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

Good photo, but like I've said it is a film for low contrast subjects. I'm not trying to be mean; I even tried to find my first posts about this film dating 2007 (I couldn't find it). I wasn't too happy with it then but some must like it or it wouldn't be around now: maybe price?

I do have to say I've used plenty of these Fomapan films over the last 13 years, but it is usually for testing. And at one time I thought I could conquer Fomapan, but I have given up, I'm too old waste my time with it now.

OK, just to give you a little encouragement this is a flash photo with some outdoor light in the background. I said it before; it is your art, so do what you like:


Arista EDU ultra 100- Arista Liquid developer by John Carter, on Flickr
 
I might be in the minority but I happen to like Fomapan 400 film...it reminds me of when I used Tri X film in the early 1970s....Tri X film had improved a lot since that time.
 
xayraa33 said:
I might be in the minority but I happen to like Fomapan 400 film...it reminds me of when I used Tri X film in the early 1970s....Tri X film had improved a lot since that time.
Click to expand...

In the 70s I used trix and in the 60s and maybe a little of the 50s. And I agree it looks like the 'old' trix (when you have been screwing around with it for 13 years to get it right), but the spectral color curve just isn't the same.

EDIT Fomapan 100/200/400/: besides the Orange filter and a special development/agitation method, I also used a hardener in the fixer to avoid scratches. I don't know if the hardener helped but I heard that I should so I did it.
 
Fomapan 400 was the first film I shot after my return to film. After about 3 months I settled on EI 200 with diluted ID-11, 1:3. But for any rolls rated 400 and over I never got any results worth a damn and I tried every developer that I could get hold of.


Time to try some Foma 200 I guess! I'm curious if OP has any more thoughts on the film since posting this.
 
cavcha1 said:
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
Click to expand...

Impressive results. I couldn't find a formula for Fomapan 200 @ 400 in FX-39 on the Massive Development Chart. What were your settings?
 
charjohncarter said:
Good photo, but like I've said it is a film for low contrast subjects. I'm not trying to be mean; I even tried to find my first posts about this film dating 2007 (I couldn't find it). I wasn't too happy with it then but some must like it or it wouldn't be around now: maybe price?
Click to expand...

I believe they changed the film's formula substantially in 2015. I have read repeatedly that the Fomadon 200 should be shot @125, and never thought to try to push the film. But I thought that Cavcha's results were just short of amazing - and Foma claims that "due to its wide exposure latitude the film gives good results even when being overexposed by 1 EV (exposure value) (as ISO 100/21°) or underexposed by 2 EV (as ISO 800/30°)"
 
traveler_101 said:
I believe they changed the film's formula substantially in 2015. I have read repeatedly that the Fomadon 200 should be shot @125, and never thought to try to push the film. But I thought that Cavcha's results were just short of amazing - and Foma claims that "due to its wide exposure latitude the film gives good results even when being overexposed by 1 EV (exposure value) (as ISO 100/21o) or underexposed by 2 EV (as ISO 800/30o)"
Click to expand...

I posted this on another thread, but this guy sums up my complaints with these films (he is a cinemaphotographer but for me his points are correct:

https://cinematography.com/index.php?/topic/65513-filtering-super-panchro-film-for-good-pictures/
 
I have thought to shoot Foma 200 some, taking a break from my more normal Foma 100, but 200 is hard to obtain right now. I did get one roll, which I currently have loaded in my Ricoh 500G with an orange filter. Interested to see how it turns out.
 
I just shot a roll of 35mm Fomopan 200, and hand developed it (first time I hand developed in literally decades- turned out fine). I tested a new/old Exakta VX, and I did not have a filter for the Biotar. I feel like it is a little muddy, but there are a number of factors involved including the subject matter (walked through a burn area). I have shot FP4+ without a filter and gotten good results. Also, I used HC110 to develop it (1:63). Shot at box speed.


Tree on burnt hill by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
 
I just developed some Foma 200 taken at 400 and pushed a stop in processing. I'm pretty happy with the results. The first couple of rolls of 200 I shot at box speed and developed "gently" and wasn't that happy with the low contrast. But what I've found is that this film responds well to pushing and to more aggressive agitation without grain completely overtaking it, unlike some other films. I like rodinal 1:25 over less diluted recipes thus far.

Untitled (22) by Andrew Lossing, on Flickr

On an Olympus XA, 1:25 at 8 minutes, with a full minute of agitation at first and then 10 sec per minute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom