Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/04/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Don and thanks. Yes, I would say that the Fomapan for 120 does result in thinner negatives than I am used to. I might want to lower the EI a bit, but I'm not sure yet. I had been choosing darker backgrounds to help bring out a lighter detail. And ... the shots towards the end (rows 4 and 5) are Neopan. Those were developed in Calbe R09 (ur-Rodinal) and they got pretty contrasty. I also used Xtol 1:1 on one roll of Fomapan and there are no recommended times for it. I am not really sure why. They have D76 and D76 1:1 but not Xtol. So I just went with 33% more than the recommended time for stock. There are two shots from this combination (row 2) on Fomapan 400 (which I might actually like better than Fomapan 200). The stuff was cheap so I ordered a little over 100 rolls. That should end up giving me a feel for it. Thanks again, Daniel On 4/24/06, Don Dory <don.dory@gmail.com> wrote: > Daniel, > The Fomapan seemed to hold up well. Were the negatives just a little > thinner than you were used to? I say this as the backgrounds seemed to go > darker quicker than your normal posting or it could just be no coffee yet. > > Don > don.dory@gmail.com > > > On 4/24/06, Daniel Ridings <dlridings@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > It's been a very square week, warning. > > > > http://dlridings.se/blog/?p=21 > > > > Daniel > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >