I am specifically talking about 8x10 format, which is what the OP is inquiring about. Perhaps you missed that detail.
I said “half a decade”, fwiw.
Last edited:
8X10 film question?
-
A
- Thread starter John Wiegerink
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Nikon - Nikkor 90 f 8 lens with Rodenstock center filter
- Started by Mario Belic
-
For Sale Kern Aarau Macro Yvar 150mm f/3.3 with M42 mount
- Started by varg
Forum statistics
I am specifically talking about 8x10 format, which is what the OP is inquiring about. Perhaps you missed that detail.
I said “half a decade”, fwiw.
Yes, Blue Moon has done an excellent job of keeping Pancro 400 in 35mm and 120 formats available as best they can. But I know for a fact that the 8x10 boxes of it they’ve been selling have an expiration date of June 2025 (you can see the date in the photo of the back of the box. Besides, I asked for this information several months ago).
The same batch is what Freestyle had in stock for a while.
So, if you find inventory of Pancro 400 in 8x10 here in the US, it will inevitably be this now-expired batch. Just saying, so you know what you’re getting if you buy.
koraks I plan on using regular silver gelatin papers.
You could choose almost anything you like, in that case. If you want to feel a bit more free to learn and experiment, Fomapan is a perfectly good option at a far more reasonable price. I've used both the 100 and 400 version and like what they have to offer. The real downside is the abysmal reciprocity, but if that's something you can live with, Fomapan is a fine choice. I've made some of my favorite photographs on Fomapan.
Last edited:
I'm with @koraks regarding xray film; tried it...don't like it. The cost of film has certainly gone up quite a bit over the last few years, but what advantage, if any, a panchromatic film does for you is for you to answer for yourself. The primary advantage to these films vs xray (for me) is tonal quality. With a good "regular" film, careful development, and a sensitive worker the results from these films just glisten to my eye. Beautiful silvery transitions from deep blacks to sparkling whites!
FWIW, if it wasn't for the crazy tariff situation we currently have going on, a 50 sheet box of 8x10 Foma 100 can be bought from fotoimpex for about $160. Yes, there will be a somewhat steep shipping charge (DHL Express, for example), but buy a few boxes and reap the huge savings.
Freestyle and B&H sometimes have short-dated 8x10 film for sale, and I often stock up. Since I can only process 1 sheet of 8x10 at a time (Stearman SP810), my stash can last a very very long time. 
I'm still a beginner in 8x10, so Fomapan 100 is more than good enough for me. So far I have not experienced QC issues yet.
I'm still a beginner in 8x10, so Fomapan 100 is more than good enough for me. So far I have not experienced QC issues yet.
I shoot Foma 100 in my 4x5 pinhole...talk about reciprocity!!
It's not that bad. Just triple time for each stop above 1 second, instead of doubling. Yep, turns into multi-minute exposures if you're not in direct sun, but pinhole isn't a hurried method anyway.
I use FP4+ the most, but I'll use any of the big names (generally Ilford and Kodak.)
Unlike Maris, I print on material that usually has a built-in contrast (vs variable contrast)...no silver gelatin...usually platinum/palladium (with no contrast agents added) or carbon printing (low pigment levels which tend to have low native contrast). I am looking for negatives developed to around 2.5 DR, depending on the printing process.
Unlike Maris, I print on material that usually has a built-in contrast (vs variable contrast)...no silver gelatin...usually platinum/palladium (with no contrast agents added) or carbon printing (low pigment levels which tend to have low native contrast). I am looking for negatives developed to around 2.5 DR, depending on the printing process.
JW. I'd begin by using what you have on hand. BTW I'm a huge fan of FP4+ in every size i've used from 35mm to 8x10.
With 8x10" it's not like you're machine-gunning images. Personally if I'm shooting 8x10, I'm not going to cheap out by using X-ray film.
*I'd also buy a small bar fridge, (if you don't already have one)....& buy your favourite film & paper whenever you stumble on a deal.
With 8x10" it's not like you're machine-gunning images. Personally if I'm shooting 8x10, I'm not going to cheap out by using X-ray film.
*I'd also buy a small bar fridge, (if you don't already have one)....& buy your favourite film & paper whenever you stumble on a deal.
Last edited:
Yeah, it doesn't bother me. I actually like it with my pinhole photography because the long exposures produce unexpected, fun things with vegetation and tree limbs in windy conditions.
you may be right, but I thought I remembered my boxes having a 2026 expiration. Unfortunately, I'm 6000 miles away from them to check. I do hope they start manufacturing it again, but I believe its coated by Inviocoat which is ???
@John Wiegerink a wildcard option for you - seems like Foma is now offering its Ortho 400 in sheet format - e.g. 8x10
Could be a good option for those who want to approximate the spectral response properties of X-ray film in a conventionally packaged photographic film product.
I use this film quite a bit in 120 and it's very interesting. Sadly, the incredibly strong highlight halation means I never use it when it's sunny. For overcast days, I find it a great portrait film.
FOMA ORTHO 400 8x10 INCH(20,3x25,4)/25 KS | FOMA ORTHO 400 /listový/ |FOMA BOHEMIA e-shop
black and white negative orthochromatic flat (sheet) film sensitivity ISO 400/27°
fomaobchod.cz
Could be a good option for those who want to approximate the spectral response properties of X-ray film in a conventionally packaged photographic film product.
I use this film quite a bit in 120 and it's very interesting. Sadly, the incredibly strong highlight halation means I never use it when it's sunny. For overcast days, I find it a great portrait film.
All I can say is that all of the 8x10 boxes of Pancro 400 I have encountered in the past 2 years have been dated June 2025.
And yes - to the best of my knowledge, InovisCoat is the one manufacturing the sheet film sizes, which is why I am assuming we may never see it again.
Paul, I got the full-size fridge in my garage already stuff with film. I think I'll start out with trying T-Rex and TMX 100 since I have those in stock. I'll be trying to print on Foma Variant III paper. Since HP5+ is my go-to film in 4X5 I'll probably just get that when and if I run out of my present stock. I really like Foma 200 in 35, but the bad QC of 120 scares me to not shell out big bucks for 8X10 Foma 200 even if just a few sheets are flawed in a box. I have honestly never had a flaw with Ilford HP5+ 4X5, and it's a very versatile film to work with. Kodak TMY2 is the best in my opinion, but the price is a little, actually a lot, stiff for my pocketbook. I'll use the TMY2 I have on hand only for very special subjects. I'll be testing the camera and contact printing Monday when I get back north to my cottage. Should be a fun experience, I hope.
Yup, that's why I keep him in the garage freezer. I don't want him stinking up the place."I think I'll start out with trying T-Rex and TMX 100 since I have those in stock. I'll be trying to print on Foma Variant III paper."
Good plan JW, but isn't "T-Rex" extinct ?
There's no relation between the 120-format defects and the sheet film. I've shot hundreds upon hundreds of sheets of Foma 200 in 4x5 and 8x10. It's perfectly fine.
That's not what DREW said. Just doing a little baiting here.
I figured the Foma 200 was safe in sheet film since I've heard of no complaints other than one person here, and I have no idea how long ago he used it. I've used two boxes of 9cm X 12cm of Foma 100, and it is a very fine product. I did have some problems with the Foma 200 in 120 years back and just last week tried a new roll again. Well, I'd like to report the issues were resolved, but that's not the case with 120. It still has the same defects I noticed the first time I used it. I still can't understand some folks using the 120 Foma 200 and saying they have no defects or issues with it. All I know is after this last try, I'm done. It's a real shame since I really like it.Yeah, I'm aware of Drew's position on this. IDK; I just stick to my own experience here, which so far is that the sheet film version works brilliantly. I've never had a problem with it. As far as I can tell, Drew's qualms are/were with pinhole defects; insofar as these occur (I've not seen them on the sheet film 200), they're much less relevant if you're only contact printing to begin with. In the end, the only thing that matters of course is your own experience and confidence in the product. I can only recommend trying it; I'd suggest getting one or two boxes of the 4x5" product so you can see how you like it, before committing to 8x10.
That's not what DREW said. Just doing a little baiting here.
I only use Fomapan in sheet film sizes, and I have yet to explore Fomapan 200, finding the 100 and 400 speeds satisfactory for my needs.
Yes, I have found manufacturing defects on a few sheets of Fomapan here and there, but they’ve been rare and minor - nothing that would deter me from using it. I think it’s an excellent product and recommend it without hesitation. Just be aware that it does have extreme reciprocity characteristics, and its shadow/highlight traits are different from what Kodak or Ilford produces, but if you take the time to learn how to use it, you can make excellent photographs with it.
Hopefully not sounding too curmudgeonly…
…Just pick something mainstream and stick with it for a while. Avoid “cheap alternatives” like xray and lith film because the tradeoff is about $100-200 vs. many hours of your own frustration.
Starting to sound curmudgeonly…
…Think about how much you earn per hour, or whatever the situation is. How many extra hours would you have to work (or whatever) to afford a box of good film?
Now how many hours are you willing to fight with difficult workarounds and potentially (probably...) disappointing results? And at what point will you consider yourself sufficiently educated and ready to graduate to better film, which will still require more learning?
My opinion is that you’re better off making the sacrifice up front with the purchase of something from Foma, Ilford or Kodak.
Not sure how it is for others, but for me 8x10 takes a lot of extra time per shot vs smaller formats. That time investment is significant, therefore I am unwilling to pursue gimmicks. One of the most unfortunate of all photographic failures is absolutely nailing the shot, really capturing a fleeting moment, but on crapy/gimmicky film with some undesirable characteristic or another. How many dollars do you save in this scenario?
BTW, I have been using Foma 400 with success. Nearly every negative gets a “Holy s*** that’s awesome!” when the lights come on. I can live with that.
…Just pick something mainstream and stick with it for a while. Avoid “cheap alternatives” like xray and lith film because the tradeoff is about $100-200 vs. many hours of your own frustration.
Starting to sound curmudgeonly…
…Think about how much you earn per hour, or whatever the situation is. How many extra hours would you have to work (or whatever) to afford a box of good film?
Now how many hours are you willing to fight with difficult workarounds and potentially (probably...) disappointing results? And at what point will you consider yourself sufficiently educated and ready to graduate to better film, which will still require more learning?
My opinion is that you’re better off making the sacrifice up front with the purchase of something from Foma, Ilford or Kodak.
Not sure how it is for others, but for me 8x10 takes a lot of extra time per shot vs smaller formats. That time investment is significant, therefore I am unwilling to pursue gimmicks. One of the most unfortunate of all photographic failures is absolutely nailing the shot, really capturing a fleeting moment, but on crapy/gimmicky film with some undesirable characteristic or another. How many dollars do you save in this scenario?
BTW, I have been using Foma 400 with success. Nearly every negative gets a “Holy s*** that’s awesome!” when the lights come on. I can live with that.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 14,157
- Format
- 8x10 Format
That was about 20 yrs ago. I had about a 40% flaw rate in two different batches of 8X10 Foma 200 - 40% !!! And when you're hauling an 85 lb pack up some mountain with a minimum of holders in it, you can't afford to waste extra sheets, as if the light itself even held steady. But I still got some nice negatives with the remainder, which I shot locally (no longer gambling with it on arduous trips). And I did stipulate that the nature of the flaws might not even be evident in a contact print. But those same fine lines and zits in the emulsion were the worst sort for trying to retouch in enlargements, potentially requiring etching. There have been enough analogous complaints on a different forum than this one, including in recent years, to keep me wary.
And note that these problems were characteristic of just the "200" product. I never had problems with "400" Foma, although it never particularly appealed to me in general compared to what Ilford and Kodak had to offer instead. But that's why I have a big freezer (which cost me less than some boxes of 8x10 film cost now).
And note that these problems were characteristic of just the "200" product. I never had problems with "400" Foma, although it never particularly appealed to me in general compared to what Ilford and Kodak had to offer instead. But that's why I have a big freezer (which cost me less than some boxes of 8x10 film cost now).
I think a lot of complaints about photo products such as film, developers, paper, and the likes, could be eliminated by following what you say Paul, "but if you take the time to learn how to use it". Not all complaints, but certainly many of them anyway.
I think so, yes.
Consider all of the 120 format "wrapper offset" complaints there are every year with a wide variety of films. If you eliminate all of the reports in which the user states the film was either seriously expired or in some way mishandled (left in a hot location, for example), then the number of incidents goes way down. The majority of these reports of backing paper contamination fall into the category of "self-inflicted injury": if you use film that's 3-5 years past its expiration date and kept at room temperature the whole time, then you can't be too surprised if the dreaded wrapper offset demon makes itself known.
Manufacturing techniques and materials have been changed to limit this issue (mainly by Ilford and Kodak), but if you aren't going to store your 120 film properly and use it before that expiration date, if you get a bad result, that's not on the manufacturer, that's on you. It's an avoidable problem.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |