Fomapan 120 film

[lxmike]

Sorry if this has been asked before, has anyone any views and/or experience regarding Fomapan as a brand, I have used Ilford since the early 1980's and I'm a big fan of FP4 and HP5 but recently have come across Fomapan as a brand...............just wondering if it is a brand I should dip into or avoid😱

 

[f16sunshine]

Hi Mike
I'm just getting started with Foma and so far really see some great potential in 120.
The base is very, very limp and flat once dry. It rests nicely in the scanner tray and should be great in an enlarger holder although I have yet to print any.

This is from my 1st roll of 400 shot at 200 and developed as 400. I would expose this film as 100 next time. 400 is optimistic and the box rating really should be changed.
Conjoined twins by Adnan W, on Flickr

Here is a 35mm frame of 100. I like the slightly agressive look and grain of the film in Rodinal this time.
First roll Hexar AF, AEU 100 Rodinal 1:100 stand by Adnan W, on Flickr

 

[tsiklonaut]

Fomapan is excellent if you ask me. Very high quality yet cost-effective films. My favourite being the Fomapan 200 "Creative", it's something between 100 & 400 that isn't well fitted out in the market.

Tonal rendering is awesome and the grain beautiful. That being said the Fomapan 100 & 400 are excellent performers in their own right as well. The 100 is smooth, but with a little grainy bite for it's speed, something of a i.e. FP4+-ish. The 400 has slightly softer detail rendering among the 400 class films (not as "harsh" as i.e. T-Max 400 or Delta 400), making it particulary excellent for portraits IMHO. Another point worth mentioning is Fomapan films darkroom (wet-) print excellent as well.

Just me 2c,
Margus

 

[nemo2]

I have been using this film, some photos can be seen here. I am sorry for rather lower scan quality.

 

[lxmike]

Hi Mike
I'm just getting started with Foma and so far really see some great potential in 120.
The base is very, very limp and flat once dry. It rests nicely in the scanner tray and should be great in an enlarger holder although I have yet to print any.

This is from my 1st roll of 400 shot at 200 and developed as 400. I would expose this film as 100 next time. 400 is optimistic and the box rating really should be changed.
Conjoined twins by Adnan W, on Flickr

Here is a 35mm frame of 100. I like the slightly agressive look and grain of the film in Rodinal this time.
First roll Hexar AF, AEU 100 Rodinal 1:100 stand by Adnan W, on Flickr

nice images, I take it the asa rating on the box bares no match to reality

 

[charjohncarter]

I find Fomapan 100 which I rate 50 a little contrasty and overly blue sensitive. I have to use an orange filter when shooting in the sun, and I have to slightly under develop to lower the contrast.

Here is one I did in this manner:

And one with no filter but underdeveloped (Brownie Hawkeye Flash lens on Pentax 6x7):

 

[f16sunshine]

nice images, I take it the asa rating on the box bares no match to reality

Thanks Mike

My answer to your question is... it depends.
For the developers i use in my Darkroom the answer seems to be 400 is optimistic and 125-160 is likely more realistic.
After years of experimenting and chasing the perfect set of developers I now use only two.
Tmax dev for lesser grain and a cleaner more modern look and rodinal for grainier and a sharper more "agressive" look.

Foma 400 does not seem to have it's rated speed at of 400 when using my two choices of developer.
With others it may. In other words. YMMV .

I'm anxious to try 200. It's a hybrid tgrain film which I often like.
Tmax and acros (both T-grain) are my 2,3 films behind HP5 which is my number one (traditional cubey grain).

 

[lxmike]

I have been using this film, some photos can be seen here. I am sorry for rather lower scan quality.

many many thanks for your recommendations

 

[lxmike]

Fomapan is excellent if you ask me. Very high quality yet cost-effective films. My favourite being the Fomapan 200 "Crative", it's something between 100 & 400 that isn't well fitted out in the market.

Tonal rendering is awesome and the grain beautiful. That being said the Fomapan 100 & 400 are excellent performers in their own right as well. The 100 is smooth, but with a little grainy bite for it's speed, something of a i.e. FP4+-ish. The 400 has slightly softer detail rendering among the 400 class films (not as "harsh" as i.e. T-Max 400 or Delta 400), making it particulary excellent for portraits IMHO. Another point worth mentioning is Fomapan films darkroom (wet-) print excellent as well.

Just me 2c,
Margus

nice image, the 200 looks a great preformer

 

[lxmike]

I find Fomapan 100 which I rate 50 a little contrasty and overly blue sensitive. I have to use an orange filter when shooting in the sun, and I have to slightly under develop to lower the contrast.

Here is one I did in this manner:

And one with no filter but underdeveloped (Brownie Hawkeye Flash lens on Pentax 6x7):

thanks your comments are very helpful and have given me food for thought

 

[lxmike]

Thanks Mike

My answer to your question is... it depends.
For the developers i use in my Darkroom the answer seems to be 400 is optimistic and 125-160 is likely more realistic.
After years of experimenting and chasing the perfect set of developers I now use only two.
Tmax dev for lesser grain and a cleaner more modern look and rodinal for grainier and a sharper more "agressive" look.

Foma 400 does not seem to have it's rated speed at of 400 when using my two choices of developer.
With others it may. In other words. YMMV .

I'm anxious to try 200. It's a hybrid tgrain film which I often like.
Tmax and acros (both T-grain) are my 2,3 films behind HP5 which is my number one (traditional cubey grain).

I must admit HP five and now HP five plus was and is my favourite film, has been for the last three decades

 

[rhl-oregon]

This will be less useful b/c I have my film developed &scanned, then work in LR, but like Margus I like the 200 Foma. The examples below are box speed. (Btw, I'd love to hear how users feel about results with a lower EI rating. I'm about to get back some rated at 125.)

Gf670, spring sun, probably f5.6:

And in overcast (heavy hand on the PP graduated filter):

Have fun with it! Especially if it saves £ and renders well.

 

[Gerry M]

Arista 200 (Fomapan) is one of my favorite 120 films. I develop in D76 & XTOL.

 

[rhl-oregon]

Walt O'Brien (O'Brien Imaging) here in Eugene develops my Foma 200 in D76, Gerry. So that 's a ditto.

 

[ruby.monkey]

What is the manufacturing quality like nowadays? I tried Foma 100 and 400 some time ago and had problems with pinholes in the emulsion and tape often intruding into the first frame.

I am shooting Foma 400 in 135 format, and the emulsion seems much more even (and I have yet to have the film come away from its spool) so it does look promising...

 

[mfogiel]

I have used fomapan 200 for some time. It is an excellent film for portraiture BUT:
- it hasn't got great exposure latitude
- it is not well suited for landscape, unless you want paper white skies
- i've had horrible problems with film quality, and film curling in 120 in the past
All in all, I find Rollei RPX much superior for reliability and spectral response, plus it is much more exposure tolerant.

 

[f16sunshine]

It should be noted that Foma has a new base and QC in the past year.
Pinholes and curling seem to be in the rearview mirror for now.

Interesting note about exposure latitude using 200.
I'm primarily a portrait photographer. Often I use a light green or very light yellow filter.
I've not looked at any graphs pertaining to color sensitivities.
Can anyone comment regarding use of light yellow/green filters with any of these films?
I don't filter with Acros as I have yet to get what I consider natural mid and upper zones with the type of filtering I prefer (it gets muddy and "brassy").
I'll test of course but... still curious what others have found (foma200 especially).

 

[rhl-oregon]

I just got back the scans of 200 Foma rated 125. (This + 4 other images in the gallery now.) I'd have to declare myself happier with earlier results at box speed.

Admittedly, I was shooting in hot August contrasty light, but even this image in milder shade, the shadows are inky and unrecoverable. My metering skills probably play a part in this, of course ;-/, but perhaps this example bears out what Marek is diagnosing about Foma 200 latitude. -->Not in general a film for the sunny contrasty summer, perhaps?

 

[Joao]

Fomapan 100

Fomapan 100

Fomapan 200 135 mm was temporarily discontinued a couple of years ago (I was not able to find it in Prague) . It is now in the market again, but I recall having read that there's a difference between the "old" and the "new" emulsion.
The Fomapan 100 in 120 has some impredictability concerning quality: most of the rolls are excellent, occasionally there is a roll that shows pinholes in the emulsion. I had a bad experience with a variety of F100 120 called "Professional", most of the rolls of the batch I bought were terrible. Recently I have been shooting the classic F100 120 (not the "Professional" kind) without any problems.

 

[x-ray]

Arista 200 (Fomapan) is one of my favorite 120 films. I develop in D76 & XTOL.

I've not shot much in 120 but my favorite sheet film is the 200. Yes Arista 200 is Foma and much cheaper. When I run out of Fuji neopan 400 which I still have about a hundred rolls of I'm most likely going to Foma 200 in 120.

I'm a fan of HP5 also but love the way Foma responds to development. Beautiful tones too. It's very close to Super XX.