Fomapan halation/bloom

[Nebular89]

I’m using fomapan 100 in 4x5 and I’ve noticed that in back lit scenes areas of what I’m exposing for can get washed out and lose contrast, there is a kind of bloom effect. Is this what’s referred to as halation?
In any case do all fomapan films act this way? I like the look of fomapan and especially the cost but if this is a consistent thing across all fomapan films I’ll switch to Fp4 or hp5. At least for important things

 

[trypdal]

In any case do all fomapan films act this way? I like the look of fomapan and especially the cost but if this is a consistent thing across all fomapan films I’ll switch to Fp4 or hp5. At least for important things

Nope. I use Fomapan in 120 mostly, and the anti-halation layer is there and it's quite effective for Foma 100, 200, 400. Interestingly, it's green, and it washes away during development (it will stain the spent developer, but it'll fade after a little time). I have no idea about the 5x4 version but I doubt there'll be a significant difference.

In 35mm, Fomapan 400 has more limited anti-halation than in 120, though I'd argue it lends itself to interesting effects. The anti-halation layer is fine, instead, for Foma 100 and Foma 200 in 35mm.

Can you show a phone shot of your negative taken against a strong white light (eg white Ipad screen). I suspect what you're referring to as 'bloom' is the effect of strong overexposure on the highlights.

 

[FruitFlakes]

I shoot a lot of Foma 100 in 10x8 and I haven’t had that issue with it either.

 

[Sangoma]

Nope. I use Fomapan in 120 mostly, and the anti-halation layer is there and it's quite effective for Foma 100, 200, 400. Interestingly, it's green, and it washes away during development (it will stain the spent developer, but it'll fade after a little time). I have no idea about the 5x4 version but I doubt there'll be a significant difference.

In 35mm, Fomapan 400 has more limited anti-halation than in 120, though I'd argue it lends itself to interesting effects. The anti-halation layer is fine, instead, for Foma 100 and Foma 200 in 35mm.

Can you show a phone shot of your negative taken against a strong white light (eg white Ipad screen). I suspect what you're referring to as 'bloom' is the effect of strong overexposure on the highlights.

I've only noticed the green on 200, never seen it on 100 or 400, both 120 and 35mm.
Is it a recent addition?

 

[trypdal]

I've only noticed the green on 200, never seen it on 100 or 400, both 120 and 35mm.
Is it a recent addition?

In my experience the green is on all three products in 120.

None of the 35mm versions stain the developer green. However, some anti-halation layer is definitely there. Foma 100 in 35mm for instance has similar (quite well controlled) halation properties as Kentmere 100.

 

[Nebular89]

Nope. I use Fomapan in 120 mostly, and the anti-halation layer is there and it's quite effective for Foma 100, 200, 400. Interestingly, it's green, and it washes away during development (it will stain the spent developer, but it'll fade after a little time). I have no idea about the 5x4 version but I doubt there'll be a significant difference.

In 35mm, Fomapan 400 has more limited anti-halation than in 120, though I'd argue it lends itself to interesting effects. The anti-halation layer is fine, instead, for Foma 100 and Foma 200 in 35mm.

Can you show a phone shot of your negative taken against a strong white light (eg white Ipad screen). I suspect what you're referring to as 'bloom' is the effect of strong overexposure on the highlights.

It is most likely bloom. It looks like highlights almost “leak” into the darker areas.
you can see where the strip of highlights run across the frame the main trunk in the middle loses contrast as do the branches coming from the top.
I think it’s a fairly extreme example but I’ve never noticed it in any other films

 

[trypdal]

It is most likely bloom. It looks like highlights almost “leak” into the darker areas.
you can see where the strip of highlights run across the frame the main trunk in the middle loses contrast as do the branches coming from the top.
I think it’s a fairly extreme example but I’ve never noticed it in any other films

Thanks. I've never noticed this with Foma, either, but as stated I only use it in 35mm and 120 format. Perhaps they've removed the anti-halation layer from their sheet film as a cost saving measure? Is this a fresh batch?

I'd still suggest overexposure here may play a role. Would be interested in a picture of the negative. I'm suspecting those highlights may be extremely sooty on the negative.

 

[Nebular89]

Thanks. I've never noticed with Foma, either, but as stated I only use it in 35mm and 120 format. Perhaps they've removed the anti-halation layer from their sheet film as a cost saving measure? Is this a fresh batch?

I'd still suggest overexposure here may play a role. Would be interested in a picture of the negative. I'm suspecting those highlights may be extremely sooty on the negative.

I’ll dig it out. I don’t remember thinking it looked odd but I’m not that good at reading negatives.
I did think it was because the exposure between the trunk and highlight was so stark. I just couldn’t think of a time I’d noticed it before with any other film. It’s the only time I’ve used fomapan for an extended period. I may well just not have encountered a scene like it before though, I have always used 35mm and very rarely for landscape.
It’s a fresh batch, bought from nik and trik maybe 4-6 months ago. A decent amount of time before Christmas anyway