Why process film at work seemed like a good idea, and some early thoughts on the Foma Excel film developer

I need to put up a warning to you all before you read much further:
What was supposed to only be some little thing went way on to become quite a lengthy post due to the (in my head anyway) complexity of the themes brought up by myself as I went on writing on this piece. OK, there is nothing complex in here as such, but I needed a few more words than originally planned to explain myself well enough. As usual.
One thing grabbed the other, and before I knew any of it I was too far gone. That happens at times, as we all know. 
If you got no interest in a couple of different Foma developers or the Foma P powder fixer, or if you never travel with film (through airports and such) or if you got no interest what so ever in how to, and not at least why on earth, arrange a floating darkroom in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico, and further if you couldn't care less why in heavens name anyone would see the benefit in doing so, well I suggest you save your heart from high blood pressure (if it's not too late already due to this sentence) and simply jump ahead to a different blog. This post is most likely going to be quite boring, or even lethal for some, I assume. 
I'll post a couple of film snaps all the way down below at the end, so you can scroll down there before surfing further on your way through the web and have a look at them if you like. I'll be quite happy if you do actually. 

Here we go;
As you probably already know if you did read the last couple of posts, we're in the process of building up a very simple and low tech film developing lab on board the vessel I work on. There are a couple of reasons why this still seems to be a good idea, but the original thought was for educational purposes and short term facilities only, as there are two or three young lads (anyway that's what you call them when you passed 50 yourself way too long ago now) on board, all eager to learn how this film magic works in practice.
Well, this was a couple of trips ago now, and it turned out during their time off they were actually eager enough to start some home education by themselves before they came on board on the previous trip to this one. Again, this of course means they are no longer in need of any direct hands on help from anyone at all, especially not me, and they are of course developing film more or less like any pro these days. Which is brilliant, of course.

So, this is it! Our little corner in one of the stories and workshop areas where film is being processed. Chemicals for most normal film processes is up on the shelf, together with most of the stuff you'll need to get the deed done. It's not fancy, but it seems to work well enough. As you might understand this corner doubles up as a soap and washing equipment area. Sorry about the pixels and and all that, but for plain documentation I have to admit there are benefits...

A little close-up of the point of interest. I see one of the Paterson spools has been hidden away somewhere else, but it will show up again some time I'm sure.

However, it turns out there seems to be another good reason for developing film on board when at work in 2020, and I am of course speaking of the fact that airport security scanners are getting more powerful these days. A new generation of machines (or not new as such, as the same technology have been in use for check-in luggage for about 20 years already) are being installed in all major airports as we speak, probably to speed up the process at the security checkpoints. 
I very much like the idea of getting through the security check a lot faster than the usual tedious way, but I don't like the new machines likeliness of frying my film in the process, which they probably will if you have been listening with both ears to what Kodak, Ilford and others in the film production business have been talking about lately. 
Up until now I have been bringing my unexposed film inside my carry on luggage, and just simply dropped-in-a-tray-and-through-the-scanners-they-fly without any issues at all. I have been doing the same thing with my cameras, loaded with film and everything. No problems at all.
I have been traveling like this with film in my bag for many years now, back and forth through anything between two and eight scanners on each trip every six weeks year in and year out. I'm sure some films in my bag must have passed probably 20+ scannings of the old sorts, and I have never had an issue I can possibly blame any X-ray scanner for.
The 20+ number is just taken out of the air of course, because I have not been counting, but I travel a lot for work and I sometimes travel far, and I usually would just grab a good little bunch of film before I leave home and just tuck them inside my bag. Some rolls will be leftovers and just stay inside that same bag during multiple trips without being used, and that's why the number of X-ray scannings could reach such numbers and probably above for some films. As time goes and everything in the world is the same, you start to relax after some time, and airport scanners is far from your worst enemy after a few years doing this. 
But now there's a new beast on the block, and we traveling film wasters have to deal with it in some sort of way. 

By processing film on board I will of course be able to reduce the amount of X-ray scans a lot compared to my previous "regime". 
In addition I will also have to do something about my earlier habit of bringing film back and forth multiple times. 
The idea is of course simply to bring un-processed film on board, but not back home if I can possibly avoid it. I might also get better at buying film in whichever country I'm working at the moment, but that's an even trickier task as there will most likely be no time for any shopping like that. I work on a ship you know, and a ship earns it's daily crest at sea, not by wearing out the ropes tied up alongside some half-rotten pier somewhere. 

OK, so what's out there to expect when traveling halfway around the globe nowadays, and what has happened since some time in the second half of 2019? Well, much of the same as before, I would say. 
The few operators of the new type of X-ray machines I have bumped into have been quite cooperative up until now (with a couple of exceptions of course), but you never know when that luck is going to change on you.
For this trip I tested out my "new" concept by really bringing quite a few of rolls of 135 and 120 film on board. I dug deep into the film drawer and even deeper into my freezer (because we have now moved to a new location where I got a dedicated almost-film-only-freezer) and pulled out 80 rolls of film (just counted two minutes ago to make sure the numbers were right...) which seem to have been laying around for ages anyway. Since I can't see these rolls being used with any benefit at home I thought I better bring them on board to play around with. 
I brought some C-41 color negative film spanning from ASA 100 to 800, some rolls of E6 process positive film (low ASA stuff from Fuji), and finally a bunch of B&W film of various types from 50 to 3200 ASA. 
These were the ones picked to serve as crash test dummies through the various airports from home and over to where the ship is located, way off the coast of Louisiana at the moment. 

Leaving Norway (2 traditional and old fashion scannings) was no problem since there was no new type of scanners to be seen up north as for yet, but already down at Schiphol lies the first major test. No problem and no discussions at all about having all my rolls of film passing on the outside of the scanner to be "hand-checked" (whatever that really means), so thanks a lot for that Schiphol. Anyway I knew this was going to happen, as I have always been able to speak to the folks on this airport, and they always find the time and take the effort to listen to what you have to say. 
I went through the security twice at Schiphol, due to in and out of the airport because I had to stay overnight at a hotel before flying further on the next morning. The same friendly attitude were experienced both days. 
Then the next one on the list was Atlanta airport, USA... Heck, I finally managed to get my film hand-checked there as well, but I really had to speak out loud to make myself understood and/or heard, I'm not sure which of the two made it through to the receiver in the end. 
It's not my favorite game to play, coming in to a security checkpoint facing a fully wound-up security officer when I'm just out of a 12 hrs. flight without any sleep, and hardly had any sleep the previous night either... you know the deal. Add to this also the state you're normally in after well over an hour in immigration queue and interview... I say no more!
I must add that the minor issue through security at Atlanta Airport was probably due to one single operator in particular (could of course also be myself, but for once I really doubt it as I actually felt proud of my own reaction for days after this), as my friends who were standing in a different queue had no issues at all having their film hand checked, seeing only friendly faces and was taken very well care of. 
I also need to add that when leaving the US on the previous trip out of Houston towards Europe there was no problem at all. They were more than happy to hand-check my film both when coming in and leaving the country. In fact the operator of the new scanner in Houston actually suggested a hand scanning by himself when being informed that I was traveling with film. He knew everything about the new machines frying abilities and built-in film zapping technology. 

As a result of all this new extra hassle and possible show stoppers during traveling, I realized it was time to think seriously about developing film on board when at work. As liquid developers also are a bit tricky to travel with for obvious reasons, I decided to try bring some powder developer and fixer packed into my checked-in bag, and just cross fingers that no one would start questioning the content of the packs. Due to time issues (placing my order a bit late, as you do of course) and relatively long delivery time from a couple of different companies, I ended up having only one option if I wanted to bring any B&W developer for this trip. 
Foma in Norway was able to ship everything I needed on the same day, so I just had to go for it and cross my fingers that the two different and to me totally new and unknown developers worked as expected (or hoped, as I have also read very little about them). 

I had two types of powder developer ordered, the Fomadon P (also marked as "type D76") and the Fomadon Excel (supposed to be an X-tol type, or clone). I also ordered a few packs of crystalized or powdery Fomafix P, which obviously would be the fixer. 
The two developers comes well packed in a quite small and neat plastic bag with a cheap paper inlay telling you what's supposed to be inside the package. Nothing fancy, as usual from Foma, but it does what's needed and nothing much else. I mean why would anyone need a fancy bag anyway, as long as it survives the travel in one piece and one doesn't have to guess what's hiding inside?
The fixer comes in a nice little cardboard box of puke green color with proper mixing instructions printed inside the box. English instructions are printed in understandable phrases inside both developers and fix, just in case you wonder. 
The developers both consists of two equal sized paper bags of powder, noted in the mixing manual as "big bag" and "small bag". OK, it's not that bad, as one bag has only a small amount of powder inside, and the other is rather full of the stuff. I actually figured the most empty one had to be the "small size", and mixed myself 1 liter of the Fomadon Excel developer according to instructions as soon as I had film ready to get wet. 
The developer mix quite nice and easy with water at rather normal temperatures, and is ready for use quite shortly after throwing the powder in. I decided to go for a 1:1 dilution, keeping 1/2 liter of stock for later use. The user manual suggests to use stock solution, or at least there is no words about any dilution. It also indicates a 12 rolls capacity for 1 liter of developer, which seems to fit well enough with my finding of about 20 rolls. They are always operating on the quite safe side, and I've seen it often enough to know that's the way it works. More about that a bit further down.

As the Foma developers seems not to be among the most popular developers around, there was little or no words about developing times and the like to be found around the places I usually go to check for this sorts of information. Foma delivers data for their own films and developer combinations, but no other films was mentioned. Personally I was going to develop a roll of Ilford PAN 100, and Massive Development Chart wasn't very cooperative in this case. 
I could of course have used a lot of time asking around the web and as usual get as many different answers as the number of people answering me, so I dropped that and did it my own way. I mean it was just a lousy B&W film anyway, and normally there is hardly any chance that a masterpiece had stuck on any of the frames, so I went for X-tol times and decided to add a smallish fraction of time to it just in case. 
Well, I am happy to inform you that the trick worked well enough. The negs came out in a way that seems both lovely and fine, but I have to add that I have only been able to check them with a not too good loupe as for yet. I'll pull a lens off of one of my cameras tomorrow and have a better look, but they really look great from a distance to be honest. 
I mean I even developed a roll of good old Shanghai GP3 in the stuff a couple of days ago, and though you might have a hard time believing it, that bugger also came out as good as they ever get. You should know from years back that I really love that film, at least when you're lucky enough to not have issues with the numbers from the backing paper sticking onto the film emulsion. 
Well, there was nothing of that sorts on this roll, so it might be an over-layer from an older batch. The last rolls I bought of this film all had rather big issues with the backing paper, so I expected this one to be the same thing. Luckily it was not. 

And this is what they looks like, the packs of Foma developer and fixer I brought over from home. At least they don't take up a lot of space, or add too much weight in the suitcase when traveling.

I have yet to try the Fomadon P developer, which should be of a D-76 type if we are to believe what's printed on the front of the pack of the thing. At least the Excel developer looks very much like the X-tol stuff, but I need to warn you that I don't have any deep knowledge of that particular chemical either. In fact I've only had a few films developed in X-tol and that was years ago. Anyway, the grains came out on the fine side, and the contrast seems to be absolutely fine when looking at the negs. 
Since the Fomadon Excel developer was mixed about two weeks ago we have totally developed 9 films using half of the stock solution to make 1 liter of 1:1 developer. No visible issues as for yet, but I might not stretch it any further, and will probably mix a new batch from the rest of the stock we got up on the shelf. Value for money seems to be on the good side of things. I payed NOK 45,- for the Excel developer which I would probably have no problems getting 20 films out of if I could avoid storing the 1:1 mix for more than about one week. That's just a tad over NOK 2,- pr film which is good enough even for me. 
The Fomadon P (D-76) is a few NOK cheaper at 41,25 for a 1 liter powder pack.
The Foma P fixer is in the same area, NOK 42,- for a 1 liter pack. 
They are very handy packs to travel with, and I just realized when going into their website to check the prices that the before mentioned plastic bags containing the developer powder now seems to have been changed to cardboard boxes similar to the box the fixer was delivered in. The color seems to be a bit nicer than puke green though. Not that less fancy colors on their boxes should keep us from starting using Foma products if that's the direction we wish to throw our hard earned cash of course, but I will not start talking about that again.
What's obvious is that there is a quite huge difference in price when comparing Foma and Kodak developers. I will get three packs of 1 liter Foma developer for the same amount of money I would need to pay for one liter of the Kodak equivalent here in Norway.

I'm posting a few examples from this experiment with the Fomadon Excel developer below, but needs to put in (even more than) a few words just to make sure you know what you're looking at. 
The two snaps of the negs were taken with an iPhone by holding the neg in one hand and balancing the phone in the other trying to hit the shutterbugger using my right hand thumb at the same time. Ever tried that? Well, be my guest. Second the "window" I shot the thing through is a salted down and by all means dirty thing only there to throw some half decent light inside of my cabin, so there's a lot of stuff shining through the negative. In addition you get everything in the background all for free of course. Sea, clouds, a handrail on the outside and what have we all. Look at the grain, and nothing much else. Don't even look at what seems to be a very low contrast, because the neg is quite a bit more contrasty than it seems to be in the digital snap of it. I tried to crank it up a bit inside the phone, but the damn stupid software wouldn't allow me to do it for some reason. See why I usually go for film? Even the simplest task on any digital platform makes my blood pressure rise to dangerous levels because of things I got no way to control the insides of. 

Your personal blogger up on top there. One of them engineers had grabbed hold of the Rolleiflex for a moment and decided to "shoot the Chief". If you look away from all the faults brought in by the digital convertion apparatus, this is not actually bad at all. Shot on a roll of Kosmofoto 120 film, which effectively just mean Fomapan 100. Lovely film all the same, and I liked the results from the Fomadon Excel developer. 

One of our new Polish crane drivers and AB's. It's the same with this neg. There are stuff going on in the lower 1/3 part of the thing, so just look a bit away from that. Snapped in the Pentax 67 with the 45mm f/4 lens attached, on good old Shanghai GP3 developed in Fomadon Excel. Great stuff!

It's the 3rd engineer. The proud owner of a lovely Pentax 67, and the go-to chemist if anything like would be needed, which usually happen in this job, especially when you got a film lab on board and need something special to get something done. He just did something crazy to be able to develop E6... but more about that another bright day. 

The crane driver once more. Snapped with the Rolleiflex on the same roll of Kosmo film again. This was done hand held at 1/8 of a sec. due to rather dark conditions. Actually I think I might even would have got away with 1/15 on this one, but there was quite a bit too less lighty inside that hole of theirs inside their cave out on deck. They got good coffee out there though. 

Oh... and yes there's also a couple of snaps down at the very end having nothing to do with the rest of the post at all. They are only there because of the promise I made hours ago at the top of this thing to the ones who didn't want to read the whole post. I can't blame them for just jumping down here by the way...!
Did anyone actually read much of this nonsense at all?? 

Take care!

I just found this inside a batch of scans I made quite a while ago. It was snapped on constitutional day (May the 17th) a couple of years ago. It was a warm day, and the fury dog called Scot had found a nice place in the shadow to cool himself down a bit. I had the 85mm f/1.4 beast attached to the Nikon F3 and decided to give it a go at full aperture. I rarely do things like that, but this scene sort of asked for it there and then. Not sure about what sort of film this was though.  

This is a more recent snap and scan for sure. I was walking around the ship on crew change day with the M6 rangefinder in hand, grabbing a few shots here when possible. I even went inside the smoking room. I very rarely pass that way, but sometimes you see and hear things in there, and the world is no longer what it used to be before you went inside that door. 

Leica M6, Summicron 35mm with yellow filter. Could have been Kodak Tri-X film, but I'm not sure.

Oh well... it's obviously just another quick snap from the engine room. I think it was the light/shadow thing that made me open the shutter for a little while, but I am no longer sure about the point of doing so in the first place. Leica M6, Summicron 35mm with yellow filter. Unknown film, but might have been Kodak Tri-X