JSturr
Newbie
Is anyone shooting Foma Pan -- 100, 400 35mm.
It's cheap - $50 per 100 foot roll thru freestyle, but does it perform ??
Past threads described questionable performance -- any thoughts of late ?
JSturr
www.jsturr.com
It's cheap - $50 per 100 foot roll thru freestyle, but does it perform ??
Past threads described questionable performance -- any thoughts of late ?
JSturr
www.jsturr.com
Joao
Negativistic forever
I had some bad experiences with some batches of Fomapan 100 bought in individual cannisters (Fomapan 100 "Professional", as it was called); occasional bad emulsions with Fomapan 100 "Classic" also in individual cannisters. I guess that were times when the quality control was below the acceptable standards - but this is just my belief, I have no hard data to support it.
Generally no problems with bulk Fomapan 100 or 200 , I am still using it.
No experience with ISO 400
JSturr
Newbie
Thanks -- does the stock you've been using (100,200) compare in performance to anything remotely popular ?
It seems not too many people are really shooting with it - as least from what I've seen when doing a quick Flickr search. Although to my eye it looks pretty good.
It seems not too many people are really shooting with it - as least from what I've seen when doing a quick Flickr search. Although to my eye it looks pretty good.
Gerry M
Gerry
I use quite a bit of Arista/FomaPan, both 35mm & 120. The first was shot on 4/4/15 on Arista EDU Ultra (FomaPan 100).
The second is 120 FomaPan 200, shot about a week ago.
Image compression really downgrades them. The originals are sharp. Check them out on my Flickr page.
Hope this helps some.
Gerry
The second is 120 FomaPan 200, shot about a week ago.
Image compression really downgrades them. The originals are sharp. Check them out on my Flickr page.
Hope this helps some.
Gerry
Attachments
znapper
Well-known
The 100 ISO Foma in 120 has IMO some of the best tonality out there.
But it is a lower resolution film than most conventional ones, and in the past, the 100 ISO variant in 120 had various issues concerning quality control, the speed isn't 100 either....closer to 50-80.
The Foma 200 is closer to 100
The Foma 400 is closer to 200
It's cheap, with great tonality, just buy it and shoot it.
Edit: I suppose I need to put my money where my mouth is.
This is Fomapan 100 (@100) in 120, developed in Rodinal 1:50, 3 rolls, 3 models, shot on 3 different occations.
With Rodinal, I get the grit I want, the negatives actually fair very well in the darkroom as well.
But it is a lower resolution film than most conventional ones, and in the past, the 100 ISO variant in 120 had various issues concerning quality control, the speed isn't 100 either....closer to 50-80.
The Foma 200 is closer to 100
The Foma 400 is closer to 200
It's cheap, with great tonality, just buy it and shoot it.
Edit: I suppose I need to put my money where my mouth is.
This is Fomapan 100 (@100) in 120, developed in Rodinal 1:50, 3 rolls, 3 models, shot on 3 different occations.
With Rodinal, I get the grit I want, the negatives actually fair very well in the darkroom as well.
lawrence
Veteran
I think it's an excellent film and I have had no quality issues so far. This is Foma 100 at EI 100 developed in Aculux 1+12. As you can see there's not much detail in the shadows, so probably the true speed of this combo is lower, however I like the drama of it as it is.
There's some interesting stuff about developing Foma 100 here: http://www.blackandwhitefineart.net/2011/06/fomapan-100-in-diafine
I have also used the 200 & 400 and didn't like the 200 much. The 400 has a nice character and should probably be rated around 200.
sdotkling
Sent through the ether
Yup, used it for quite a while, and liked it. Pushed it to get closer to real 400, though; I thought it was more like a 320 film. Nice tones, a little softer than Tri-X, so it had an old-fashioned kind of look. I'll use it again.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Fomopan 400, dveloped in HC 110 1:60/11 min.
Bessa R4M. Voigtlander 12mm f5.6.
Mercedes Museum, Stuttgart.
I used some Fomopan years ago and was not impressed with it. Uneven emulsion etc. The later batches I have shot are much better and I know regularly stock up on it when it is available here in town.
Bingley
Veteran
I'm shooting both Fomapan 100 and 200 when I want a film with a more "vintage" look. Fomapan 200 in particular is great stuff, very suitable for landscapes as well as street. When Plus-X was discontinued, I searched for another film that would fill a similar niche, and Fomapan 200 looks like the best bet in that regard. I develop Fomapan 200 in HC 110 dil. h for 7 minutes; 30 seconds initial agitation and three gentle inversions each minute thereafter.
jajong
Established
Hi, JSturr. I use Fomopan profi line classic 100 quite a lot. I have a few pbase pages testing a panagor 35mm lens, using this film. Developed in Diafine, exposed as 200 iso. I think it is a good allrounder and it scans very well. No quality issues so far.
( http://www.pbase.com/jajong/pngrfomo&page=1 ).
Cheers,
Jan
( http://www.pbase.com/jajong/pngrfomo&page=1 ).
Cheers,
Jan
Dayrell bishop
Well-known
I have had problems with Fomapan 200 in 120, but the 100 in 4x5 is excellent . I will definitely try the 100 in 35mm but just one or two at a time , I bought ten rolls of 120 in 200 and I can only use them for testing cameras.
x-ray
Veteran
Agree!
I've used 35mm 100 with good luck and no issues. I rate it at 100 and develop in ordinal 1:50. Tonality is excellent but can build contrast quickly. It's much like film from the 50's and 60's.
I use 200 in sheet as my standard film for alternative processes, Platinum printing. It's one of the best films that I've used in decades. Tonality is superb, response to changes in development for adjusting contrast, moderate grain and it's plenty sharp. Prints from it are beautiful. I shoot it at 160 - 200 depending on the subject and process in HC110 B. I've only shot a little in 35mm but liked it very much. The 200 is definitely old world.
Nokton48
Veteran
I have 300 sheets of 9x12cm FOMA 100 and 300 sheets of FOMA 200, and some old FOMA 200 6x9cm from when J&C was closing it out. Looking forward to starting to use it in my three Makiflexes.
x-ray,
Have you rotary processed your film in the HC-110? How were your developing time/temps working out? I ask because I just bought a JOBO set of tanks (multitank 2, Multitank 5&6) and want to use these on my old Unicolor Uniroller. Thanks! -Dan
Highway 61
Revisited
What he said 100%. It's now the best alternative to the expensive Ilford FP4+ and their "Kentmere" stuff if you're after a classic 100 film.
x-ray
Veteran
Dan
I found my notes for the Jobo CPA-2 that I had. I rated 200 sheet film at 160 and ran it 5 min at 68 f with HC110 1:47. The rotation of the CPA2 is much faster than a uniroller. I ran the Jobo at the slowest speed.
Using a uniroller I rated at 160 in HC110 1:47 68f for 6-1/2 min for flat lighting. Full sun, I'd pull back about 30-45 seconds.
Foma 100 sheet at 100 with the uniroller in rodinal 1:50 68f 5 min.
These are good starting g points. You'll need to test for your technique and style.
These are excellent films.
I found my notes for the Jobo CPA-2 that I had. I rated 200 sheet film at 160 and ran it 5 min at 68 f with HC110 1:47. The rotation of the CPA2 is much faster than a uniroller. I ran the Jobo at the slowest speed.
Using a uniroller I rated at 160 in HC110 1:47 68f for 6-1/2 min for flat lighting. Full sun, I'd pull back about 30-45 seconds.
Foma 100 sheet at 100 with the uniroller in rodinal 1:50 68f 5 min.
These are good starting g points. You'll need to test for your technique and style.
These are excellent films.
Nokton48
Veteran
Thank you Don!
Invaluable information.
-Dan
Invaluable information.
-Dan
Fixcinater
Never enough smoky peat
I have a bulk roll of the 200 speed stuff, it is good on tonality but I'd say it's not an actual 200 speed, more like 100 and grainy (of course) compared to the T-grain style films at that speed. So, if you're after olde tyme style effects, it is great for that.
I prefer it in 120 over 35mm, shot quite a lot of it in a Yashica TLR and I was pretty happy with that combo.
I prefer it in 120 over 35mm, shot quite a lot of it in a Yashica TLR and I was pretty happy with that combo.
x-ray
Veteran
Each person has to determine their own effective speed. I have to rate the new incarnation of TX at 250. Everyone has a different way of agitating and the developer you use has a huge impact on speed. Your meter if you use one and the accuracy of your shutter is critical.
The recommendations I gave Dan were those I use for alternative printing like platinum where I need more shadow density and contrast. I do however find these negs print very nicely on my enlargers on the paper I use, Ilford MG fiber base gloss processed in LPD 1:3 for 3 1/2 minutes.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
It has beautiful tonality but is grainer than Ilford and Kodak films of the same speeds. The tonality is not better than them, so I prefer Ilford and Kodak. Also, the 120 size curls horridly and takes WEEKS of sitting under a stack of heavy books to flatten enough for printing.
A lot of bother to save a few bucks. Most of us here have thousands of dollars in gear. Its silly to worry about film prices. Image quality and usability keep me with the more expensive Kodak and Ilford stuff.
A lot of bother to save a few bucks. Most of us here have thousands of dollars in gear. Its silly to worry about film prices. Image quality and usability keep me with the more expensive Kodak and Ilford stuff.
x-ray
Veteran
Grain and sharpness might not be at the top of all of our lists. It's not a matter of saving a dollar for me, Foma responds better to + & - development than about anything else that I've used including most Kodak and Ilford products.
Personally I like grain in some of my 35mm images. It helps convey the mood. Others I like finer grain so I use Fuji Neopan 400 (until I run out) and FP5.