Film Report: Arista.EDU Ultra 200 (Fomapan 200 Creative)

If you want to suppress all grain from this " iso 200 " film I am using the old W665 developer (Windisch) based on Ortho Phenylene Diamine. (A kind of Microdol-X but even less grain).
Creative 200 react excellent on this Ultra Fine Grain developer.
Here a (35mm) test sample in W665 which gives you a nice tonal range and a neglectible grain even in 35mm format. E.I. 100, 9:45 minutes at 20 degrees C.

3426183001_27cc69a22d.jpg
 
But at the end you do not want a scan but a nice (wet print) photo in the album.
Fomapan Creative 200 (R09) printed on MG IV via the split grade printing method. Size 20x25cm and for this RFF scanned in 300 dpi.

213110408_5c06ace002.jpg
 
I guess there are good and bad batches out there, but i have 25 rolls rolls of 120 that shows terrible QC and 9 rolls of 35mm from a different batch went in the trash a few days ago. These are the only two batches of the film I have ever bought, one branded Foma 200 (120) and the other Arista Edu ultra 200 (35mm). Both have had good rolls, but plenty of dogs. I won't ever tempt fate with it again.

The 100 that I have is another matter (in 120 and 35mm) and internet anecdotes suggest better QC, or at least fewer issues, with the 100. In Xtol 1+2 it is beautiful with a lovely tonal scale. Not as 'special' as the 200, but then again there is nothing special about black marks and scratches on your film not matter the tonal qualities!

I might buy a 100 roll batch of the 100 speed and so if it is bad it is more cost effective to return it and if good, I at least know I have 99 more rolls to go. Its very cheap and very pretty and IMHO more interesting than FP4+
 
Last edited:
If you think you have a bad batch Fomapan film you can always sent back the films to Hradec Kralové (Czech Republic) and in case of a failure Foma will replace the defective film material.
 
I work in Afghanistan so thats not practical unfortunately and being out of pocket by $75 is not the problem either, its not being able to rely on the material. Because there are good rolls in bad batches, testing 5 random rolls out of 50 roll to be sure that the batch is a good one is not practical either. I can't reshoot my shots and I need to be sure that what goes into my camera is so reliable that all I need to worry about is the idiot behind the camera!

For this reason I make darned sure I have plenty of ilford FP4+ and Neopan 400 etc about so that I am never without a totally dependable film. My Foma 100 batch I know to be spot on and I remain hopefull that I can get more of the same, but retrying the 200 would be madness at this point. I am gutted, because no other film around has the same look.
 
Well, the last Fomapan failure on a batch was in 2004 and all EU Foma distributors were informed about the failure and batchnr.
Up from 2005 we haven't had any reclamation on Fomapan films. IMO Foma made a tremendous improvement in their Q.C. system.
 
Fotohuis said:
Well, the last Fomapan failure on a batch was in 2004 and all EU Foma distributors were informed about the failure and batchnr.
Up from 2005 we haven't had any reclamation on Fomapan films. IMO Foma made a tremendous improvement in their Q.C. system.
Click to expand...


Whatever the cause, if is crystal clear that the Foma 200 120 from B&H bought about 12 months and the Arista Edu Ultra 200 35mm bought from Freestyle about six months ago show all the signs of awful QC/manufacturing defects for the reasons already stated. Both are effectively unusable, unless you shoot busy frames with lots of chaotic detail in which case most (but not all) the defects would be hidden. Regardless of what Foma say, the evidence was staring me in the loupe on quite a few occasions that I used the film. Its possible that the film I used was all cut from an earlier master roll from the last bad batch, but judging by the expiry date, this would seem unlikely.

Maybe I will give it a year or two and then try some 200 again, but I am in no rush. I've had to throw a fair amount of film and had some excellent frames ruined or seriously affected because I thought earlier rolls showing faults were the freaks when in fact it was the whole lot. Its a double shame because I wasted time getting my E&D spot on. It was the last roll for me that really set me off. Four frames I will be exhibiting all on the one roll - it is rare for me to hit such a success rate - two of which are seriously affected and will force me to crop when I don't want to. The other two I might be able to get away with, but if not, I will have to crop them too. I wish to goodness I had been shooting FP4+ instead that day.
 
Last edited:
I processed a roll of Foma 200 last week, and besides my high base fog issue I thought it was a really good film. I'm currently debating Foma vs Efke as my Agfa APX replacement.

Foma seems to have really nice gradation, very nice even and visible grain and great definition/sharpness. I want to say "soft sharpness", and ideal companion for Sonnars...
 
Last edited:
besides my high base fog issue I thought it was a really good film
Click to expand...

The higher base fog is caused by the blue dye inside the film emulsion which is part of an effective A.H. layer.
You can not wash it out.
 
Photohuis,

Those photos are excellent! I'm looking to expand my film palette, and I've got to try this stuff.
 
Fomapan 100 (E.I.80) in Rodinal
Fomapan 200 (E.I. 125) in Rodinal
Fomapan 200 (E.I. 160) in Xtol

are certainly recommended film - developer combinations.

Fomapan 100 (E.I.80) and Rodinal is very close to APX100 (Rollei Retro 100) and Rodinal, which was a very good combo.

If you want more speed you can try above films with RHS/AM74 on iso 100 and iso 160.

Here an updated Foma developing chart:
http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/Ontwikkeltijden.pdf
 
Foma 100 & 200 in R09 stand development achieves their box speed. I'm actually even tempted to underxpose them because I find the highlights to be too closed.

I'm sold on Foma. It's a really beautiful film than scans like no other. My perfect APX replacement.
 
morback said:
Foma 100 & 200 in R09 stand development achieves their box speed. I'm actually even tempted to underxpose them because I find the highlights to be too closed.

I'm sold on Foma. It's a really beautiful film than scans like no other. My perfect APX replacement.
Click to expand...

don't underexpose to deal with highlights. They are best dealt with by a reduction in development.
 
Thanks Turtle, 50mn seem to be doing the trick. I'm bummed you don't trust this film, as you've observed yourself there's something unique about its looks. To me it's almost like medium format in 35mm.

The only alternative film I know to have character is the Efke/Adox series. But it doesn't seem to scan too well.

I should try stand development with it again. Agitation or lack thereof seems to have a huge effect with Rodinal / R09 and I might have over-agitated my first rolls of Adox/Efke.
 
There's cat turds on my negatives!!! hahahahaha

But anyway - back to discussing Foma.

Does anyone have luck with pushing this stuff? I am trying to push Foma 400 to 1600 and it doesn't seem to work... I'm using an external light meter and the readings are dead on when I expose of 400... but at 1600... there's nothing there...
 
That is correct because the FP400 is in a regular D76/ID11 developer iso 250 only. It pushes very bad so in fact E.I. 400 is the limit for this film, in fact almost a push +1. The FP200 is even better at E.I. 800.
The FP800 film was discontinue in 2001 due to a lack of interest but is under possible new development because Neopan 1600 and Tmax 3200 are out of production and maybe there is a small gap into the B&W high speed film market with Delta 3200 available only.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom