Topic: 8x10 (4x5) Fomapan 100

[Aksel]

Filmwasters » Search » Search Results, no luck.


Anyone with experience with the Fomapan 100?
I'm tempted to buy an old Gundlach Wizard 8x10 locally to do some “urban landscapes” and the Fomapan 100 looks temping in regards to price. Have any of you tried to push it? 400 - 1600 - 12800? Does it work symmetrically? eg. can I push 8x10 relative to the film area and get similar grain as I do with 120? thank you!

[Francois]

I never tried Foma 100 but I know they make great film. I find them to be quite different depending on the developer used.
As for grain, you'll be in for a surprise. Since the negatives are so much bigger, grain becomes completely invisible. But in exchange you get a level of detail you can't even imagine. The smoothness of the tones is unequalled, even when compared to 4x5.

[Aksel]

I ended up ordering a pack of 4x5 to test it in R09 / stand. and intend to expose it at 12800 and work my way down, to se how it works.
As 8x10 is 4x the size of 4x5 that means I will get approximately 4x less grain when exposed at the same values, if I`m not missing something here?
I tend to expose more than I think about technicalities 

[Francois]

You're right about the grain size calculation. Grain will be four times smaller for a similar sized print.
As for exposing for tests, I wouldn't start this high. You're bound to get only very little detail if any at all and extreme contrast.
If you check the contrast curve for the film you'll get a good idea of the limit.

[Aksel]

Thanks for the tip Francoise! Contrast curve. New word for me 

[Francois]

If you need help reading them, just let me know.
They're also known as Hurter & Driffield, or H&D curves, named after the two guys who invented them.

[KevinAllan]

I have shot some Foma 100 in 4x5 and had no complaints about the image quality. The only problems I had with Foma 100 were the reciprocity characteristics and the tendency of the film to get scratched.

I have a Flickr album of Foma 100 images here  - https://www.flickr.com/photos/landscapepics/albums/72157662561038115 - although not all are large format.

Many people have suggested that Foma films need to be rated at below their box speed - which suggests that pushing them too far may lead to difficulties.

[Francois]

I did encounter that unpushable film problem with the ISO 400 version. But what I found is that the film is really picky when it comes which developer to use.
I used the 400 version with HC-110 Dil.B and found it way too contrasty when exposed at 400. I had a really short tonal range and blown highlights. But when developed in Caffenol, I could get a full tonal range at 400.

[Blaxton]

I have shot some Foma 100 in 4x5 and had no complaints about the image quality. The only problems I had with Foma 100 were the reciprocity characteristics and the tendency of the film to get scratched.

I have a Flickr album of Foma 100 images here  - https://www.flickr.com/photos/landscapepics/albums/72157662561038115 - although not all are large format.

Many people have suggested that Foma films need to be rated at below their box speed - which suggests that pushing them too far may lead to difficulties.

Your Fomapan Flickr album is very impressive.  My own experience with Fomapan 100 is mostly with either Rodinol or Caffenol C-L—always semi-stand development—in 135 or 120.  Except in very contrasty light when I expose at box speed, I usually expose at asa 200.  I prefer the Caffenol results but either developer seems to work fine; (Xtol did not).  Here are two Flickr albums:  one developed in Caffenol C-L and the other in Rodinol.

Caffenol:  https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHRQmkY
Rodinol:  https://flic.kr/s/aHsmF4abdj 

[Indofunk]

I have shot some Foma 100 in 4x5 and had no complaints about the image quality. The only problems I had with Foma 100 were the reciprocity characteristics and the tendency of the film to get scratched.

I have a Flickr album of Foma 100 images here  - https://www.flickr.com/photos/landscapepics/albums/72157662561038115 - although not all are large format.

Many people have suggested that Foma films need to be rated at below their box speed - which suggests that pushing them too far may lead to difficulties.

That' some very impressive stuff, Kevin. The "Lilly" now ranks among my favorite photos of all time.

By "below" box speed I'm assuming you mean slower than box speed? In which case that's my experience as well. I could not get decent results from Foma 400 until I shot it at 200, and even then I wasn't super impressed by it. I think shooting in large format would eliminate a lot of the issues I had with it, most notably grain structure.