tell me about fomapan / arista.edu ultra films...

[Fotohuis]

Q.C. for FP films are in the mean time pretty good. I am using a 1,5% Citric Acid stop since 1998 and never had any issues.

 

[maxwell1295]

I shoot with both the 100 and 400 films in 120. I've used all kinds of developing combos and they all seem to turn out great. What I really like is shooting the 100 @ 200 and developing it in Diafine 3+3


Grant 2 by alanabramsphotography, on Flickr


Grant 1 by alanabramsphotography, on Flickr

 

[Kkiuru]

Foma 400


CCCP Machine by H-S Gron, on Flickr

 

[f16sunshine]

Just shot my first roll of 400 in 120.
When I had it in the dark bag I was shocked at how surprisingly limp and easy this film was to roll on to the spool.
I had read it was very curly but, this roll had absolutely zero curly memory at all and dried completely flat!

I only had tmax dev so souped it 8mins at 20c per MDC after rating it at 400.
I would rate at 200 next time and develop at 6.5-7 mins or try Rodinal 1:25.
It's fine but nothing I would consider switching over to completely. Would like to try some Portraits.

Fuji GF670 set to shoot 66

 

[Fotohuis]

The Polyester layer was changed for all Fomapan 120 roll films from material used at Agfa Gevaert. Clear Polyester layer with an extra A.H. layer. Also the backing paper is more smoothly now to prevent any stress on the film surface. They are also using a self adhesive sticker now which is working very well now. All productions up from 2014 should be in this way.

 

[f16sunshine]

The Polyester layer was changed for all Fomapan 120 roll films from material used at Agfa Gevaert. Clear Polyester layer with an extra A.H. layer. Also the backing paper is more smoothly now to prevent any stress on the film surface. They are also using a self adhesive sticker now which is working very well now. All productions up from 2014 should be in this way.

I've used a few 120 rolls now and I'm happy to report how supple the film is in regard to curling.
It's very very limp with no signs of roll memory whatsoever. It does seem a bit on the soft side.
I'm a bit concerned with negatives that may be printed frequently and subsequently get a lot of handling. It seems too good to be true 🙂

I like foma400 in 120 so far after 5 rolls. It needs a stop or maybe even 2 more than box but... looks good so far ( Tmax Dev 1:4).
Tonality looks good. Sharpness not as much but .... not to complain either.

 

[lynnb]

^^very nice result Andy. When I've used up my stocks of HP5+ I might give this a try.

 

[Fotohuis]

If you can live with the slower speed of FP 400 (iso 200-250) you can have good results. I prefer the FP200 due to the fact it is a sharper film (you just mentioned it above ). This is because FP200 has a mixture of classical cubical Silver crystals and hexagonal Silver crystals. It was an attempt for Foma to create a type of Tgrain emulsion.

This is how it looks under the (e-) microscope and here is an example with the C.V. Bessa III 667.

FP200 E.I. 125 in R09/Rodinal 1+50.

This picture is looking innocent but it has been made in Ukraine over a year ago.
In the mean time it is war overthere and I am thinking to evacuate my daughter.

 

[Fotohuis]

Even in 35mm FP200 is very good. Different layer (tri-Acetate) but the same emulsion.
Here an example in Praha (Prague) with the Elmarit F/2,8-28mm and Y-filter. Same developer.

 

[traveler_101]

f16sunshine, yeah I really like the tonality of FP 400. Did you ever try it in Rodinal?

Robert, these are excellent results. Which is a better developer for FP 200 EXCEL or Rodinal?

 

[Fotohuis]

Indeed the tonality of FP 400 is very good and can be easy done but the film is unsuitable for a R09/Rodinal development.

For the FP 200 you can do both R09/Rodinal and Xtol/Fomadon Excel W27 where the nominal film speed in Rodinal is iso 100-125 and in Excel W27 iso 160 with much finer grain but less sharpness.

It is a matter of taste. Pro Rodinal is an easy useage and long lifespan of the concentrate. Pro Xtol is higher film speed. Both developers are very cheap.

 

[f16sunshine]

If you can live with the slower speed of FP 400 (iso 200-250) you can have good results. I prefer the FP200 due to the fact it is a sharper film (you just mentioned it above ). This is because FP200 has a mixture of classical cubical Silver crystals and hexagonal Silver crystals. It was an attempt for Foma to create a type of Tgrain emulsion.

This is how it looks under the (e-) microscope and here is an example with the C.V. Bessa III 667.

FP200 E.I. 125 in R09/Rodinal 1+50.

This picture is looking innocent but it has been made in Ukraine over a year ago.
In the mean time it is war overthere and I am thinking to evacuate my daughter.

You sir are a wealth of information! Thank you very much for your posts.
I'm curious if you could tell me. Does the FP200 in 120 also have the same Polyester base as the 400 ?
I just can not overstate how pleasant it is to have a film with so little curl or roll memory. I want to try some 200 as well.

I use Tmax100 and Tmax400 often. As well as Delta400.
The Tmax400 and Delta400 films actually push very well.
Can you comment on the exposure pliability of the FP200 ?

Thank you again!

 

[Addy101]

Indeed the tonality of FP 400 is very good and can be easy done but the film is unsuitable for a R09/Rodinal development.

I'm new to this stuff, did my own development yesterday for the first time 🙂 among the two rolls there was Fomapan 400 and I did it in Rodinal/R09 - why is FP400 unsuitable for Rodinal?

P.S. Hope your daughter is safe and stays safe.

 

[Fotohuis]

FP 400 has a very good tonal range but it is a pretty grainy film. In any high acutance type developer containing Metol or para- Amino Phenol like FX-1, Beutler or R09/Rodinal you are developing with to many grain compared to the low resolution of this film, around 85lp/mm. So unsuitable in 35mm and small format roll film format for these combinations unless you want to create excessive grain, shake the tank and doing it on 24C.

FP 400 pushes very bad, in fact it is an iso 200 film and this data you can retrieve directly from the Fomapan PDF files available on http://www.foma.cz , make the right language choice.

FP 200 pushes much better, in fact to E.I. 800 if you want. Calculate with iso 160-200 depending on the speed enhancing type developer.

In fact all new production Fomapan roll films should have the same clear Agfa Gevaert Polyester layer with double N.C. Layer and A.H. layer instead of the old single N.C. Blue Polyester layer. Incl. the new easy to close, a la Fuji, self adhesive sticker.

I am using Fomapan films since 1997 and importing them for the Netherlands since 1998 for my Fotohuis RoVo in the Netherlands via my web shop http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl

So I am sharing for you first hand Foma information. I am doing film and printing since 1967 when I was a young boy in the darkroom of my father.

Have a nice father day!

Robert

Dutch Foma distributor.

 

[Addy101]

Thank you!

 

[traveler_101]

Thank you Robert for all your help! FP 200 seems to be the film to get.

 

[Brian Atherton]

I love Fomapan Creative 200 35mm, especially during the brighter summer months, when I can open up the aperture a little more than I can with 400 ISO.

It’s contrasty with plenty of punch, and retains highlight detail.

Info here: http://www.foma.cz/en/catalogue-fomapan-200-creative-detail-271

As I send all of my films away for processing and high resolution scanning I’ve no idea what developer is used.

In my experience using Fomapan 200 extensively over the last two years or so, the 35mm emulsion quality control isn’t up to, say, Kodak or Fuji films. Fomapan batches vary: some are fine but others have specs and other irregular artifacts in the grain structure, which show up principally in blank areas such as cloudless skies. These I remove in Photoshop.

Nevertheless, despite this emulsion fault I really like Fomapan 200. It’s become one of my all-time favourites, not least for its price here in the UK.

 

[Fotohuis]

Well, FP 200 has also the softest emuslion so it can scratch easily.
Foma changed their FP 200 emulsion in 2012 when a supplier could not deliver a special ingredient for this film any more. FP 200 was not available over 1/2 year but they found, at least, a replacement but the speed went down another 1/3F stop.
So in para- Amino Phenol, which Rodinal is, you have only iso 100 left.

Another example, now printed on photo paper:

Same M7 with Elmarit F/2,8-28mm and Y-filter (Heliopan).

And here a recent example of the Fomapan 200 (new):

Zorki-4K with Jupiter-8 F/2,0-50mm wide open. War musea Overloon, Liberty Park.

Developer Xtol (last two examples) E.I. 160.

 

[maxwell1295]

It can be pushed, but expect much in the way of shadow detail.

Here's the 400 rated at 1600 and developed in HC-110 'B'.


Lori by alanabramsphotography, on Flickr

 

[Aurora]

Fomapan 200 in Beutler

Fomapan 200 in Beutler

Foma 200 Creative in 35 works well with the Beutler compensating developer - amazingly sharp and no blown highlights. It seems - no formal test - an accurate ISO of 200. The 400 Action does not - it seems slow, grainy, and altogether a 1940s film. Arista Premium/Kodak Tri-X suit me better. The Foma 200 is another beast entirely - a wonderfully sharp film in the right developer.

Do you have any times for Fomapan 200 in Beutler.
I have been searching but not finding any.