Another Foma 200 thread

Tim Stapp said:

John, here is a quote regarding Foma (Arista Edu) 200 in Rodinal. It's copied from a private message that I got from Jiri Vasina on the Large Format site. I really liked the look of his work and asked about his times/agitation using Rodinal. Due to multiple moves in the last two years, cameras and darkroom are still in storage. In the eventual darkroom, but stored nonetheless. BTW, his were 4x5.

"in my case, I shoot Fomapan 200 @ EI 125. My N development with R09 (Rodinal variant) in 1:50 dilution is 18min with continuous agitation on motor base.

If you are going to use Rodinal, do test and adjust your routine. My times might not work perfectly for you..."

Jiri

Click to expand...

Hi Tim,
Looks like you and I have survived this Michigan winter so far. I surely feel your pain on the no darkroom and gear in storage problem. My wife and I are pretty well moved into are cottage in Lake Station and no room for a full wet darkroom yet. I use my wife’s laundry room for developing film, but no room for my Omega D6 or even my little Leica Ic. I’m solving the wet darkroom problem this Spring by building a garage with a loft. My wifey won’t see much of me after that. To add to the problem I still have to sell our house downstate and my recently deceased mothers. The only good thing about that is that the housing market has gone through the roof and it’s a sellers market. Enough of the problems in life and back to Foma 200. Tim, do you use it in sheet film size? I’ve used Foma 100 in 4X5 and 9X12cm and it is a very nice film in sheet film sizes. Are those Jiri’s times and EI above (EI 125, Rodinal 1+50, 18min.) or yours? JohnW

albireo said:

That goes to show how operator- and setup- dependent exposure and development really are, I guess.

I routinely develop Foma 200 in Adox Rodinal 1+50 and if I did 18min I'd have negatives good enough to comfortably observe a solar eclipse through.

Click to expand...

Yes, everyone has a different meter and metering technique. It sure causes a big stir here when our personal metering results don’t match someone else’s. It would make life easier here if everyone would use incident metering only and with a calibrated light meter or at least just use incident metering. My interpretation of detailed shadows with a reflective light meter is more than likely NOT the same as yours. I think that’s where the big differences come from in determined EI’s / developing times. I use both reflective and incident metering, but life sure is a lot easier using incident metering and that’s a pure proven fact. Each to his own as long as you get to where you want to go. JohnW

John Wiegerink said:

Yes, everyone has a different meter and metering technique. It sure causes a big stir here when our personal metering results don’t match someone else’s. It would make life easier here if everyone would use incident metering only and with a calibrated light meter or at least just use incident metering.

Click to expand...

Apologies - my comment was mainly about development and processing times. In my own pipeline 18 minutes in Rodinal is far too much.

Though, I agree with your general sentiment and will only replace the incident meter I use and trust (a Sekonic L-398A Deluxe III) when I find a decently priced Minolta Spotmeter that works according to specs (haven't had much luck with the units I've tried). But then my style of photography lends itself well to incident metering (nothing moves, everything is closeby and can be approached with the meter) so perhaps a spot meter is overkill.

Albireo,
No apology needed. I think the problem started with AA and his Zone System style of metering. Everyone wants to be an AA, but many don’t have a clue as to what he was trying to convey. Reflective light metering cannot be done sloppy and you had better know where you are placing your zone values. Many folks would be better off using there reflective light meter with a Kodak grey card. If you take a reflective reading off the grey card it will give your pretty much the same reading as using an incident meter. It keeps it simple for some folks that always seem to make things harder than they really are. Some benefits to incident metering are that one doesn’t have to get close to the subject he only needs to be in the same light that’s falling on the subject. If my subject is a mean bull standing under a shade tree I surely don’t want to walk up to him and take a reflective meter reading (not everyone has a spot meter). Instead, I will use my incident meter from a safe distance, aim it toward my camera and shade it with my hand to simulate the shade the mean bull is standing in. I’ll then take the reading and probably open up a have stop to make sure my mean bull has had enough exposure. It’s just that simple and the older I get the simpler I like it. Now, before I have folks jumping down my throat saying I don’t know what I’m talking about or I don’t have a clue, here’s the deal. Back in the 80’s I took a full fledged Zone Systems course at a local university in large format 4X5. Everything in that class was Ansel Adams related and everything was “by the book” so to speak. We have to remember that some of our greatest photographers ever had no spot meter and some had no meter at all. Metering is nothing more than a reference point. It’s exposing film over and over again that finally makes that reference point mean something. And it’s what your eye likes in print that means something. Might not mean it to someone else, but that’s their problem, not yours. Sorry for the slight rant, but it’s due to my fourth cup of Java. JohnW

I totally Love Foma 100; which is the closest thing you will find to old Tri-x.

I don’t really like Fomapan 200’s spectral sensitivity. This was totally obvious during a printing session where I jumped from foma200 to HP5. The foma200 just didn’t look right.

But there is also the fact that I’m used to hp5, just like an old pair of Jeans.

NB23 said:

I totally Love Foma 100; which is the closest thing you will find to old Tri-x.

I don’t really like Fomapan 200’s spectral sensitivity. This was totally obvious during a printing session where I jumped from foma200 to HP5. The foma200 just didn’t look right.

Click to expand...

I wonder then if there have been several revisions of Foma 200 over the years because I find current Foma 200's spectral sensitivity extremely similar to TriX, much more so than Foma 100. The Naked photographer (link to youtube video in other Foma 200 thread) has reached similar conclusions.

To be honest, in spite of enjoying Foma film a lot, I wouldn't say consistency is their forte. I have found large swings in perceived sensitivity and grain rendition (all other variables being equal in my workflow) across Foma batches.

I think anyone engaging in densitometric tests of Foma film should account for likely large sample variability and produce averaged results in (at least) 3-4 technical replicates across production batches, else the resulting variance might mask any useful conclusions.

one thing I have wondered about foma 200. I have read many times on many sites thats its a hybrid emulsion, part classic and part modern( like tmax and delta) grain. I also know that I fix tri-x for 3 min and tmax for 5 min. so how long do you guys fix foma 200 for?

john

albireo said:

I wonder then if there have been several revisions of Foma 200 over the years because I find current Foma 200's spectral sensitivity extremely similar to TriX, much more so than Foma 100. The Naked photographer (link to youtube video in other Foma 200 thread) has reached similar conclusions.

To be honest, in spite of enjoying Foma film a lot, I wouldn't say consistency is their forte. I have found large swings in perceived sensitivity and grain rendition (all other variables being equal in my workflow) across Foma batches.

I think anyone engaging in densitometric tests of Foma film should account for likely large sample variability and produce averaged results in (at least) 3-4 technical replicates across production batches, else the resulting variance might mask any useful conclusions.

Click to expand...

I'm sure there was at least one revision of Foma 200, but not sure if there were any after that. I tried the early version in 120 and had emulsion defects so I never bought it again. Is anyone here using 120 and not having any problems with it? The 35mm Foma 200 seems just fine as far as any defects for me. JohnW

John Wiegerink said:

I'm sure there was at least one revision of Foma 200, but not sure if there were any after that. I tried the early version in 120 and had emulsion defects so I never bought it again. Is anyone here using 120 and not having any problems with it? The 35mm Foma 200 seems just fine as far as any defects for me. JohnW

Click to expand...

John, as stated in the other thread, I'm using a recent batch (013456-2) of Foma 200 in 120 and I find it very usable, and much improved wrt older (2019/2020/2021) batches. However - it is still not perfect. I still see some of those parallel hairline scratches in areas of uniform intensity (eg sky). Importantly, the extent of the defect seems to vary depending on the cameras I use. On one camera (a TLR) the film comes out spotless. Using another camera (a 6x9 folder) the film has some marks, though not as many as I had with previous (2019-20 period) batches.

Taking a wild guess: the above, to me, suggests the problem is acknowledged, attempts have been made to ameliorate the situation, but there's still an issue with soft emulsion getting scratched on the rollers of some, but not all, cameras I own.

albireo said:

John, as stated in the other thread, I'm using a recent batch (013456-2) of Foma 200 in 120 and I find it very usable, and much improved wrt older (2019/2020/2021) batches. However - it is still not perfect. I still see some of those parallel hairline scratches in areas of uniform intensity (eg sky). Importantly, the extent of the defect seems to vary depending on the cameras I use. On one camera (a TLR) the film comes out spotless. Using another camera (a 6x9 folder) the film has some marks, though not as many as I had with previous (2019-20 period) batches.

Taking a wild guess: the above, to me, suggests the problem is acknowledged, attempts have been made to ameliorate the situation, but there's still an issue with soft emulsion getting scratched on the rollers of some, but not all, cameras I own.

Click to expand...

That’s good to know. When I tried it a few years back it didn’t seem camera dependent since I had problems in the several cameras I tried it in. It sounds like this would be a good film for my old Rolleiflex then. I might just order a couple of rolls tonight and give it a try. JohnW

John Wiegerink said:

Hi Tim,
Looks like you and I have survived this Michigan winter so far. I surely feel your pain on the no darkroom and gear in storage problem. My wife and I are pretty well moved into are cottage in Lake Station and no room for a full wet darkroom yet. I use my wife’s laundry room for developing film, but no room for my Omega D6 or even my little Leica Ic. I’m solving the wet darkroom problem this Spring by building a garage with a loft. My wifey won’t see much of me after that. To add to the problem I still have to sell our house downstate and my recently deceased mothers. The only good thing about that is that the housing market has gone through the roof and it’s a sellers market. Enough of the problems in life and back to Foma 200. Tim, do you use it in sheet film size? I’ve used Foma 100 in 4X5 and 9X12cm and it is a very nice film in sheet film sizes. Are those Jiri’s times and EI above (EI 125, Rodinal 1+50, 18min.) or yours? JohnW

Click to expand...

Hey John,

I'm not too far away, living on the north end of Big Rapids. Good luck on the sale of both homes. The home that we bought last summer, when things were really hot was on the market for 55 days. My wife said that it's got to have major issues. I responded with "or it's drastically over priced." Seller came down $47k.

Now, on to Jiri's info: I am shooting FOMA 200 in 4x5, as is he. I've used XTOL stock in the past with a 5 minute presoak and 6 minutes development in JOBO, shot at box speed.

I asked Jiri about his development, because I really liked the look of his shots using FOMA 200 as seen on the Large Format Photography forunm

Sorry OP for hogging your thread but i wanted to ask if anyone knows where to get 4x5 Fomapan in London?
Thanks. It's a photographic emergency.

Algo después said:

Sorry OP for hogging your thread but i wanted to ask if anyone knows where to get 4x5 Fomapan in London?
Thanks. It's a photographic emergency.

Click to expand...

Hey, no problem hogging since the thread was pretty well dead anyway. I have some Foma 200 loaded it my Contax G1 ready to go. JohnW

Algo después said:

Sorry OP for hogging your thread but i wanted to ask if anyone knows where to get 4x5 Fomapan in London?
Thanks. It's a photographic emergency.

Click to expand...

Although not in London, but how about this: Ag Photographic (https://ag-photographic.co.uk/fomapan-200-5x4-50-sheets-3666-p.asp) + DPD guaranteed next day service (https://ag-photographic.co.uk/delivery-4-w.asp)

MrclSchprs said:

Although not in London, but how about this: Ag Photographic (https://ag-photographic.co.uk/fomapan-200-5x4-50-sheets-3666-p.asp) + DPD guaranteed next day service (https://ag-photographic.co.uk/delivery-4-w.asp)

Click to expand...

Thank you MrclSchprs !