Author Topic: Fomapan films? (Read 16270 times)

Ezzie · « **on:** March 18, 2015, 06:58:22 AM »

Hello there

I haven't tried that many rolls yet, but I want to try it some more. The reasons being it being a bit cheaper than most of the competition, and secondly I live less than 15 minutes from the biggest distributor in northern Europe.

It comes in three varieties, Fomapan 100, 200 and 400. Having tried the two latter I must say I prefer the 400, nice tonality (in HC-110) and traditional cubic grain, not too intrusive (@ box speed at least). I have also seen good results from others, with the 100. It does curl though, quite heavily, needs several days under a stack of books.

I have however been having a spot of trouble with the rolls I have developed so far. I seem to be getting holes in the emulsion. One or two on every roll. I am not sure why. I use relatively diluted developers (R09 1:50, HC-110 dil-H, Caffenol-C-M/H (RS), Ultrafin 1+20 etc), and water as stop. Common to all is I have used TMAX fixer for 5 minutes. I know acid stop can cause trouble with some emulsions, but I have never used anything but water. Could my choice of fixer cause issues like this?

Late Developer · « **Reply #1 on:** March 18, 2015, 08:51:03 AM »

I bought a few rolls of 100, 200 and 400 from a stand at the Photographica fair a few years ago. It's nice film and I quite liked it. As you say, it was also a bit cheaper than Ilford and Kodak film. However, as I scan negs, I found it incredibly frustrating to get it flat enough to sit properly in the neg carrierfor my Epson 750 - which are not the most robust, it has to be said.

It turned out to be a brief dalliance as I haven't bought any more. Why? I don't shoot massive volumes of film so, although I'm far from rich, I'm happy to spend the odd £ or two more to buy film that I kow will give me the photo quality I want and I won't have to wait a week until I can scan / use it.

charles binns · « **Reply #2 on:** March 18, 2015, 08:51:48 AM »

There's a reason Fomapan is cheap and holes in the emulsion is one of them. I also found it very prone to scratching and frustratingly curly.

Andrea. · « **Reply #3 on:** March 18, 2015, 09:05:08 AM »

I really like the 400. Obviously nowhere as good as Ilford but it is cheap and good. And cheap. Have i said cheap?
Shoot HP5 almost exclusively these days except when I shoot Foma400 - which is most of the time on account of it's price.

Yes, it can have flaws from time to time but I feel that enhances my snaps! I mean, have you seen my snaps?

I use a lot Polypan-f too.

Photo_Utopia · « **Reply #4 on:** March 18, 2015, 11:19:47 AM »

I have used it quite a bit probably 40-50 rolls in all formats up to 4x5, never found a pinhole but that might be because I'm slack with quality.

I have some tests
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.co.uk/2007/12/film-tests.html

I like it, the 400 is an old style emulsion like APX 400 that is not up to its rated speed but has a nice grit and tone.

Ezzie · « **Reply #5 on:** March 18, 2015, 12:32:06 PM »

I shot a roll of 400 the other day, at box speed. But developed it with some Tri-X shot at EI 800. So gave both a push of 2/3-1 stop. And it turned out quite nicely. Will save examples for the weekend thread. Or go over to Flickr if you prefer.

The 200 I was not that impressed with. But will try some 100, and will most likely try some more 400. When first you do get grain I much prefer cubic grain of traditional films such as this. Which is why I like Acros and TMX, but not so much TMY-2. Delta 400 however is not too bad.

Francois · « **Reply #6 on:** March 18, 2015, 01:15:01 PM »

I must have been lucky because the bulk roll of arista.edu 400 (which is despoiled fomapan) has been quite problem free so far. No pinholes, no missing emulsion, no more curl than anything else.

I use a fairly strong stop bath and some ilford rapid fix for 1.5 minutes. That's all it needs.
I also dry it with heat in a cabinet and use some weights on it to keep it straight. I found that its curly length wise when wet. But once it gets bone dry, it looses the longitudinal curve.

jojonas~ · « **Reply #7 on:** March 18, 2015, 01:47:52 PM »

I've had a hard time coping with the need to compensate so early for foma films. but I've found their 200 very forgiving -good for the holga!

Indofunk · « **Reply #8 on:** March 18, 2015, 02:46:26 PM »

I commented on my first foray into Fomapan in the last weekend thread. The 400, shot at box speed and developed for 12min in HC110 h gives me much lower contrast than I like. I'm currently shooting a roll at 200 which I will develop the same way, to see if that may increase contrast or at least blow out my highlights the way I like. Depending on how that turns out I may try shooting at 400 and then stand developing in Rodinal, as per Fluminian.

Indofunk · « **Reply #9 on:** March 18, 2015, 02:48:14 PM »

Come to think of it, Rodinal should give me higher contrast right off the bat, no? Maybe I'll just process this roll that I'm shooting at 200 in Rodinal ...

Kayos · « **Reply #10 on:** March 18, 2015, 05:24:04 PM »

Just had a roll of each delivered, will probably start with the 200 and develop it in Rodinol

gsgary · « **Reply #11 on:** March 18, 2015, 08:58:24 PM »

I love Foma 400, always develope it in Rodinal and it is very easy to print from the negs
This was shot on Christmas day in the pub while dinner was cooking, it was pushed to iso1600

This is a scan of a foma 400 print

Francois · « **Reply #12 on:** March 18, 2015, 09:13:29 PM »

I know for daytime use I always expose 400 ISO at EI 250 and develop in HC-110 Dil. E for 7:30@68°F

moominsean · « **Reply #13 on:** March 22, 2015, 01:53:00 AM »

I've not been a huge fan of Fomapan. It seems to develop kind of thin and very grainy. I really liked Fortepan, but that's not available anymore. A couple Fomapan shots from a Holga... I don't hate it but there are other films I'd rather use.

jojonas~ · « **Reply #14 on:** March 22, 2015, 09:47:56 AM »

Quote from: moominsean on March 22, 2015, 01:53:00 AM

I've not been a huge fan of Fomapan. It seems to develop kind of thin and very grainy. I really liked Fortepan, but that's not available anymore. A couple Fomapan shots from a Holga... I don't hate it but there are other films I'd rather use.

aye, solely miss fortepan. the silver in it was almost as rich as efke but the emulsion not as sensitive and the base (mostly) not as curly.

Ezzie · « **Reply #15 on:** March 22, 2015, 07:15:11 PM »

Some examples from the latest roll, not posted in the weekend thread. The P6 with the MIR38B, souped in HC-100 dil-H for 15min @20C/68F

Tourists are early this year by Eirik0304, on Flickr

News agent by Eirik0304, on Flickr

Jernbanetorget by Eirik0304, on Flickr

Photo_Utopia · « **Reply #16 on:** March 23, 2015, 09:13:14 AM »

Those look really nice Eric, very smooth for the 400 Foma.
I think the Foma range is actually pretty good, I think they are all slower than box unless you use Microphen/DXX I rate the 400 @ EI250 the 200@ EI125 and the 100@ EI80.
They have a very good mid tone under these conditions and less of a 'black hole' in the shadow.

I developed a roll last week of Foma 100 (80) developed in Rodinal 1:50

silver birch2 by Photo Utopia, on Flickr

silver birch by Photo Utopia, on Flickr

I think at the price it's well worth it, just give it a fatter exposure than you would FP4 and guard against under exposure and over developing.

Ezzie · « **Reply #17 on:** March 23, 2015, 09:26:29 AM »

Thank you Mark, I am a bit surprised the grain is not more prominent. Certainly no worse than TX or HP5+. I will be trying out some more, in Ultrafin 1+10 or 20 next time around.

I agree, the mid tones are very nice. But the highlights aren't bad either. I have a mind to try and pull it a bit and see if I can get the sort of gradation I got from Neopan 400.

Photo_Utopia · « **Reply #18 on:** March 23, 2015, 09:37:21 AM »

Possibly HC110 is a little better than Rodinal for mid tone smoothness with this film, looking at the spec sheets I see it's rated @400 in Microphen which is a speed enhancer, Rodinal isn't really a speed enhancer which is why I only get EI 250 with that combo.

Getting the same tonality a Neopan would indeed be a challenge–that was my favourite film of all time.

You certainly seem to have mastered the 400.

Gimenosaiz · « **Reply #19 on:** March 23, 2015, 11:44:06 AM »

Hi!

Very nice results, Rick.

I like this film. I've just purchased a dozen of rolls ...

1. Fomapan 400 / HC-110 durante 7' @ 20ºC

remolque by Antonio GB, on Flickr

violeta by Antonio GB, on Flickr

2. Fomapan 100 / D-76 stock (reused, 6'30" a 22ºC)

caterham by Antonio GB, on Flickr

hermanas by Antonio GB, on Flickr

violeta by Antonio GB, on Flickr

3. Fomapan 100 / Rodinal 1+50 / 8'30"

lucía by Antonio GB, on Flickr

ignacio by Antonio GB, on Flickr

Regards!

Photo_Utopia · « **Reply #20 on:** March 23, 2015, 01:21:10 PM »

Lovely shots, tones are spot on and not too much grain.... (if there is such a thing)

Indofunk · « **Reply #21 on:** March 23, 2015, 01:30:38 PM »

Arrggh ... and again I am faced with the age-old question "why are everyone else's results so much better than mine!?"

Beautiful shots (and subjects!) Antonio

SLVR · « **Reply #22 on:** March 23, 2015, 04:41:37 PM »

Not a huge fan of the 400. But I've really enjoyed the 100.

Kayos · « **Reply #23 on:** March 23, 2015, 07:02:26 PM »

From my first roll, 200 developed in Rodinol 1+50 shot at box speed

Fomapan200-012 by Kayos Photos, on Flickr

Might try shooting it slower next time, not exactly a go to film and seems to have attracted a huge amount of dust, however other than resizing this is straight off the scanner

I can see it having a place in my collection so will probably order 4 of each speed next time I stock up (I buy film in bulk once or twice a year) unless I find a reason to hate the other 2 speeds, may try them in ID-11 as well

KevinAllan · « **Reply #24 on:** March 23, 2015, 07:43:37 PM »

A few people are saying Fomapan films are worth using because of their low cost. I'm looking at the MacoDirect site and 120 Tri-X is 4.35 Euros (if you buy 5) and Fomapan 400 is 4.17 Euros. To me that's not much of a saving.

Converted into British money it equates to 1 penny per frame on a TLR

Photo_Utopia · « **Reply #25 on:** March 23, 2015, 07:57:54 PM »

Sure, but that is very expensive for Fomapan which is £2.80 a roll (120) the last batch I bought was £2.25
http://shop.silverprint.co.uk/Fomapan-100-120-Single/product/54648/V11161/

The real bargain for me is 50 sheets of 4x5 for £26 which is hard to argue against.

Not a Foma salesman

when you look at the cost of Tri-x 50 sheets at £106 from the same place you can feel that on your wallet

Kayos · « **Reply #26 on:** March 23, 2015, 08:04:25 PM »

Film prices vary hugely, I usually order from 2 or 3 places to get the best deal

Francois · « **Reply #27 on:** March 23, 2015, 08:26:29 PM »

What I find is that in 35mm bulk, it's worth it.
Other formats or pre-rolled... not so sure.

Andrej K · « **Reply #28 on:** March 23, 2015, 10:17:16 PM »

I have to confess I was not very keen on foma films (except in sheet film), even though I usually prefer to buy local products, but watching the exchange rates in last weeks and moths it is coming near the point where I can get TWO 120 rolls of Foma film for the price of ONE roll of Ilford / Kodak.... Therefore I am currently making some tests with fomapan 200 (which is my favourite emulsion in 8x10)...

Has anyone tried foma films in Diafine/Accufine? I wonder how much speed one could get from the 200 or 400 while keeping grain in reasonable proportion...

gsgary · « **Reply #29 on:** March 23, 2015, 10:27:52 PM »

These are from my last roll developed at the weekend and my worst so far

Checking out my dogs

Our horse Cloud

Gimenosaiz · « **Reply #30 on:** March 23, 2015, 10:28:28 PM »

Quote from: Indofunk on March 23, 2015, 01:30:38 PM

Arrggh ... and again I am faced with the age-old question "why are everyone else's results so much better than mine!?"

Beautiful shots (and subjects!) Antonio

:-)
Thank you!

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #31 on:** March 24, 2015, 12:19:56 PM »

I love, love, love Fomapan 100. IIRC these were all shot on Fomapan 100 and developed in Caffenol-C-L: http://urbanhafnerphotography.com/street

It also pushes nicely to 400, at least in Caffenol.

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #32 on:** March 24, 2015, 12:23:59 PM »

This is Fomapan 100 pushed to stops and developed in Caffenol-C-L.

Photo_Utopia · « **Reply #33 on:** March 24, 2015, 01:09:02 PM »

Very nice Urban you seem to have a film speed increasing coffee. It should be in a café in every town!

Keeping grain down and speed up? I think DDX or Microphen would be OK. I wonder though is grain a problem in 8x10?

If so I'm looking for a Gandolfi

Francois · « **Reply #34 on:** March 24, 2015, 01:23:32 PM »

The only thing I wouldn't do with it is trim it so that it fits in a Hit camera.... Then again, I don't know of anything that would give great results in a Hit camera

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #35 on:** March 24, 2015, 01:34:19 PM »

Quote from: Photo_Utopia on March 24, 2015, 01:09:02 PM

Very nice Urban you seem to have a film speed increasing coffee. It should be in a café in every town!

Yes, Caffenol-C-L semi-stand for 70min is a two stop push (around 30min for box speed). Caffenol in general is a speed increasing developer.

Bryan · « **Reply #36 on:** March 24, 2015, 01:54:11 PM »

Quote from: Francois on March 24, 2015, 01:23:32 PM

The only thing I wouldn't do with it is trim it so that it fits in a Hit camera.... Then again, I don't know of anything that would give great results in a Hit camera

I don't know what you're talking about

. Kodachrome in a hit, not Fomapan.

Hit the Bell by bac1967, on Flickr

Fluminian · « **Reply #37 on:** March 24, 2015, 03:38:11 PM »

I've been pretty satisfied with the Fomapan films so far.

Andrej K · « **Reply #38 on:** March 24, 2015, 07:13:13 PM »

Quote from: Photo_Utopia on March 24, 2015, 01:09:02 PM

Keeping grain down and speed up? I think DDX or Microphen would be OK. I wonder though is grain a problem in 8x10? If so I'm looking for a Gandolfi

Of course not, in 8x10 is fine, but with a huge camera on a tripod longer exposures are part of the deal. Mine question was aimed at use of fomapan film in 120 size in my smaller cameras... Especially with the Fuji and it's larges aperture at f5.6 faster films are rather a necessity.

Author Topic: Fomapan films? (Read 16270 times)

Gimenosaiz

Gimenosaiz