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:
It's very present in the market, as I've just purchased many rolls with 2026 and 2027 expiry from a mainstream online seller here in continental Europe.
What's your evidence that it hasn't been manufactured in a decade?
It’s pretty sparse in the US, though Blue Moon Camera as been the best source of it. They currently have 135 and 8x10, but for a while (last year) they had good stock of 120 as well. It was all relatively fresh when I bought it.
@John Wiegerink 'contact printing' - do you mean on regular silver gelatin papers and/or AZO-type DOP papers? Or alt. process UV printing? What kind of situations do you normally photograph in; does e.g. reciprocity behavior play a major role? What particular requirements do you have, image-wise? Do you do portraits/people shots a lot, or none at all?
Personally, I've settled on Fomapan 200 for 8x10"; this is for alt. process contact printing, mostly carbon transfer. Reciprocity behavior is pretty bad, but it doesn't bother me as I never really venture in that territory, exposure-wise. Subject matter is mostly landscape, no people. I find that this film performs excellently under these circumstances. It's also easy to build/add contrast to negatives through post-processing (intensification) which helps in carbon printing. I usually rate the film around EI100. In the end, it's a compromise between cost and quality, although I don't feel I'm sacrificing a lot, quality-wise, with this film. Previously I used Fomapan 100 mostly (and x-ray; which I found absolutely awful and a total waste of time and money for pictorial work for a long litany of reasons), but now prefer the 200 product. Fomapan 400 can be interesting for portraiture due to its emphasis on (caucasian) skin tones.
In 4x5 I've used other films including TMX (which isn't 'somewhat resistant to UV printing' as alleged above, but blocks UV by around 3 stops or so, so it's totally useless for that kind of work!) and HP5+. TMX is nice because of its linearity and the physical robustness that's so typical of Kodak films. It's also incredibly fine-grained, but that's kind of irrelevant for contact printing 8x10 (with a few niche exceptions). HP5+ is a quality product, evidently, and handles high-SBR subject matter very nicely. I can't justify the cost of any of these more 'premium' films in 8x10 compared to the 'budget' option of Fomapan, especially since the latter performs very well.
I've not tried the Bergger film; I can't comment on it.
koraks I plan on using regular silver gelatin papers.
my question is what advantage is there in using any of these 8x10 pan films? I just looked up Foma ASA 100 8x10 for price. $280 for 50 sheets? I guess my question is, what would be my advantage? Thank you.
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.
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.
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.
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 ???
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.
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 ?
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?