Foma 100 & 200 comparative

[Turtle]

I have been messing about with these two in 35mm after using some 200 in 120 some time ago and having issues with marks, anyway...

Initial (very early) observations suggest that the 200 is about 1/3 stop faster but no more than the 100 (I am now going to carefully bracket around 100 for the 200 and 80 for the 100, but despite the quoted RMS which state the two to be about the same granularity, the 200 looked to me to resolve a fair bit more detail, with to all intents and purposes identical grain - the 200 has more bite and the 100 somehow softer. One roll of each were developed together and dev times look pretty close (although slightly differing lighting prevents me being able to determine more than that - more careful testing now required).

I tried an Xtol/Rodinal blend and to be honest the grain looks fantastic. Not too big, but not exactly well-hidden... perfect if you want a fairly crunchy hard reportage look, which I have been struggling to get right thus far - Delta 100 is very fine grained no matter and anything 100/125 speed in Xtol, even at 1+3, lacks much by way of grain.

Compared to the 120 a nice neutral base is nice! I have not been able to print them but the negs have such a look to them that I am really excited about getting to know these two a bit better. They just have that 'classic'
tonal looks which is quite a bit harder than FP4+ which is more graceful, which is not what i want right now.

Anyone done comparison of these two and found similar?

 

[sepiareverb]

Your description of the grain reminds me of what I liked so much about Forte 100. I might give these a try.

 

[philipp.leser]

My densitometer measurements of Fomapan 200/400 in Diafine suggest real speeds (zone 1 at 0.1 log d over f+b) of about EI 75 / EI 150 respectively, so that's not far off from your numbers.

In my experience, the grain of Foma 400 is noticeable even at small enlargements (I like 13cm x 18cm), but pleasant. Foma 200 is a bit cleaner, but the tonality is different. I prefer Foma 400, but it's really not all that useful considering the real speed.

I posted the measured characteristic curves here: http://www.leser.ruhr.de/foto/filmtesting/ (text in German, plots in English 😉

 

[venchka]

Thanks for the information. I have 100 sheets of Foma 200, a.k.a. Arista EDU Ultra 200, that I look forward to using. Now I know where to start. I think I will give Xtol 1:5 + Rodinal 1:100 a thorough evaluation alongside Xtol 1:3 and Rodinal 1:100 individually.

 

[Turtle]

Thanks for the information. I have 100 sheets of Foma 200, a.k.a. Arista EDU Ultra 200, that I look forward to using. Now I know where to start. I think I will give Xtol 1:5 + Rodinal 1:100 a thorough evaluation alongside Xtol 1:3 and Rodinal 1:100 individually.

Sounds like a good experiment. I have used two versions of the blend:

Xtol 1+2 including in the water component 1ml rodinal per 100ml
Xtol 1+3 as above

I used these as I wanted the Xtol to hold sway in the main and ensure that I still have enough or darned close to the 100ml concentrate per roll of film. I wished to keep close as the 1:100 rodinal works a lot slower and therefore I (guessed) that as the Xtol was doing most of the work, albeit not all, the Xtol needed to be close to 100ml per film. With a 5 rolls of film in a 1500ml paterson it falls to 75ml per film if using Xtol 1+3 which seems a comfortable figure considering the presence of some rodinal.

This dev combo appears blinding with Neopan 400 and Trix too, esp in 120 where you get biting grain but still loads of detail (Neopan resolving quite a bit more). I have not been able to print them yet, but it really does appear to be evrything I have been looking for. I was hoping to be able to get results that sit well with the two above films out of a 100 speed film. Delta 100 has incredible bite but grain is still small and the look kinda modern, so Foma 100/200 are looking good to partner with 120 TriX/Neopan 400.

 

[venchka]

So far, I have developed 120 HP5+ with Xtol 1:3 + Rodinal 1:100. The time was 8 minutes. I would prefer a longer normal time so that my N-1 time isn't too short. Then I read that the person who gets credit for the mixture diluted Xtol 1:4 or 1:5 and added 4ml or 5ml of Rodinal. That seems like the way to go to give longer times. We shall see.

I have also seen amazing photos made with Foma 200 developed in Pyro developers. Truly gorgeous.

 

[Turtle]

Wayne,

Are you using a condensor enlarger?

My times are somewhat longer than average, but not too much. I have a very soft colour 10x8 head. Still, 8 mins is a very short time for HP5+, as the massive development chart lists 18 mins at 10 degs C with Xtol 1+3 alone and my times for 1+2 are only a touch longer than the recommended time of 15.5 mins. I generally find that adding the 1+100 rodinal only knocks the time down by 20-25% or so. Its early days so I have not got things nailed, but I am surprised at you having such short times with an Xtol 1+3 mix with the rodinal. My condensor (which I have not used in a while) was about 1.5-2 grades higher in contrast (with ilford MG filters) than my colour head tho....

With the foma films, I might have to try a more dilute mix as the times for these are insanely short! In summer i struggle to keep my workspace under 24 degs C and I found times of about 8 mins at 19 degs C!

 

[venchka]

My times were with a Jobo tank and continuous agitation.

I have not enlarged yet. Only scanned.

 

[Turtle]

My times were with a Jobo tank and continuous agitation.

I have not enlarged yet. Only scanned.

Thats makes sense - continuous agitation and for scanning would reduce times a lot.