, nature, and architecture.  As a starting place I decided to start with a simple macro subject in the studio.

Macro Studio Test

I wanted to accomplish a couple things in this initial test.  First, I shot two exposures at varied EI ratings.  My first exposure was at EI 100 and the second at EI 200.  Based on the common knowledge that Diafine usually increases the speed of your film by one or two stops I thought this was a reasonable place to start. After development of the film I quickly saw that EI 200 was a bust and EI 100 was still probably too fast.  This information goes against the typical Diafine speed increase in most films.

Based on the initial tests I went out to my garden and cut a fresh Daylily and brought it in to the studio.  I used a black backdrop and three continuous cool lights for my lighting.  The cool lights are thought to have the same color as regular daylight.  I wanted maximum depth of field on the flower so I exposed at f/64.

For this test I rated my film at EI 50 and the second exposure at EI 100.  The EI 50 exposure was for 8 seconds and the EI 100 was obviously half the time at 4 seconds. I am trying to achieve good detail, maximum acutance and as little grain as possible.  I also want maximum DMAX for my black background.

Film Processing

I tray processed the negatives as opposed to using a tank system like the HP Combi 4×5 sheet processing tank system.  I used 5×7 trays to develop this film and my process was as follows:

• Developed in A bath for 4 minutes.  I agitated for the first ten seconds at one minute intervals and flipped the film at the top of each minute.
• Developed in B bath for 4 minutes and followed the same process as I did for the A bath.
• Washed in tray for one minute.
• Fixed in tray for 5 minutes with constant agitation.  My method for agitation is to slightly lift the front of the tray and set back down creating a rocking motion that moves the film from the front of the tray to the rear.  I flipped the film at one minute intervals.
• Now that the film was light safe I turned on the lights and did a full wash under running water for 15 minutes.  I put the sheet film in film washing tank and let it do its thing.
• In the final step I put the film in a tray of Photoflo for 3 minutes before hanging to dry.

Initial Observations

It is hard to tell much of anything when you are looking at wet or for that fact dry film.  However it was clear to me that there was a big difference between the EI 100 sheet and the EI 50 exposure.  Both films looked very clean and sharp to the naked eye.  If I had to guess based on experience the EI 50 film would print best in the darkroom and also scan better as well.

Scanning Comments & Observations

I scanned in both negatives and it was immediately apparent the EI 50 negative was exposed properly and was the winner.  It wasn’t even a close call as I suspected it may be since it is only one stop difference.

Scanning a negative and making a digital output is much different than making an optical darkroom print.  Using tools like Photoshop you can make a lot of problems such as the exposure being off, grain, contrast challenges, just go away very quickly.  My personal goal if I intend to make a negative for scanning only is to make it on the thin side.  I don’t want a bunch of density in these negatives because I can make adjustments in Photoshop very easily.  It really is a completely different mindset.

From a scanning perspective I think the EI 50 exposure will make the best output whether that be a digital file for online viewing or an inkjet print.

I print a lot in the darkroom and I have no idea if the EI 50 negative will hold up or not until I establish a proper proof time and try and print both negatives.

If you are a hybrid photographer, meaning you record on film and then scan and print digitally then this information should be helpful to you and can be used as a starting point in your own tests.

Darkroom Prints

Before I can reliably print from these negatives I needed to process a blank sheet of film and make a proper proof for each EI rating.  The process in a nutshell involves making variable exposures across a contact print of the film on your target paper until you reach DMAX.  Once you find the transition from grey to DMAX you have your proper proofing time.  This is critical because it can tell you a lot of valuable information about your exposure and development process.  For large format negatives I use a #2 filter for my proper proofs.

As I have more time I will make the proper proof for the Fomapan 100 negative and Ilford MGIV paper.  Once I have those results I will post an update.

Summary

As you can see from the amount of testing and work involved it is no small effort to try new film.  If I were developing the Fomapan 100 in normal black and white developers it would have taken me literally days and scores of manhours to properly test and document the variables. This is one reason a photographer should think long and hard before employing too many films and developer combinations.

Overall I am very happy with the scanned negatives and the darkroom prints remain to be seen.

Be sure to leave your comments or suggestions at the bottom of this article. If you like my articles be sure to use the “Like” or “Share” buttons located at the bottom of each article so we can get more feedback from other photographers.

You can view more of my large and medium format images on my Flickr stream.

You can read more articles on large format photography by clicking here or on medium format here.

Tim Layton

© Tim Layton – All Rights Reserved – 2011. You may not republish or use any information or media of any format, in part or in whole, without my written permission. For permission and more information you can contact Tim Layton on the web at blog.timlaytonphotography.com or via email at tim@timlaytonphotography.com or via the telephone at 314.972.4900. Visit Tim’s latest photos online at Flickr.