What I learned Shooting #15: Zone Imaging’s 510 Pyro

What I learned Shooting #15: Zone Imaging’s 510 Pyro

Zone Imaging has gotten a lot of press for bringing 510 Pyro to market in 2021/22 - when you search for it, most of the first page of results are press releases or online retailers offering it for sale. There’s a near total total lack of objective reviews. However as I’ve dug around for more information on Zone Imaging’s 510 Pyro, especially in the shadow of some deeply troubling claims by Zone Imaging’s founder James Lane that 510 Pyro is almost non-toxic - which flies straight in the face of any information I’ve ever read anywhere about the nature of Pyrogallol. I feel a duty to report/publish my own experience with the developer as a volume shooter, and the inquiry around the level of toxicity that 510 Pyro contains.

Some of the blotchy development - Tmax 100 @ 64 - overexposed 2 stops.

Some background on 510 Pyro:

510 Pyro was first formulated in the early 00’s by Jay DeFehr - you can find a pictorial planet article here if you’d like to attempt mixing up the developer for yourself. In fact here’s a video of Jay mixing the developer himself using less than standard safety protocol - you can even see the exact moment where Lane discovered 510 Pyro here, in the comments section.

I was given a 500ml bottle of Zone Imaging 510 Pyro for Christmas, and have no affiliation with Zone Imaging, James Lane, Jay DeFehr, or Catlabs (where this bottle was purchased from). 
I want the developer to work: it seems like a great solution (1 bath, 1 part pyro), and most of the marketing materials and reviews around the developer make it seem like a magic bullet. I had contacted Zone Imaging about bulk pricing, if the first bottle worked out. Bulk pricing being a necessity, when a 500mL bottle costs $135.

As of writing this, I’ve developed 130 sheets of 4x5” film, and ten rolls of 120 in Zone Imaging 510 Pyro. 

The films I’ve developed are: 

Hp5+ (in sheet), 

The new Rollei Retro 100 available from Blue Moon Camera (in sheet)

Tmax 400 (in roll), 

Tmax 100 (in both sheets and rolls.) 

For my other chemistry I use a water stop, and TF-5 fixer - as recommended by Zone Imaging. All of Photographer’s Formulary’s products are really consistent - I was a regular user of TF-5 before this.

My results and reports are based both on my findings of the film, scanned, and wet printed.

Disclosures about me, and what I’m looking for: 

I’m not a pixel/grain peeper, I care more about tonality, and how well I can use a given negative to make the final image I want, and the ease and consistency of my working system - due to my working environment where I need to turn in 40 strong images a month. I’m a photographer, not a lab tech, nor am I an amateur chemist who enjoys spending his time mixing custom developers from powder. I prefer to spend my time photographing and printing, rather than optimizing a process for marginal gains. If you find that custom making/mixing your own developers either home brew or from a recipe (a la Anchell and Troop) is a helpful and important part of your photographic/artistic practice, I’m not here to detract from that.

My ideal developer renders good tonality (shadow detail and low-midtones especially), is easy to work with, prints as well as it scans, and works the same every single time. Bonuses are: giving full film speed (allowing for box use, or N-1 development for decreased contrast).

HP5+ @ 100, push to 400 — if you look carefully you can see odd flow/bubbling marks.

Here are my findings, laid out in a numbered list:

1. If you buy 510 Pyro from Zone Imaging or any of their retail partners, you will get 510 Pyro.

It is what it says on the tin.

2. Pyro of all kinds is toxic, and potentially damaging to your general health. 

Zone Imaging (as of writing this) seems to be jumping up and down making specious claims that it’s non-toxic and that they’re working with the EPA/ECHA to prove it. According to Alex Luyckx, (who talked to/recieved help from James Lane) 510 Pyro (apparently) less toxic than the most eco-friendly developer - Xtol, which is directly contradicted by rival manufacturer Bostic and Sullivan’s MSDS on the same developer. Additionally, TEA - another core ingredient of the developer - is also highly toxic in the kinds of dosage found in 510 Pyro, especially once water is introduced in the formulation of the concentrate.

If you look at Zone Imagaing’s MSDS - it obfuscates the danger. There’s no immediate callout to its immediate toxicity outside of “acute toxicity 4.” There should be some note via the standard symbol of skull and crossbones. Worse than the data sheet - There’s nothing on the bottle that indicates that it can be immediately toxic or poisonous in its concentrated form - just mutagenic (which is still problematic) Zone Imaging fails to put the skull and crossbones upfront to warn users.

Lane’s claims of non-toxicity are centered around the developer at working strength i.e. 1:100 or more dilute (which is, of course, considerably less toxic) rather than in concentrate. This is deeply problematic, because you’re most likely to come into direct contact with the developer as a result of it’s poor workability- which I’ll testify to below in #3. Ironically the most honest/upfront description zone imaging gives of the toxicity of the developer is on page 15 of the development technical info sheet.

If Zone Imaging can provide real evidence, i.e.: a published lab report by a trustworthy independent lab confirming low toxicity of the concentrate or actual evidence of correspondence with the EPA and ECHA confirming that the toxicity of the concentrate is negligible or near negligible, or a video of Zone Imaging’s founder drinking a bottle of 510 Pyro, I’ll retract this segment.

TMax 400 in 120 @ 200.

3. 510 Pyro is miserable to work with due to its thick consistency.

It’s hard to measure and a pain to get out of the bottle. When doing my first couple batches, I had to load and then unload the 5ml syringe at least ten times to get exactly 25ml for a 1:100 dilution. My solution was to use my 100ml measuring beaker to measure out roughly 25mL, and measure my water out in proportion to whatever did or didn’t make it into the beaker. The developer is so viscous (especially at or below 20º C – it’s almost a solid) it actually broke the measuring syringe provided by Zone Imaging with the bottle. I pulled back on the plunger, the syringe filled a little over three quarters of the way, then *burst* spitting developer directly backwards. I feel very lucky that the developer hit the wall behind me, rather than me. 

510 Pyro struggles to mix with water due to its extreme viscosity. I can get the syrup to incorporate - but it’s a pain, and I often wonder if I’ve successfully managed to mix it correctly, despite sitting there and stirring the working solution for 2-5 minutes. To ameliorate this problem, I float my bottle of 510 Pyro in another mixing jug with 25º-30ºC water for 10 minutes before starting my developing sessions. I store the bottle in that water bath between development cycles, to help ease the viscosity. The tempered water bath helps much less than you’d think or hope though.

HP5 @ 200 - a damn shame about the blotching - I really like how this turned out otherwise, give or take some shadow detail.

For a video of someone else measuring out their 510 Pyro, and seeing how inconsistent and difficult it is (non-Zone Imaging, but the same developer) - I’d recommend checking out Analogue Andy’s Videos on the developer here.

This is not a beginner developer - honestly, I’d say mixing up a 2 bath or 2 part solution of a less viscous liquid or syrup (the consistency of Rodinal or HC-110, or more liquid than that) would be safer, easier, and more reliable. 

4. It’s bad with sheet film in a spiral tank.

I’ve had lots of issues with the developer moving around inconsistently. After using the semi-stand agitation method and the Ilford method, I have found this splotchy development problem occurs with both modes. The problem doesn’t crop up in roll film, when I tried it on T-Max 100 or 400 in semi-stand.

I’m far too clumsy with my hands, and impatient for tray development - so I cannot speak to its efficacy there. It seems impertinent to splash around in a known toxin in a pitch black room, even if it is fairly dilute by the time I’d be using it.

5. The shadow detail/retention in 510 Pyro is awful.

I rate my film at half speed, then develop for box speed. I believe that Lane’s claims of 510 Pyro being a full speed developer to be untrue, or that for some reason chemically - it’s just really bad at developing shadow detail. In either case - a significant dealbreaker for me.  I’ve found that the photos I made with 510 Pyro that do have reasonable shadow detail, are typically images that were overexposed 1-2 stops beyond my initial half speed rating, because I was compensating for something - snow, long exposure, weird light pattern.

6. The Darkroom benefits of the film are vastly overrated.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

I find no significant advantage over Xtol, Rodinal, or PMK - I didn’t find my negatives significantly easier to print. I also found no real bonus to sharpness or microcontrast. To put this to the test I made the largest possible enlargement (with my current darkroom setup) from the negatives I had: a 22x28” enlargement from a 6x7 negative. It looks around as grainy as any of my other negatives in a non-pyro, non-staining developer. At roughly 10x, the image does start to look grainy. I’d like to note, I did use the “optimal” method described by Zone Imaging/Rudiger Hartung is semi-stand development, for the negatives that I put to this test.

(Check right for my print comparison.)

7. I get no advantage out of 510 Pyro over Xtol, Rodinal, or PMK when scanning.

(full image vs 100% crop pictured to the right.)

The main claims on the FAQ page for 510 Pyro is that it’s good for shadow detail recovery and that you can pull a 20x enlargement from your negative - both qualities are hard to prove. Most scanners (and software) are pretty good at pulling more a balanced tonal range out of a negative than you’d easily be able to print in a darkroom without pitch perfect negatives, and some careful dodging and burning. Likewise - the claim of 20x enlargement via scan being possible seems difficult to prove - and easy to write off if someone makes a claim against it. I might also venture to guess 20x enlargement may just be the standard. At home on my epson v850 - I found that I started to see grain at a 100% zoom on a 2400dpi tif scan - which is normal. I think both of these claims are specious - If someone has an independent, unbiased test that can contradict this in a meaningful way, I will retract this.

HP5+ @ 200 - Uneven development strikes again.

What’s the takeaway here?

510 Pyro is nothing special at all. Avoid this developer. 

It’s bad for beginners (despite being marketed otherwise), hard to work with, and problematic with sheet film. I really hate how it handles shadow detail. When it works, it really works - but that’s another deal breaker for me - it’s not consistent. Any photographer with the slightest shred of process control will tell you the best systems are the most consistent.

If one needs to continue to use a staining developer I’ve been informed that both PMK and Pyrocat-HD do the job just fine,  Pyrocat-HD being the best (i.e. most consistent) of the staining developers for sheet film. I don’t think I need a staining developer for most of my current uses - though I do like a staining developer for the work I’m doing by a river (on roll film) - this is what inspired me to pick up 510 Pyro in the first place, after having tried PMK. 

If you must use 510 Pyro, mix your own from dry chemicals or buy from Bostick and Sullivan.

Fun Sidenotes:

Foma films scan poorly, but wet-print amazingly well. Look for an article on that at some point. I’m fairly certain that the new Rollei Retro 100 isn’t really close to APX 100 or RPX 100, despite the claims of Rollei - it seems to be a rebadged Fomapan 100 - my main argument for this is that the film has the same notch code as Foma films, as well as the exact same sickly green washout/base as Foma. I don’t mind this - rebadging is kinda part of the game at this point, especially when the price is so good; but it’s a little disheartening - I really loved the original German Agfapan APX 100.

If you’d like to support frozenwaste.land - please pick something up from the shop!

What I Learned Photographing #13: Minolta CLE + Rokkor-M 40mm f/2, Rokkor-M 28mm f/2.8, and Rokkor-M 90mm f/4

What I Learned Photographing #13: Minolta CLE + Rokkor-M 40mm f/2, Rokkor-M 28mm f/2.8, and Rokkor-M 90mm f/4

For the gear fiends (or anyone unlucky enough to be pulled here via SEO) - here’s the actual wrap up of the Minolta CLE and lenses, so that you can read it and leave, and not suffer all the philosophizing:

The .58x rangefinder base length is really nice and makes shooting with a rangefinder manageable with glasses (NB: I mean manageable, not really enjoyable - for me), the 40mm is one of the best looking lenses I’ve owned. The 90mm was neat to use, but also kinda whatever. It was neat to use a 28mm and be able to see the whole frame, but also nothing super notable either - like it’s cool but also whatever.

I pretty much exclusively shot the camera in aperture priority or program or whatever it is. It worked out fine, pretty much every time. The meter is good, and provided your cable doesn’t give you issues, using off camera flash is easy and the auto metering is fine there too. Pretty sure I went over all that in the “hey look, I photographed some weebs - the results are alright, I guess.” article, but thought it’d be worth running back here.

Honestly it’s one of those things where, “everything’s fine, there aren’t a ton of problems” is about the best thing you can say about a camera - you know nothing strange will happen, the thing just kinda does it’s job, you don’t have to worry. The small size is low-key enough that you can sneak around doing street photography without worrying much, if that’s your thing. It makes it easy to carry, or pocket, if need be. Personally, I find the handle annoying and useless - don’t pay the extra money for it, also it stops you from using a tripod, so you have to unscrew the handle, then attach your tripod, then try and keep track of a small plastic thing (always a recipe for disaster) - granted if you’re using a tripod, you’re probably not using this camera, but it’s an annoyance.

There’s  not a good direct substitute for it, give or take the even more maligned Leica/Minolta CL, short of ponying up a kidney and getting a Leica MP/M7 with the .58x baselength rangefinder, - but even then, neither of those cameras has the 40mm framelines. Compared to a Leica I don’t really notice much of a difference in “feel” as far as the mechanics go. I guess the plastic on the CLE is “cheap” but it feels fine to me, but I’m a profligate. I got my Minolta CLE in the Collector’s edition briefcase, with all three lenses, and bonus items. It’s pretty neat, and honestly having a purpose specific case, that holds everything neatly makes storage much much more convenient. 

The Minolta CLE w/ 40mm Rokkor-M F/2 was my grail camera/setup for a long time. I used it, it’s a great setup for the most part, but: if you have glasses, are a left eyed shooter, work mostly in landscape photography, and you’re an SLR dork - or are any or all of those things - like me, even the Minolta CLE won’t elevate your images, or make you faster, or help you at all. I do really wish I could get the 40mm in some kind of SLR compatible package. After all that I ultimately found that I just don’t care that much about it either. At this point, I’ve kinda given up buying new cameras, and check in as ambivalent at best on most equipment.

 A camera’s a camera, stick with stuff you don’t second guess, the limit is you. Go figure.

If you want something more affirming, or helpful, or poetic go visit any of these reviews - they’re probably a much better guide:  

https://casualphotophile.com/2016/05/23/why-i-choose-the-minolta-cle-over-any-leica-m/

https://www.35mmc.com/08/02/2019/minolta-cle-review/

https://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/cle.htm

https://www.macfilos.com/2021/04/12/forgotten-innovation-minolta-cle-with-40-2-28-2-8-and-the-21mm-wide-angles/

Anyway, here’s the musings and notes or, like, what I learned on a more theoretical level:

I guess this isn’t a long review - more or less a page? I covered a lot when I did a writeup on shooting an anime convention. I think that honestly does a solid enough job of like “this is the camera on an actual shoot weekend.” I will include a bunch of landscape pictures here, just to give examples. I don’t really have much to say about working in landscape photography though — I’ll get to why.

Rangefinders are neat, they definitely give you a certain “feel” while working, I’d wager to say that’s like 75% in your head to be sure. Then again, most art is “in your head” isn’t it? Rangefinders do a reasonable job of getting you out of your head, because they’re one step abstracted by default (what the Viewfinder sees is not exactly the same as the lens, and then you compose around the framelines rather than the bounced image) - but combined with learning to see more broadly, and understanding that even through an SLR viewfinder, the image you think you’re capturing is about half the final product, you can kinda use whatever camera suits your purpose best. 

Other quick notes I don’t think I got around to during my Anime Convention writeup: working quick on rangefinder is easier when you’re doing candid stuff, but squaring up for a direct portrait is not great, especially if you have to look for the stupid little rangefinder patch, while holding a flash, and moving the lens tab. I generally find the instant feedback from the slr is more manageable squared up with someone in front of me.

Rangefinders generally use slow lenses with fairly limited apertures (yeah, sure the noctiluxes/summiluxes are things, but realistically, who even owns or shoots with those?). This shouldn’t really be a surprise to anyone who likes cameras, or y’know is looking for a review of a secret handshake camera. I didn’t realize how much I liked being able to go to 1.4 for a thin/dreamy or abstracted look, until I was stuck at f/2 on a moderately wide lens or f/4 on a mild telephoto. Add on to that, most RF lenses also seem to have pretty miserable close focus distances too. I know Mark Steinmetz does god tier street portraits (if you really wanna limit them to being just that) with a gw690, which is both slow and has a crappy close focus distance.

On the whole, I’ve come to the conclusion you can essentially use any camera for landscape photography. It truly doesn’t matter. Make your frame, square up, Shoot. Are you composing with lines that forecast what you’re seeing, or a viewfinder with somewhat limited coverage? Either way, doesn’t really matter. SLR or Rangefinder. For the most part, nothing in your frame is going much of anywhere any time fast. Theoretically Rangefinders are lighter, but honestly, unless you’re a mountaineer, or a long distance hiker, up to medium format - the difference in weight is negligible. That said, I seem to excel in toting heavy items long distances,  massive grain of salt right there.

The idea of the image or like the skeleton of the image based on your idea seems to be the most critical factor - what you do or make with it along the way, and what the scene and every subsequent step tells you - or what you learn from it seems to be the best determining factor for the final photo and what that final photo is used in. Not to to get too woo-woo, but honestly, I’ve come to really believe in “trust the process” - not like put blind faith in mindless repetition or serving the goal or just proceeding forward, but like actively taking part in the imagemaking process and really mining into all the insights you find along the way - that’s where the money or at the very least, the interesting images, seem to be at.

I’m wholly willing to admit at this point, I’m just not cool enough to be a rangefinder person. That being said, I’m kinda over *cool* photographers. I’m generally pretty bored sick of the edgelord mentality that plagues a lot of street photographers (and I suppose photographers at large?). You can make really sharp, out there, hardcore content without being an edgelord, or at least making that your whole public persona or internet persona. We get it, you’re cool, you’re hip, you’re in the street.

Left eye dominance, then glasses, is just kind of a mess. The viewfinder’s nice. One thing that’s big in street photography shooting that I’m lucky enough to have learned early on and made use of over time is keeping both eyes open when looking through the viewfinder - it lets you see/compose/be aware beyond the given frame, and makes squaring up a lot easier. Kinda lets you cheat the rangefinder effect of seeing “around” the frame via the framelines.

Swapping to my non dominant eye was really good for breaking up my usual shooting patterns. I can’t keep both eyes open when I use my off eye,  because it’s not over trained. Eventually I could keep both eyes open but my right eye doesn’t want to fully focus like my left eye does, when both are open but one’s using a viewfinder. It does beg the question to me, how long does it take to build up that strength - assuming it’s an optical/muscular issue.

The Rokkor-M 28mm F/2.8 is a 28mm. The big viewfinder makes it easy to use. I dunno, it’s fine? I don’t really know what to tell you - it’s a lens angle/focal length for me - I’m generally a 24mm guy if I shoot a true wide these days. The Rokkor-M 28mm works fine - even with the known schneideritis issue. I have no real complaints, it’s just not my thing. 

The  Rokkor-M 90mm F/4 is less goofy to use than you’d think through the giant .58x rangefinder.  I can wrap my brain around Saul Leiter’s process now. I don’t think I could replicate it or perform in his style, but I think I can kinda see inside his head on this one, if you’ll bear with me - by using ultra tight super tiny boxes in a or normal finder, it lets you make the strongest simplest composition, because you couldn’t possibly work out the textures - because of that you get really tight, really sharp shape and line based compositions that usually work out well because the large compositional elements of the photograph are strong, because you’re essentially limiting yourself to only being able to guess at the fine detail - it goes back to that idea of the “idea” of the image, and an element of chance.

Calibration is obnoxious, as is repair. Had to send my camera into two different techs. Avoid Dave of Dave’s Camera Repair in Michigan at all costs (I’m definitely not alone in this - it’s well documented on the net) he might steal your gear or it’ll get stuck in limbo - I had to spend the better part of a month chasing him down. Can’t say I much cared for the other tech either - I got much the same treatment, as Dave did to me - he (apparently) had some health issues, and we’re at least loosely in the same social circle, so I’ll avoid naming him here. Generally I have good luck with camera techs, so it’s good to know or be aware of. I’ve definitely taken having a reliable camera tech for granted. Anyway, just be careful looking for a tech. Most of the camera *should* be easily repairable/adjustable, the one twist is of course the electronics, but that’s a known risk.

Weird side takeaway - even if the rf calibration is fine, I did find out real fast that not all epson v600’s are created equal (I mean, consensus is they kinda suck, but still) - my old one that I had in LA was actually really reliable, and the focus was set correctly. The last one I had here in maine was rough. Add another reason onto the pile of why I hate the V600.

I feel pretty confident returning to my XD11 for my daily shooter/carryalong - it’s great. It’s still (relatively) cheap if I need to replace it. I get along with it. But all that being said, I spend most of my serious work time on my Pentax 6x7, and having a good chunk of cash sunk into a package that I just don’t use or don’t use optimally seems like a waste. I dunno.

---

As always, we run completely on merch sales and donations! if you’d like to support this kind of non-review review, or our much more helpful interviews, Grab a shirt or zine in the shop, or consider joining our patreon!

What I learned shooting #11: FOMAPAN 200 (35mm/120)

What I learned shooting #11 - FOMAPAN 200 (35mm/120)

Pentax 6x7 -Takumar SMC 105mm f/2.4, Xtol 1:1 at 200.

I think I’ve chickenshitted around this review for three years now - if you’re coming here from instagram, and you’re a long term follower or person I talk to, drop a comment on how long I’ve talked about writing up a general overview of Foma 200.

Fomapan 200 is made by Foma Bohemia - I think that’s apparent from the name. It’s not an expensive film - in fact probably one of the cheapest films on the market. That being said I’d argue none of the Foma films are truly “budget films” - like, they’re not as sharp as newer tech films like modern Tri-X, HP5, or Fuji’s Acros - but they have nice grain (like the quality of grain is nice) and tonality overall - I have heard reports of Foma or the house rebrand - Arista EDU - having some quality control issues - but I’ve actually never run afoul of them, personally. I tend to think of Foma, and Fomapan as being “old tech” which accounts for its relative cheapness - where I tend to think of Kentmere and other Harman private label runs (Agfaphoto APX, Rollei RPX, and Adox CHS - Fotoimpex even outright acknowledges that Kentmere is the same film as those three lines) - as being markedly inferior versions of Ilford HP5+.

Foma 200 - Xtol 1:1 Minolta XD-11

Foma 200 is a bit of an odd duck even amongst the normal Foma line - it’s a half delta/tabular grain film (Think Kodak T-MAX, Ilford Delta 100, Fuji ACROS), but with the traditional grain of the other Foma films - so it has that “old” look. Add to that that the film is nominally rated at 200 - though Foma’s Netherlands distributor Fotohuis - pops up on almost any forum that the film is mentioned on and quickly discounts that rating, giving a nominal *actual* speed of 100-160 depending on developer - anyone who shoots the other Foma films will know that’s pretty much par for the course and be more or less unsurprised by that.

I’ve used the emulsion on and off for a few years now - probably at least the three I’ve mentioned here before - maybe longer - so this is probably a broader or less specific “what’d you learn.”

Foma 200 - Rodinal 1:25 - Minolta XD-11

Equipment Used: 

(for those who aren’t familiar, or like me demand pretty much every possible vector for variation be revealed):

35mm: Minolta XD11 35mm Camera - MC-PG-x Rokkor 50mm f.1.4, and MD-W Rokkor 24mm f/2.8

Minolta CLE, with the CLE M-Rokkor 40mm f/2, as well as the CLE M-Rokkor 90mm f/4

120: Pentax 6x7 MLU, Takumar SMC 105mm f/2.4, Takumar SMC-II 55mm f/4 - final version,  and the Takumar SMC 45mm f/4 - second version.

So, what did I learn shooting: Fomapan 200?

1. Rodinal isn’t an all purpose developer for 100ish iso films. Some of the Fomapan 200 is 35mm, some of this is 120. It should be clearly marked. I didn’t keep a good track of what I developed in (ie writing or noting everything on paper), but after deep frying (honestly, really just developing normally) some in Rodinal at one point - i’ll point it out, don’t worry - I found that Xtol was just a far far better developer for the film. Most of or all of the film was developed in Xtol 1:1, it’s a pretty broad testament to that developer - that being said, I think given the additional negative size of 120, the negatives from Rodinal would be less ugly in MF - though it seems to be the grain itself.

The key learning point here is that rodinal doesn’t work for everything - I mean, given it’s common knowledge that Rodinal is a rough choice for most films over 200, but on paper, one wouldn’t necessarily guess that a film with a rating of 200 box, and colloquially 125-160, or even 100 would look as rough or gross as it does in rodinal.

I’d chalk that up to being a tabular or hybrid tabular grain film, but across the board, I’ve found that against initial first thought, - ie rodinal is old and super low tech, tabular grain is new and shiny - that rodinal gets along well with Delta 100 and original Fujifilm Acros (miss me with that ACROS II shit) - I can’t really speak on T-Max.

Pentax 6x7 MLU - Xtol 1:1, shot at 200 pushed to 400/800

2. Sometimes the colloquial film speed ratings are actually right - or at least they usually are when speaking about the mainline Fomapan films (100,200,400). Most of the time I tend to balk at a lot of the conservative film-speed ratings for black and white emulsions given by the various codgers on the forums - they’re probably not wrong, but I value speed, and I don’t think there’s usually a big enough sharpness loss, to justify knocking at least half a stop if not more off my film’s default rating - typically because I like a ton of contrast, or nice dark black, I tend to overcrank (that’s what I’m calling it now - sorry Johnny Patience) my film where I’ll shoot it at 400 and develop way over to 1600, or 800 to 1600 or 3200, or even just go way out at 1600 or 3200, as the base speed. At any rate given my usual choice of developer (xtol, rodinal) film speed is usually more or less box, or me cranking the shit out of it for fun and profit.

However, in this case, as I noted before Fotohuis is actually correct - Fomapan 200 should probably be shot at 125 or 160, maybe 100, unless you’re doing it for effect. The dark, dark shots here are shot at 200, pushed to 400, or possibly even 800 - I don’t mind the push or the contrast, but like, some of it is a bit too rough for even me.

3. Medium Format (120 film) is better than 35mm. Controversial opinion to most of the other younger folks here, but to any of the adults, you know exactly what I mean. Don’t get me wrong, I have a deep, deep love for 35mm - I think in terms of practicality and daily use, especially for street photography, or projects where resolution doesn’t matter so much as being out and capturing critical moments is the key goal, it’s a much better system. That being said, negative for negative, once you get used to shooting and composing for medium format - because there is a learning curve, perhaps a longer one than one might initially expect - the images from, and negatives that one gets from medium format, just have a certain shine or sharpness, that can’t really be replicated by 35mm images - maybe some zeiss or leica lenses can render as sharp on 35mm as say a 6x45 camera -but I have a really hard time believing they can make the jump to 6x6 or bigger (prove me wrong).

Pentax 6x7 MLU - Takumar 55mm/4 SMC-II - Shot at 160, developed to 200

4. Rangefinders need calibration regularly, and so do their lenses. So, on a bunch of these (the Minolta CLE images), I got lucky because I stopped way down to 8 or further, which let me cheat the focus, however there’s sort of weird focus issues all over the place with a bunch of the images which leads me to believe, rangefinders can go out of calibration after a year, and even the lenses do as well. It gives kind of a neat infrared look - or there’s something else wrong here. I don’t think it entirely negates the examples here though.

5. Commitment to a system does pay benefits - I really like that all my photos look the same with the same system. It gives a better overall feel. I’m sure I’ve groused about this at length back on the Orwo N74+ “What I learned.” Luckily from years of shooting Fomapan 200, and in two formats rather than one, 

6. Original Acros has no replacement - I had some film community/camera selling bigshot joke that nobody shot Acros, and that Foma 200 was a fine replacement from Acros three or four odd years back. I think I groused about it on my travelogue about Huntington Beach. I might delete that travelogue, but it’s linked here anyway. He was (is) wrong. He also looked like Varg Vikernes wearing a hawaiian shirt. Take that how you will.

Minolta CLE + Rokkor-M 90mm F/4 , Shot at 160, developed to 200+30%

7. I don’t know why I don’t just shoot HP5+ all the time. Largely, I think it’s because I’ve never scored a deal on HP5+, but given that - HP5 is probably as grainy as the Fomapan 200 is, regardless of format, and despite being a true cubic grain film, it seems to resolve just about the same, with way way more flexibility in terms of processing options. 

Going back to systems, it might take some more time to get a really finely dialed in HP5+ system, but it seems like the payout is probably more worth it, - especially given you’re essentially adding two stops on with little to no downside - assuming box speed for hp5 rather than the practical speed of 100ish for Fomapan 200.

8. You can push a 100 iso film to 400. I don’t *love* shooting-to- push 100 ISO film, but it can be done. All the Fairground stuff is shot that way - and it turned out alright. It definitely could’ve used more exposure in some places, but it’s not completely unacceptable. I mean, I guess I technically push Acros (Original) - but at the same time my process is a weird semi-stand thing, so it doesn’t *feel* like pushing.

9.  I don’t write these reviews for any kind of deep fulfilment, or because I’m actually trying to be useful to anyone other than myself, it’s mostly to force myself to review my process and photos at length - ie “am I making photos that I want to make,” “are these photos showing enough progress?” “Did this piece of equipment work well for me?  Also to boost my SEO presence. Sorry. If you’re reading this, there’s about a 50/50 chance you’ve become accustomed to that.

10. I don’t know why I don’t just commit to shooting HP5+ for all my black and white stuff. I don’t really give a shit one way or another about grain, I want my contrast to be dialable rather than bricked all the time, and more often than not I end up needing the two extra stops, minimum.

Minolta CLE + Rokkor-M 40mm CLE - Shot @ 100, developed to 200+30%

Slipping into actual review territory for a half second:

-- The film is fine, like, I’d probably rather shoot it than t-max, maybe Delta 100. I think it’s a bit neutral toned for me, though the new auto algorithm for Epson Scan 2 is a ton contrastier. That being said - I don’t think Foma 200 is totally right for me - it’s not a bad film overall though, like if you like what you see, and you like the price point, it’s honestly, a solid choice.

If it makes it sound like this film is bad - it really isn’t - both of my actual dedicated travelogue zines were shot on it (in 120 format) - and while I think I’ve improved as a photographer and scan technician since I shot, developed, and scanned the film - I think the film performed perfectly adequate - and I’d probably pick it out over any other 100 iso film currently on the market.

Anyway. Buy a Zine in the Shop. Both Antelope Valley Poppy Reserve and Fairground were shot on Fomapan 200 in 120. I need to pay my bills for the website somehow.