cp_ste.croix
At the beginning again.
vincentbenoit said:
I believe i called you a bloody genius on another website...I stand by my original assesment.
Great work,
Chris
Anybody using FOMA B&W film?
- Thread starter vincentbenoit
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 27
- Views 3K
I believe i called you a bloody genius on another website...I stand by my original assesment.
Great work,
Chris
john neal
fallor ergo sum
Vincent,
Yes, I have scanned Foma nags and they work OK - they would be better if my flatbed had a negative holder and top light (I use a desk lamp).
The attached was taken with a Pouva Start (toy cam) on FomaPan 200 and is one of my favourites from last year.
Yes, I have scanned Foma nags and they work OK - they would be better if my flatbed had a negative holder and top light (I use a desk lamp).
The attached was taken with a Pouva Start (toy cam) on FomaPan 200 and is one of my favourites from last year.
vincentbenoit
télémétrique argentique
Good news! Thanks.john neal said:
Nice. I'll be happy if I can get such tonality.john neal said:
Thanks again John.
Cheers
Vincent
vincentbenoit
télémétrique argentique
I haven't replied to that yet 'cause I still haven't decided whether I should take it as a compliment... Thanks anyway.cp_ste-croix said:
By the way, I don't subscribe to your idea of touring the world with a Canon 1Ds II... that camera's far too big. A nice small Bessa-R with 35/2.5C lens would be much more appropriate ;-)
Cheers
Vincent
cp_ste.croix
At the beginning again.
vincentbenoit said:
Ahh it was meant as a compliment! No offence was intended at all. I guess I felt the word genius wasn't strong enough by itself to express my admiration for your photos...
And I wrote that about the 1DsII before I discovered rangefinders (i have sort of trailed off at that site due to some of the people there and their bad attitudes)...I have lugged my massive SLR system through, up, over, under, and around all manner of things over the world and I will never do it again, now that I have discoverd the joy that is RF photography.
Sorry again if my comment offended you.
Chris
john neal
fallor ergo sum
vincentbenoit said:
Vincent,
It's great film, but the blue cast in the film can give some printing problems - it doesn't show in the scan as I had set Vuescan to B&W mode. I had to pre-flash the paper to maintain full detail around the rump of the horse and do some careful burning in, but the shadow detail is just great.
Hope you have fun 😉
R
Roman
Guest
Well, I see I'm a bit late to this thread, many things have already been said, so here's just a short summary of my experiences:
Fomapan 400: actually a quite nice film, BUT only exposed at its real speed, around 160 ASA in Rodinal and at most 250 in A49. If used at those speeds, I find the grain quite fine compared to other films of this class.
Fomapan T200: haven't used it enough to give a good, solid opinion; real speed seems to be around 125 ASA.
Fomapan 100: I like this one a lot (at 80 ASA in Rodinal 1+50) - looks very much like Agfa APX100.
The Fomapans do curl more than other films (but not as bad as Fortepan - with which they are often confused... - or Efke); the 120 size films have a weird turquoise base color, which does not have any negative effects, though. Fomapan negs look very thin compared to negs from other films - so DON'T increase dev. times before having tried printing/scanning them, even if they look thin, they work well. I have heard quite a few reports about problems with the T200 (damages in the emulsion, etc.), but have not had any myself.
If you want to use a film at around EI 400 or even higher, Ilford HP5+/Adox 400 is a good, inexpensive choice (as is TriX), since it has a realistic 400 in A49 (this dev. gives at least box speed with most films), and can be pushed quite well about 1 to 2 stops.
I like Neopan 400 a bit more (though the differences are only visible in direct comparison), but you have to be more carefully when pushing it, since highlights are rather easily blown already if slightly overdevelopped...
Roman
Fomapan 400: actually a quite nice film, BUT only exposed at its real speed, around 160 ASA in Rodinal and at most 250 in A49. If used at those speeds, I find the grain quite fine compared to other films of this class.
Fomapan T200: haven't used it enough to give a good, solid opinion; real speed seems to be around 125 ASA.
Fomapan 100: I like this one a lot (at 80 ASA in Rodinal 1+50) - looks very much like Agfa APX100.
The Fomapans do curl more than other films (but not as bad as Fortepan - with which they are often confused... - or Efke); the 120 size films have a weird turquoise base color, which does not have any negative effects, though. Fomapan negs look very thin compared to negs from other films - so DON'T increase dev. times before having tried printing/scanning them, even if they look thin, they work well. I have heard quite a few reports about problems with the T200 (damages in the emulsion, etc.), but have not had any myself.
If you want to use a film at around EI 400 or even higher, Ilford HP5+/Adox 400 is a good, inexpensive choice (as is TriX), since it has a realistic 400 in A49 (this dev. gives at least box speed with most films), and can be pushed quite well about 1 to 2 stops.
I like Neopan 400 a bit more (though the differences are only visible in direct comparison), but you have to be more carefully when pushing it, since highlights are rather easily blown already if slightly overdevelopped...
Roman
vincentbenoit
télémétrique argentique
Thanks Roman. Based on Hoot's input I've decided to go for Adox 400 rather than Fomapan 400. I'll let you know how it goes...
Cheers
Vincent
Cheers
Vincent
Similar threads
- Article
