Anybody using FOMA B&W film?

[vincentbenoit]

I'm seriously considering Fomapan 400 (from the Czech brand FOMA) as my next B&W film of choice. Two reasons for that:
- This film is significantly cheaper (about 50%) than comparable Ilford, Kodak and Fuji products here in the UK.
- It's supposed to lend itself quite well to scanning (interesting for me, since I scan my negs and process the files digitally). I've come across an article in Practical Photography which describes Fomapan 400 in flattering terms: "coarse but well-controlled grain, very good sharpness, good tonal range with low contrast, very high level of detail in scans".
Before I go ahead and buy a few rolls, I'd be curious to hear from anybody who has experience with this film. I normally use either Tri-X or T-Max 400, but I've found out that the high contrast of T-Max 400 makes it difficult to scan (shadow and/or highlight detail is easily lost) whilst the grain of Tri-X is not really compatible with scanning.
Any comment?
Cheers
Vincent

 

[schaubild]

The film works fine in LP Supergrain. Liked it, but what's really annoying is its tendency to curl. I only used the 120 format, which makes a glass carrier for scanning or enlarging an absolute necessity.

 

[phototone]

I've found out that the high contrast of T-Max 400 makes it difficult to scan (shadow and/or highlight detail is easily lost) whilst the grain of Tri-X is not really compatible with scanning.
Any comment?
Cheers
Vincent

If your T-max is too contrasty, you are developing it too long. The manufacturers recommended developing time is only a starting point. You should cut back on the develeoping a minute or two. You can also in the settings for your scanner expand the range of the scanner to capture the highlight detail, and shadow detail. For optimum results you should not just use default settings. Some scanners by default "clip" the highlights.

I have no problem with the grain of Tri-x in scanning. I scan at 4000 dpi. Many of my gallery images are on Tri-x and the majority of them are on ISO 400 speed b/w films, all developed in D-76 1+1 dilution.

 

[vincentbenoit]

Thanks for your input. Many stunning pictures in your galleries... What scanner do you use to scan the negs?
Cheers
Vincent

 

[phototone]

Thanks for your input. Many stunning pictures in your galleries... What scanner do you use to scan the negs?
Cheers
Vincent

Thank you Vincent for your compliment.

I use primarily a Nikon 9000ed, and a Microtek Artixscan 120tf. These are both medium-format scanners 4000dpi, that do a very good job on 35mm. The Artixscan seems to deal with slightly curled negatives better, as the lens in the scanner seems to have a little more depth-of-field. The Nikon does better with medium format, because the negative carrier for medium format has a clamp that allows you to put tension on the negative to keep it flat.

I scan in 16bit, make adjustments in Photoshop then resave as an 8bit file. (tif)

 

[vincentbenoit]

I use primarily a Nikon 9000ed, and a Microtek Artixscan 120tf. These are both medium-format scanners 4000dpi, that do a very good job on 35mm.

I just use a lowly 2400 dpi Epson flatbed... not ideal for scanning 35mm negs, of course.

The Artixscan seems to deal with slightly curled negatives better, as the lens in the scanner seems to have a little more depth-of-field. The Nikon does better with medium format, because the negative carrier for medium format has a clamp that allows you to put tension on the negative to keep it flat.

My scanner has sufficient DOF to accomodate slight curling of the film.
My main gripe actually concerns the tonality of the files - I find it tricky to get detailed highlights and shadows, to the extent that I sometimes run two scans with different settings, and combine the files in Photoshop for extended dynamic range.

I scan in 16bit, make adjustments in Photoshop then resave as an 8bit file. (tif)

Same here, except that I scan in RGB (48bit) and retain only the green channel for further processing. I've found the green channel to invariably exhibit a higher level of sharpness than the red and blue channels. In addition, the latter tends to be quite blotchy.

 

[hoot]

Roman uses some Foma films, but he's out of town this week. I'll let him know about this thread when he comes back.

My preferred brand of cheap 400-speed film is Adox CHM 400 Pro, which is a generic Ilford HP5+. The exclusive distributor of the Adox brand name is FotoImpex in Germany; they also have an outlet in the US but I'm not sure about the UK (you could ask them).

Personally, I found that all examples of Kodak TMax 400 that I've seen (developed and/or scanned both by myself and by other people) had pretty ugly midtones. When I'm shooting important stuff and don't mind buying more expensive film, I'm really fond of Neopan 400.

Both Adox and Neopan lend themselves well to scanning, I've found.

 

[phototone]

I do love Neopan, myself.

Here is a shot, although probably not a real good example, of a 35mm T-max neg. Shot with a Canonet QL19

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=8681&cat=4198&page=6

 

[hoot]

Here is a shot, although probably not a real good example, of a 35mm T-max neg. Shot with a Canonet QL19

Nice photo, but it doesn't change my mind. Neopan would've given it more punch while retaining at least as much highlight and shadow detail. You'd think they're paying me to say that. Maybe I should ask them to.

 

[phototone]

Nice photo, but it doesn't change my mind. Neopan would've given it more punch while retaining at least as much highlight and shadow detail. You'd think they're paying me to say that. Maybe I should ask them to.

Oh, I agree with you. I prefer Neopan 400 over all other ISO 400 speed 35mm film emulsions. The point I was making is that you CAN get nice mid-tones with T-max, and many of the problems that people have with T-max is just processing. I had a long talk with a Kodak rep about this once, and evidentially Kodak "expected" a photographer to shoot tests and arrive at their "own" optimized exposure and processing times for the T-max films, unlike ALL other Kodak films, which seem to process just fine at the published times and temperatures.

I would never use T-max films for on-camera flash, though. Too risky of highlight burnout.

The only reason I use T-max 400 at all, is that I can get it at 3 AM at the local Wal-Mart Stupidcenter. Neopan I have to order from afar.

 

[vincentbenoit]

Thanks a lot, Phototone and Hoot. Your input is very useful.

I'm sure T-Max is a very good film, after all a number of photographers I greatly admire (such as John Demos) use it, but honestly I'm not really inclined to shoot tests and optimise processing parameters.

I've never tried Neopan 400 but have heard very good things about it. I used the 1600 version once and liked the results.

I'm trying to keep my hobby on a reasonable budget, hence my interest in cheaper films like Foma. After all I'm just a lowly amateur... and my main subject matter is street photography, which means that my rate of keepers is relatively low ;-)

ADOX CHM 400 is available here in the UK from Retro Photographic. It costs the same as Fomapan 400 (£1.85 per 35-frame roll, vs 2.99 for Neopan 400). The 35mm ADOX doesn't have the "pro" moniker, though - only the 120 does, but I assume it's the same emulsion.

Thanks again.
Cheers
Vincent

 

[hoot]

I've never tried Neopan 400 but have heard very good things about it. I used the 1600 version once and liked the results.

By the way, if you develop your own film, I find that the Adox lends itself better to pushing by a stop (rating it at 800) if you develop it in Calbe A49 powder developer (which is now also being sold under the Adox brand name; see if your store has it) than Neopan 400 in *any* developer I've yet tried. Even better, if you want to shoot 800 speed black and white, is using Neopan 1600 and pulling it by a stop (also adjusting development times), but this option is more expensive, so you might prefer to do it only for handheld available light portraiture and not for street.

ADOX CHM 400 is available here in the UK from Retro Photographic. It costs the same as Fomapan 400

In that case, I'd say, go for the Adox. If I remember correctly, Roman only uses 100 speed Foma; I think the 400 speed isn't as good as the equally-priced Adox. But I might be mistaken.

The 35mm ADOX doesn't have the "pro" moniker, though - only the 120 does, but I assume it's the same emulsion.

I'm not so sure. My 35mm films have the "Pro" label, too; see the attached digisnap.

 

[vincentbenoit]

By the way, if you develop your own film, I find that the Adox lends itself better to pushing by a stop (rating it at 800) if you develop it in Calbe A49 powder developer (which is now also being sold under the Adox brand name; see if your store has it) than Neopan 400 in *any* developer I've yet tried.

Thanks! That's good to know. I can get Calbe A49 from the same store.

Even better, if you want to shoot 800 speed black and white, is using Neopan 1600 and pulling it by a stop (also adjusting development times), but this option is more expensive, so you might prefer to do it only for handheld available light portraiture and not for street. In that case, I'd say, go for the Adox. If I remember correctly, Roman only uses 100 speed Foma; I think the 400 speed isn't as good as the equally-priced Adox. But I might be mistaken.

Okay, I'll try Adox first.

My 35mm films have the "Pro" label, too; see the attached digisnap.

I've sent an email to Retro Photographic to check whether there are indeed both a "pro" and "non-pro" versions of the Adox emulsion.

Cheers
Vincent

 

[hoot]

I can get Calbe A49 from the same store.

Good for you. It works best at 1+1 dilution with reduced agitation (constantly during the first minute, then for about 8 seconds every two minutes). Depending on your lens, your results will have relatively low contrast but good grain and highlight/shadow detail. You can easily up the contrast in the wet or digital darkroom. Post your results here!

 

[vincentbenoit]

Good for you. It works best at 1+1 dilution with reduced agitation (constantly during the first minute, then for about 8 seconds every two minutes).

Thanks for the tip. I'll try it.

Depending on your lens, your results will have relatively low contrast but good grain and highlight/shadow detail. You can easily up the contrast in the wet or digital darkroom.

That's exactly what I'm after: relatively flat but tonality-rich negs which are easy to scan. My main lens is the Voigt 32/2.5C, which is not overly contrasty.

Post your results here!

I will! It might take some time, though, as I'm currently busy processing digital pictures from my, ahem, dSLR... (making 40x60 prints from this series: http://www.pbase.com/vincentbenoit/portugal_in_bw). But I've already ordered Adox 400 and Calbe developer and expect to start shooting next month. BTW, what I'm getting is indeed Adox 400 "Pro" - Retro Phototgraphic have confirmed to me that there's only one type of emulsion.

Anyway, thank you very much for your input so far. This film-based project of mine now has a very clear starting point, which wasn't the case only yesterday.
Cheers
Vincent

 

[hoot]

WOW! Who needs film when you can get such gorgeous results out of a DSLR? These photos are right up my alley, and if you happen across my gallery comments you'll find I'm very stingy with compliments.

 

[vincentbenoit]

WOW! Who needs film when you can get such gorgeous results out of a DSLR? These photos are right up my alley, and if you happen across my gallery comments you'll find I'm very stingy with compliments.

Thanks. I think my workflow for digital black-and-white is slowly getting there, to the extent that I'm now getting better B&W image quality from my dSLR than from any of my film cameras for print sizes up to 30x45. BUT... a dSLR fitted with a wide-angle lens is a rather bulky and conspicuous piece of equipment, and this mere fact somehow conflicts with my intent to get involved in "real" street photography for which a small camera is a must. The Epson R-D1 would be the perfect camera for me were it to feature real 35mm (and, ideally, 28mm) framelines in the viewfinder - but, as things are, the trade-offs imposed by the small sensor are an absolute deal-breaker as far as I'm concerned, especially considering the price of the camera. Which is why I've decided to use my low-tech but trusty Bessa-R with 35/2.5C and 28/3.5 for my London Street Photography endeavour. Hopefuly the files I'll get from scanning negs will lend themselves to processing according to my digital darkroom-based workflow. Thanks to your advice I should be able to generate the kind of negs I need, so if I can get my scanning together I should be okay. Gosh, what a hobby...
Cheers
Vincent

 

[hoot]

I've babysat a Bessa R for a week, and though its wideangle lens was smaller than that of an SLR, I don't think there's that much of a size difference between the bodies. If you really want to be inconspicuous, I don't remember the last time I was noticed by subjects when doing street photography with the tiny Olympus XA. It has a fixed 35mm lens and framelines.

 

[john neal]

Vincent,

I have used a lot of FomaPAn 400 in 120 (it works great in my Holgas and Diana). I find it develops well in T-Max developer at around 7 1/2 to 8 mins. Detail is excellent and contrast is fine, providing you don't over dev. I have not found grain to be a problem in 120, but don't know about 35mm. The big thing for me is the amount of silver in the emulsion - it's like turning the clock back 30 years, but with modern exposure latitude.

The only possible downside is the very blue base colour of the film, it needs a long wash to remove most of this, but don't be tempted to over fix or you will lose detail. It's not the water clear base of Neopan 400 or Classic Pan. May affect contrast when you are printing on MG paper.

Highly recommended film, definitely worth a try.

 

[vincentbenoit]

Thanks John. Much appreciated. Have you tried to scan Fomapan 400 negs?