Foma 200 (@400) vs Tri-X - Yes, you read correctly

[cavcha1]

Hello!

Tri-X was my go-to film. I still love it. Rated anywhere between 200-1600 it can shine, in my humble opinion. But I can’t keep using it. At the recently hiked price of nearly £8 a roll (or more from some shops) Kodak have pushed this once staple up to an elite resource now reserved for very special occasions. I would use it for certain commissions….especially if the client was paying for materials (!)

So, pre-lock-down in London I decided to look at some other options. Some other….perhaps not totally obvious options.

I’m going to just cut one thing down now - I really have never got on with HP5. I’ve seen some remarkable work shot with it, but for whatever reason I just haven't found that magic myself. I’ve always suffered muted and sad looking highlights, smeared greys, and fuzzy blacks. Perhaps I should invest in a bottle of DDX. But let’s just leave that for now.

This is going to be a crude(ish) comparison of two films that should probably never be compared: Tri-X and Foma…..200!

I started my quest with Foma 400. I developed it in a few different ways, solutions, and found it pretty much horrendous. Really, quite nasty for 95% of shots. I’ll just drop that now. But many people have praised Foma 200, rated as 400. The consensus online is that Foma 200 is a better 400 film….than Foma 400. So I began shooting rolls like that, and I was quite frankly blown away with the results. Here are a few:

Waterlow Mask Sleeper 3 by Charles Cave, on Flickr

Towel and Chain 2 by Charles Cave, on Flickr

Rake and Blossom 1 by Charles Cave, on Flickr

Car with no Garage by Charles Cave, on Flickr

To my eyes, and to my darkroom paper, I wouldn't argue if you told me these were Tri-X prints.

Alright, so I decided to do a test. This is a test from an artistic and aesthetic standpoint. It is not super scientific. It boils down to this question:

Could I make the best possible print/scan from a frame of Tri-X 400, and then match the quality of that print with a frame of Foma 200 rated at 400.

Let me breeze through methodology.

I set up a still-life. I shot the roll of Tri-X, then I shot the roll of Foma. The light more or less stayed the same (by my window). I always tend to meter closer to shadows than highlights, erring on the side of caution. So we could argue that with conventional metering, I’m rating the films closer to 250 or 320. But I don’t want to split hairs about this, as there are plenty of threads with “Tri-X is NOT a 400iso film!” etc etc. I’m just letting you know how I worked.

I developed the rolls together in a Rodinal semi-stand. 1:100 for 70mins. 6 inversions to begin with, then 1 at the halfway-point. As always with Rodinal the inversions were DELICATE. *I want to edit in now, and say I am going to do more tests where I develop the rolls separately. What I should have considered is that I am pushing the Foma, but not pushing the Tri-x. So If I was to do this again as a semi-stand I would give the Tri-x 60mins, but give the Foma 120mins just to be sure as much shadow detail is there as it wants to give me.*

Pre-expectations of the negatives? Yeah, the Tri-x negs are going to be denser. And they were. Arguably, a little too dense for my personal taste. I find a balance for scanning and enlarging with 2-2.5 contrast means I’m looking for a neg more like the Foma, which were just a hair on the thin side, but by no means without good separation and some punch. Each to their own.

OK, what did I do next? Next, I scanned the best looking Tri-X neg, and I adjusted curves (minor adjustments) to give it the best possible look TO MY TASTE. Remember this test is simply about getting results that I think are great - totally subjective. I then scanned a Foma negative and adjusted curves to give that best possible look - obviously trying to keep in mind what I have done to the Tri-x. Predictably I had to adjust a little more on the Foma to boost some contrast using the curve - but that, from experience, represents using a 2-2.5 in the darkroom, whereas the Tri-x I’d be down around 1.5.

Guys, I know this is not the greatest test in the world. And I could, and will do some more.

But what I am getting at here is…..

Can A Foma 200 roll, costing £3.90, rated as a 400iso film create a print or scan that rivals a Tri-x roll at £8.50?

The answer?

See what you think. I will follow this up once more, with the results having made 16x12 fibre prints from both in the darkroom.

Tri-X

Mackrel and Lemons 4 (TRI-X)) by Charles Cave, on Flickr

FOMA 200 (@400)

Mackrel and Lemons 3 (FOMA) by Charles Cave, on Flickr

*update* - I have made 16x12 fibre prints from both negatives and IMHO the Foma looks better. Nicer grain structure, nicer tonality, but yes less shadow detail that might be rectified a bit when adjusting development.

Sorry, thank you, sorry again, and goodday.

C

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

I'd dearly love to view the results but all the links are broken, at least on my browser, alas.

 

[cavcha1]

I'd dearly love to view the results but all the links are broken, at least on my browser, alas.

No idea, why they're not working. I'm hosting from the public folder in my dropbox. If you right-click and open image in new tab does it work? Does so for me. Infuriating.

 

[analoged]

Same here...

 

[cavcha1]

I've now just changed the hosting to my Flickr and still not working! I click 'add photo' then copy in the share URL from each image on flickr.....What am I doing wrong?

 

[shawn]

You don't share the URL from Flickr, share the BBCode instead. Copy and paste that into rangefinder forum (don't use any of the insert buttons, just copy the code directly into your message).

Your links above work but only if Open Image in New Tab.

Shawn

 

[shawn]

For example if you look at the screen shot below this is how it will display:

Mackrel and Lemons 4 (TRI-X)) by Charles Cave, on Flickr

 

[cavcha1]

FIXED. Thank you!!

 

[shawn]

You are welcome, I like Foma 200 too. I don't think I've tried it stand developed yet though. I don't like Tri-X stand with HC110 as it gets to grainy, I don't even like going more dilute than B with HC110 and Tri-X. The Rodinal seems to handle that a bit better though.

Shawn

 

[cavcha1]

Totally agree. Each to their own, and I know there are many people who keep saying stand-development shouldn't be used as normal practice, but it just works for me. It's consistent. And my prints look great from it. I've tried 1:50 and 1:25 in rodinal and have made nice prints from those negs too. But when in doubt I just do a semi-stand 1:100 because it gives me a little wiggle-room for anything slightly over or under exposed. AND looks good when pushing Tri-x to 1600 imho - see here

England, 2019 by Charles Cave, on Flickr

 

[shawn]

This is Tri-X Stand in HC110 for 60 minutes at I think1:100

and then at Dil B.

Foma 100 is pretty good too.

HC110 1:63

Shawn

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

Fascinating, and certainly compelling! There's a bit more highlight detail in the TriX fish photo- I suspect the push on the Foma did that, but it's at the margin, and both are lovely photos. It's a long time since I did any Rodinal semi stand developing, perhaps time to try another go.

A friend of mine who has spent his life using ID11 (to great effect it must be said) shot some Foma 100 in his Olympus XA2 and developed it in Perceptol 1:1. The results were impressive on scan and even better in print.

Thanks for that!

 

[charjohncarter]

I found two differences between TriX and Fomapan 200 (also 100 and 400). One, Fomapan 200 has a greater sensitivity to Blue. This causes washed out blue skies. So, to correct this I have to use an Orange filter whenever there is blue sky in the image. Second, for me at least the highlights are more difficult to control. That is they blow out easier. Some of the blowout problem may be my fault. I like to see full tones in the shadow areas so I expose and also develop for the shadows which may encourage these blowouts.

But, you can do fine with this film; for me it was a difficult road:

Arista EDU ultra 400@200 Rodinal 1+50 by John Carter, on Flickr

But for overcast weather it is fine: don't mind the camera lenses on this one.

AristaEDUultra100 AristaPremiumDeveloper by John Carter, on Flickr

 

[steveyork]

I shoot a lot of Fomapan 100 in bulk rolls. I like the classic look, and it's so inexpensive, especially bulk loaded. I live in a sunny climate and usually don't need faster films. The Foma 400 has a lot of grain though, and although the 200 has a following, I once got a bad 100' roll of the stuff. I understand Foma's QC is a bit better now. Not a big Tri-X fan, but I always have a few rolls around. Its' versatility is special, anywhere from iso 320 to 1600, depending on developer and times. Can Kentmere 400 be an inexpensive alternative to Tri-X?

 

[cavcha1]

I found two differences between TriX and Fomapan 200 (also 100 and 400). One, Fomapan 200 has a greater sensitivity to Blue. This causes washed out blue skies. So, to correct this I have to use an Orange filter whenever there is blue sky in the image. Second, for me at least the highlights are more difficult to control. That is they blow out easier. Some of the blowout problem may be my fault. I like to see full tones in the shadow areas so I exposure and also develop for the shadows which may encourage these blowouts.

But, you can do fine with this film; for me it was a difficult road:
Arista EDU ultra 400@200 Rodinal 1+50 by John Carter, on Flickr

But for overcast weather it is fine: don't mind the camera lenses on this one.
AristaEDUultra100 AristaPremiumDeveloper by John Carter, on Flickr

Yea, I might have to agree with you on the blue skies. I use a yellow-green filter sometimes which helps a touch (though I'm using it more to help separate green foliage or trees from people, as I shoot a lot in a local park since Lockdown).

But this is one of the reasons I usually favour a semi-stand development, as it helps make sure brighter areas don't go too far, and that often applies to blue skies. Unfortunately, the London weather often means we get days and days of GREY skies - no clouds, just grey! so .....I try to find more interesting subjects at ground-level!

C

 

[cavcha1]

I shoot a lot of Fomapan 100 in bulk rolls. I like the classic look, and it's so inexpensive, especially bulk loaded. I live in a sunny climate and usually don't need faster films. The Foma 400 has a lot of grain though, and although the 200 has a following, I once got a bad 100' roll of the stuff. I understand Foma's QC is a bit better now. Not a big Tri-X fan, but I always have a few rolls around. Its' versatility is special, anywhere from iso 320 to 1600, depending on developer and times. Can Kentmere 400 be an inexpensive alternative to Tri-X?

You might be right regarding Kentmere, though after days of cumulative internet browsing I never any images that piqued my interest as much as what lead me to Foma. I also have heard from a local supply shop that Kentmere now owned by Harman/Ilford is just re-branded APX400 and.....I don't know, for some reason that whole re-branding the same film with different names and labels just puts me off a bit!

C

 

[cavcha1]

This is Tri-X Stand in HC110 for 60 minutes at I think1:100

and then at Dil B.

Foma 100 is pretty good too.

HC110 1:63

Shawn

These all look lovely. Especially that Foma 100. I rarely can get away with 100iso film in London. Blame the pollution!

 

[Barry Kirsten]

Thanks for sharing these experiences, Charles. I found the information very helpful and will certainly try some Foma 200 myself. I've actually been looking into Foma films and have found opinion likening the 200 to the old Plus X which I used to use a lot.

 

[charjohncarter]

Yea, I might have to agree with you on the blue skies. I use a yellow-green filter sometimes which helps a touch (though I'm using it more to help separate green foliage or trees from people, as I shoot a lot in a local park since Lockdown).

But this is one of the reason I usually favour a semi-stand development, as it helps make sure brighter areas don't go too far, and that often applies to blue skies. Unfortunately, the London weather often means we get days and days of GREY skies - no clouds, just grey! so .....I try to find more interesting subjects at ground-level!

C

I have to agree with you. The only images that truly satisfy me when using any of the Fomapan films are the ones taken on overcast days or available light indoors.

 

[shawn]

These are all Foma 100. It really grew on me as the first couple of rolls I hated it. Think that was a combination of underexposing (it gets muddy) and not have the right combination of ratio and time for HC110 which was also making it look dirty.

All these are 1:63 at 10 minutes with 4 inversions every minute.

Shawn