what is the deal with fomapan 400?

[Freakscene]

One thing to watch out for is expiry dates. If Fomapan is handled poorly it goes off quickly. I've had excellent results with it, used little else for an extended stay in Prague. You can get very nice tonality, but Fomapan 400 is grainier than the conventional grain films from the major manufacturers.

Marty

 

[Keith]

One thing to watch out for is expiry dates. If Fomapan is handled poorly it goes off quickly. I've had excellent results with it, used little else for an extended stay in Prague. You can get very nice tonality, but Fomapan 400 is grainier than the conventional grain films from the major manufacturers.

Marty

I may be guilty here ... the roll of MF 200 I used sat in a very warm cupboard over summer before I used it! 😱

Judging the by the varying reports we're getting of 'like it ... hate it' you have to supect that their quality control may not be quite what we've come to expect from the likes of Fuji or Kodak?

 

[JohnTF]

I used to sell the stuff, the MF had problems with pinholes, evidently dirt in the emulsion, Foma replaced a bunch and I just used the 35mm.

The 800 ISO was an interesting film, and the 200 one of my favorites.

I too would process in D76 or Xtol, but at 1:1.

If you have the energy, I would shoot some gray scales, and check the exposures with a good digital spot meter.

I do not have a densitometer, so I trucked down to Campus Camera where they let me use theirs.

You can get good stuff out of it, but from what I hear, it is a very old school film.

Regards, John

 

[Freakscene]

IIf you have the energy, I would shoot some gray scales, and check the exposures with a good digital spot meter.

I do not have a densitometer, so I trucked down to Campus Camera where they let me use theirs.

If you have one you can use a good flatbed scanner in lieu of a spotmeter or densitometer; I found my Epson 4870 was a much more accurate densitometer than my old densitometer that cost $5k. Works for transmission and reflected readings too.

Marty

 

[mark-b]

I bought several rolls and was not impressed. Even the grain structure is mediocre. I did get a few keepers when I exposed it at 200 iso and Rodinal.

 

[jmcd]

Foma 400 in HC-110

 

[jmcd]

Foma 400 in Xtol 1:1

This was with a Summitar that digs into the shadows, making ei 400 possible here.

 

[p.giannakis]

I developed Foma 400 in ID-11 1:4. I got these results and i don't know what went wrong.

Any ideas?

 

[Keith]

I developed Foma 400 in ID-11 1:4. I got these results and i don't know what went wrong.Any ideas?

Both of those images appear to be either over exposed or over developed ... but both respond to curve adjustments. I took the liberty of fiddling with them and reposting because I was bored! 😱

Both very nice pics I might add! 🙂

 

[ChrisN]

I'd say over-developed. The shadow detail is good (adequate exposure) but the highlights look overcooked. But you would need to see a contact proof at correct "minimum time for maximum black" to be sure.

 

[naruto]

It maybe a fool's thought, but Foma 400 might be a very nice film to develop with Pyro-based developers. I shot and developed a roll of Foma 100 in Pyrocat HD. The printing was beautiful.

 

[Freakscene]

It maybe a fool's thought, but Foma 400 might be a very nice film to develop with Pyro-based developers. I shot and developed a roll of Foma 100 in Pyrocat HD. The printing was beautiful.

All Fomapan films look amazing in Pyrocat-MC and any of the other speed maintaining staining/tanning developers. The 200 and 800 were the nicest. The 800 is long gone and the 200 may never return from its component-challenged hiatus.

I'll try to dig out some photos to post later tonight.

Marty

 

[JohnTF]

All Fomapan films look amazing in Pyrocat-MC and any of the other speed maintaining staining/tanning developers. The 200 and 800 were the nicest. The 800 is long gone and the 200 may never return from its component-challenged hiatus.

I'll try to dig out some photos to post later tonight.

Marty

Some friends were really disappointed when the 800 was killed off. Is the 200 still being made? It was sold as Acupan 200, Creative 200, T 200 (Kodak sued that name out of existence), -- and was in the stores last I was in Prague (couple of years ago)-- plus was being marketed in Canada, NY, and Midwest in Columbus. Midwest no longer has it.

Just curious, I have enough in the fridge so that my estate may be selling it off. ;-)

Regards, John

 

[Freakscene]

Some friends were really disappointed when the 800 was killed off. Is the 200 still being made? It was sold as Acupan 200, Creative 200, T 200 (Kodak sued that name out of existence), -- and was in the stores last I was in Prague (couple of years ago)-- plus was being marketed in Canada, NY, and Midwest in Columbus. Midwest no longer has it.
Just curious, I have enough in the fridge so that my estate may be selling it off. ;-)
Regards, John

Foma have halted production because one of the components stopped being available. It might be an accelerator, because the Foma 200 (and formerly the 800) emulsions are/were loaded with these and they are often chemicals that have few other uses at the kind of purity you need for photographic use. Foma have said they will make more if they can find a new supplier, but there has been no news, suggesting they haven't found another source. So it might be gone, but maybe not. Fomapan Creative 200 was also sold through Freestyle as Arista EDU Ultra 200.

Marty

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Foma Creative 200 in 120 is no longer being made for the reasons stated by Marty. I have some 5 rolls of it in 35mm but don't know if there will be any more. Anyway, back to the film in question. Foma 400.

I was reading (again) one of Roger and Frances books last night - "The Black & White Handbook" 1997 and in it I found a reference to Fomapan 400.
What interested me is that many of the previous posts talk about rating it at 200, but Roger clearly states (p117) that he rates it at 650 when he used it but extends the development time. That's a significant ISO difference to what others are currently reporting. (There is a qualifier in that I think Roger is referring to LF sheet film).

So I'm left wondering, has the emulsion changed? Quite possibly. Is it different in 35mm and 120 and LF? That is the case with some other European film manufacturers.

Or has the film got much wider latitude than we suspect and that can be accessed by a range of different development regimes?

 

[Mister E]

This film for sure does not have a wide exposure latitude. I'll try to post some good and bad examples all exposed at EI 400 with radically different results later tonight.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think they are different emulsions in sheet and minifilm, but I can't find my Foma spec sheets. Actually the ref on page 117 is to Fortepan, not Fomapan, and the developer choice is unusual too: D19 (high contrast, clean working) or paper developer. I liked Fortepan 400 more than Fomapan 400, which I never used much.

My own feeling on 'fighting' with a film is that it's not worth it. There are plenty of good films around, though 'good' depends on the individual photographer's taste, style, technique, etc., so why 'fight'?

I'd not chuck the 400 out, though: just save it for equipment testing. I'd never buy a large qantity of an unknown film, because I might simply not get on with it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Freakscene]

So I'm left wondering, has the emulsion changed? Quite possibly. Is it different in 35mm and 120 and LF? That is the case with some other European film manufacturers.

Or has the film got much wider latitude than we suspect and that can be accessed by a range of different development regimes?

All formats of Foma 200 are not being produced currently, not just the 120.

I visited the Foma factory last year. The production manager told me that the formula has not changed in decades.

I found Fomapan 400 to have very wide latitude in terms of ending up with acceptable density, but for optimal grain the film was less forgiving. This makes it very easy to use in larger formats but harder to use in smaller formats. I like it a lot in 120 and larger but prefer other films in 135, although I would use it happily if it was all I could get.

Marty

 

[Leigh Youdale]

I Used the Wrong "F..." Word!

I Used the Wrong "F..." Word!

I think they are different emulsions in sheet and minifilm, but I can't find my Foma spec sheets. Actually the ref on page 117 is to Fortepan, not Fomapan .... I liked Fortepan 400 more than Fomapan 400, which I never used much.

My own feeling on 'fighting' with a film is that it's not worth it. There are plenty of good films around, though 'good' depends on the individual photographer's taste, style, technique, etc., so why 'fight'?

I'd not chuck the 400 out, though: just save it for equipment testing. I'd never buy a large qantity of an unknown film, because I might simply not get on with it.

Cheers,

R.

Sorry everyone - I read faster than I understand!
I think I'm getting the picture though (no pun intended). I'll just put the film in the freezer and forget it's there, I think. There's only about 4-5 rolls of each type and it was half the price of Ilford so it didn't break the bank. Maybe come in useful for a particular "look" sometime. Restock with Ilford!
(I still want to try a couple of Adox CHS though, but it's not available here).

 

[JohnTF]

Had a look yesterday.
Freestyle and B&H seem to be listing several formats of Creative 200, perhaps cut out of old stock?

Regards, John