I've seen claims that Fomapan 100 is pretty close to APX 100 in its results, but I've never done a side-by-side comparison myself, and I'm not familiar enough with either film to "just know" that it's true. If nothing else, it's worth shooting a couple of test rolls to assess the emulsion.
The thing that distinguishes APX 100, for me, is the color rendition. Very different from any other medium speed film. This winter, I'll play with some filters.
Here's a reasonable suggestive composite of films' response, quickly aligned over one another.
So FP4+ has reduced blue sensitivity (compared to the others)? That explains why it's so great for landscapes - for someone who doesn't bother with yellow filters
I don;t think there is/will be asubsittute
We'll have to shoot whatever is available at the time.
I've moved to EFKE 100 and fuji Acros in that speed range
df cardwell said:
Could be... isn't that cool ?
Like APX seems to be a baby step toward Ortho rendition for faces...
All the obsession over grain and sharpness miss the vital thing that films do: they see !
Like you APX100 used to be my standard. I now use FP-4 for 8x10. Fp-4 and Acros for 4x5. I semi-stand develop with night vision goggles. With fp-4 I can watch emulsion side, with acros I have to watch base side.
The thing that distinguishes APX 100, for me, is the color rendition. Very different from any other medium speed film. This winter, I'll play with some filters.
Here's a reasonable suggestive composite of films' response, quickly aligned over one another.