Any thoughts on Foma/Arista.edu 200 35mm film?
-
A
- Thread starter chip j
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale NIKON 50mm f/1.2 Ai
- Started by Acere
-
For Sale Nikkormat FT2 body with or without lens.
- Started by waynecrider
-
For Sale Zeiss Linhof 135/3.5 Planar with Linhof Hood and Filter Slot - $1450
- Started by NortheastPhotographic
-
For Sale 5x7 and 13x18 Film holders
- Started by Rick A
-
For Sale 3 Wooden 8x10 Film Holders
- Started by Rick A
Forum statistics
Gerry hasn't done bad with it in his shot of a 1938 car. Other than the statement that Foma 200 is no faster than Foma 100 what specifically does the latter have that Foma 200 lacks?
Thanks
pentaxuser
According to the manufacturer’s own data, Fomapan 200 is best rated at EI 80-100 in most developers. I personally find fomapan 200 builds contrast very quickly and for this reason, I dislike it. Caveat, I’ve not tried it since it was discontinued , reformulated and re-released.
I much prefer fomapan 100 or even 400.
I much prefer fomapan 100 or even 400.
Just out of curiosity then, if Foma 200 is best at 100 and builds contrast very quickly and I infer from what has bee said that Foma 100 is a genuine 100 what might be the reasons for continuing to make Foma 200? Does it have any redeeming unique features?
Thanks
pentaxuser
Thanks
pentaxuser
Actually, if you look at the datasheet for Fomapan 100 you will see that it really only achieves box speed in "speed enhancing" developers. In the usual and customary, commonly used developers (like D76) , it too is best rated at half box speed,...or, EI 50. This is just objective facts based upon the manufacturer's published datasheet.
There is more to a film than the speed rating. These characteristics of two films'are quite different. Which is probably why there is enough demand to justify continued production of both of them.
+1
Thanks so it might be that 200 has a very slight speed edge on 100 so that's a marginal improvement. In terms of characteristics can you say what the different characteristics are in the case of the 200 that are likely to justify continued production i.e. why might it be that some people would prefer 200 to 100?
pentaxuser
Well, they are different....to my eye and in my hands, very different. Again, there is much more to a film than film speed.
For example, Kodak Tmax 100 and Fomapan 100 and Kentmere 100 ---- although these three films have the same box speed they have totally different character.
Why somebody might prefer one over another...is like asking why somebody might prefer black cherry ice cream over butter pecan.
Last edited:
I like Fomapan 200 over Fomapan 100. In my experience I find it much less contrasty and I love its midtones. The two emulsions are very different with a different look, so I guess at the end is up to the individual's taste.
I shoot Foma 200 in 4X5 and 6X9, rebranded by Freestyle, in 4X5 I expose at box speed and develop in Acufine or MCM 100. When I shoot Foma 100 I shoot at 50, develop in MCM 100 or D 76 1:1. For 35mm I have switched to Ultrafine 100 and 400, not sure who makes it, might be Harmont (sp?) as the developer times match Harmont 100 and 400, but other have pointed out that in the past Harmont has stated they never rebrand their films. I recommend buying Foma and Ultrfine in 12 exposure rolls and experimenting to see what you like best.
What Developer/Time are you using for the 200.?
Thank You
I've shot all three Fonapan films in 135/35mm. 200 and 400 can be developed in XTOL - which is attractive to me (non-polluting). The 400 @ 200 is a better film for a classic look. I like it better in XTOL than D-76. Foma 200 @160 was recommended developed in XTOL. It scans well and stands up to shooting on withering bright sunny days- high contrast yes. Fomapan 100 developed in Rodinal - wow, sharp and crystal clear under the right shooting conditions.
Great info. Thanks.
I think you mean Hartman/Ilford?
...and where do you get 12 exposure rolls of 35mm film anymore? I’ve not seen any 12exp rolls of 35mm film of any kind for...15 years?
D76 1+1 for 9 minutes, shoot @200.
Great...Thank You
I used ID-11 about a year ago for 7.5 or 8 minutes and the negatives looked great.
This time i used Ilfotec at 1:50 for 10 minutes and the Negatives look (i think) kind of thin.
I have a few rolls left, but not sure if i am going to pursue it any further. I get consistent results with HP5 and i think i will just stick with that.
Thanks Again
Fomapan is my go to film in all formats. I usually expose it at ISO 160 and develop it for 8 min in replenished XTOL.
I like the tonality of this combination. You get some nice contrast without sacrificing the mid tones.
I like the tonality of this combination. You get some nice contrast without sacrificing the mid tones.
I also used Rodinal 1+50 (I think 11 min? I need to look up my notes), and I loved the tonality too, grain was a tad big but not too much.
Yes it is Harmon. Harmont and Hartman were the kind of names given to the crooked lawyers and saloon owners in the old Randolph Scott Westerns - see my post on Flashbulbs
Glad to see that all three Foma films have their admirers.
pentaxuser,
I think it is HarmAn Technology 
Photowarehouse or Ultrfine still sells 35mm 100 and 400 in 12 exposure rolls, I just bought 4 rolls of each for a ring around test in MCM 100. At onetime Freestyle sold rebranded Foma in 12ex rolls, just check, now only 24 and 36. If you roll your own Ultrafine 100 foot rolls can be had at a very attractive price. I still have some Foma 400 bulk once it's gone will replace with a roll of Ultrafine 400.
The dumb spell checker / auto correct thingy bit me again!
Quite right it is Harman. I apologise. Maybe Harmont, Hartman and Harmon were members of the Clanton gang at OK Corral
pentaxuser
pentaxuser
| 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:  |