Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I was getting horrible results with Foma 400. Where I'm Kentmere is still chipper. If I want it less expensive, I buy bulk, not single cassette.
On pictures in this thread I like it more than Tri-X. And fish.
On pictures in this thread I like it more than Tri-X. And fish.
zenza
Well-known
Fomapan 100 shot with a yellow filter and pushed 1 stop in HC110 dilution B has become my go-to for black and white. A friend who bought a stash off a photographer passed on three 100`rolls to me for the price he paid, $20/ea!
cavcha1
Member
Can't argue with results like that! Looks fantastic. If I lived somewhere that got more sun I would go for Foma 100. But as it is I usually need that extra stop!
charjohncarter
Veteran
Admittedly, stand or its other crutch semi-stand do reduce highlights, but also at the loss of mid-tones. If you want to develop with a consistent result you should really try to find developer, a time, a dilution, a temperature, and an agitation scheme that produces repeatable result.
I wish you luck with this film, but for me it is too difficult. I've tried with this film and occasionally I got something that was OK, but never great. You live in a country where they make some of the best film in the world: why not expand to something beside your persumed failure with HP5+.
cavcha1
Member
I've recently been pushing FP4 to 400 in Microphen and Hc110. I've got some lovely results, but it's not quite got what I'm looking for. Actually only the fish images in my original post are developed semi-stand. The first few images I posted are Foma 200 @400 in Rodinal 1:50 20c 15.5mins. But I'm still fine-tuning. I'll stick with it a while more until perhaps ADOX bring out a 400iso Silvermax!
C
charjohncarter
Veteran
The reason for stand or semi-stand is the reduce highlights in a very high contrast situation. The fish were not high contrast. But be happy with what you want out of an image. Everybody, except a few, that are photographers say do it your way, and you should too.
http://johnsexton.com/images/Compensating_Development.pdf
zenza
Well-known
Hey thanks! I've actually never shot Foma 200...but once I finish these bulk rolls of 100 I plan to try it out.
One more same combo.
Brian Atherton
Well-known
Thank you all for this; a lot of work and very helpful and enlightening.
Must be over two years since I used Foma 200, when I picked up a few rolls to try it out (at the time I think I paid £6 for three rolls). I was absolutely blown away by the image quality.
I would have been very happy to keep on using Foma 200 (especially at the price!) but two out of three rolls had very bad emulsion inclusions and I concluded that with Foma’s low price their QC just wasn’t up to scratch. I haven’t used Foma since.
Now I understand QC is much improved is no longer an issue. Is this the case?
Must be over two years since I used Foma 200, when I picked up a few rolls to try it out (at the time I think I paid £6 for three rolls). I was absolutely blown away by the image quality.
I would have been very happy to keep on using Foma 200 (especially at the price!) but two out of three rolls had very bad emulsion inclusions and I concluded that with Foma’s low price their QC just wasn’t up to scratch. I haven’t used Foma since.
Now I understand QC is much improved is no longer an issue. Is this the case?
johnrt
Established
Very interesting. I have an empty bulk loader that I was about to fill with a 100ft roll of HP5, you have made me thing twice.
Foma also do a Retropan 320 that is priced the same in bulk rolls, anyone know much about it?
Foma also do a Retropan 320 that is priced the same in bulk rolls, anyone know much about it?
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
If you want grim low contrast with no redeeming features it's for you. I loathe it, even with the sharpest most contrasty lenses it looks like you've shot in fog.
Ricoh
Well-known
I was reading about Retropan 320, the article stated it has no anti halation layer. Is this so? (Evidence, in part, would be halos formed around bright light sources.)
cavcha1
Member
So far, I haven't noticed any major flaws. The emulsion does seem a little more sensitive to scratches perhaps than Kodak or Ilford films, but I also might be imagining that. The kind of work I shoot is mainly "street" and so I take a fairly casual attitude to SMALL imperfections! I went to see a beautiful private collection of silver prints a few weeks ago including some Kertesz, Frank, amongst many others. And the one thing I came away with noticing is......all of the prints had little quirks that some might describe as faults. It's very easy to get caught up in search of perfection, when actually 'spirit' is often what's infectious to the people looking at our work.
Anyway, I've bought 40 rolls of Foma and I'm going to do some more testing! Stay tuned!
C
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Victor Kolar's earlier negatives from his father's Leica shows horizontal scratches on prints I have seen in prestige Toronto gallery.
retinax
Well-known
Can you get the blown highlights in the mackerel shot on Foma 200 under control or are they too dense for the scanner? The semi-stand development should have already taken care of that. If not, what is it good for?
The shadows show the expected difference.
Some of the Fomapan 100 examples here also look beautiful. A direct comparison with the 200 would be interesting. The sensitivity difference is less that one stop. I believe the 100 may have a more similar curve shape to Tri-X, although semi-stand developing might bend them all into more of an S.
The shadows show the expected difference.
Some of the Fomapan 100 examples here also look beautiful. A direct comparison with the 200 would be interesting. The sensitivity difference is less that one stop. I believe the 100 may have a more similar curve shape to Tri-X, although semi-stand developing might bend them all into more of an S.
cavcha1
Member
Yep, the highlights from the Foma 200 mackerel print beautifully. Much nicer than the Tri-x in the darkroom for this particular comparison.
Here are some phone shots of the silver print. Do bear in mind photographing a glossy print is never ideal! In real life it looks as good as any I've made. See here the density in all highlight-ish areas too.
IMG_20200526_164201 by Charles Cave, on Flickr
IMG_20200526_164212 by Charles Cave, on Flickr
cavcha1
Member
To anyone still interested, I've set up some different still-lifes today, and shot two rolls of Foma 200 @400 again.
I'm going to develop one in my standard Rodinal 1:50 and the other in the suggested time for FX-39 which I have just purchased, and which promises to double film's iso rating. Could be interesting - though, to be honest I've had such good results with Rodinal 1:50 and it's SO economical at that dilution, that it would take a real no-brainer difference with the FX-39 to get me to switch.
Stay tuned. Or don't!
C
I'm going to develop one in my standard Rodinal 1:50 and the other in the suggested time for FX-39 which I have just purchased, and which promises to double film's iso rating. Could be interesting - though, to be honest I've had such good results with Rodinal 1:50 and it's SO economical at that dilution, that it would take a real no-brainer difference with the FX-39 to get me to switch.
Stay tuned. Or don't!
C
zenza
Well-known
I'm planning to try the 100 stand developed in HC110 eventually. Maybe the next roll I load...
Another Fomapan 100 @ 200 frame, this time in some fog. I really want to try Foma 200 since that's the speed I wind up shooting the 100 at most of the time.
retinax
Well-known
Well, Fomapan 200 also doesn't reach ISO 200 in most developers, while by all reports the Fomapan 100 is actually close to ISO 100. So speed isn't the main factor when choosing between the two is what I meant.
canvcha1, I guess the steep gradation in the newspaper is to be expected, it must have ended up more where the mid tones should be because the film was underexposed a stop. In my mind, the shiny fish should be the brightest part of the image, maybe this is throwing me off and explains why the highlights in the newspaper disturb me.
canvcha1, I guess the steep gradation in the newspaper is to be expected, it must have ended up more where the mid tones should be because the film was underexposed a stop. In my mind, the shiny fish should be the brightest part of the image, maybe this is throwing me off and explains why the highlights in the newspaper disturb me.
cavcha1
Member
The newspaper is right next to the window (light source) whereas the fish were backed away from it enough to make a difference, hence those highlights on the paper vs fish. I should have used a reflector to pick out some more fish highlights etc etc but hey, live and learn.
cavcha1
Member
Alright, today I shot a roll of Foma 200 at 400iso and developed in FX-39. Lovely tones. This is a flat scan. Could easily boost contrast if desired, digitally on when wet printing.
Guitar and Louis and Boot Still Life 1 by Charles Cave, on Flickr
C
Guitar and Louis and Boot Still Life 1 by Charles Cave, on FlickrC