Any thoughts on Foma/Arista.edu 200 35mm film?

[btaylor]

A thought on film speed and Foma 200. I like the film and it's price. I was getting very thin negatives though, with either Kodak Tmax RS developer or HC110 when rated at 200 and developed for Massive Dev Chart recommended times. I found I was getting good density (.85) with 18% gray card exposure when I rated it at 40 and extended development time by 20%. Your mileage will vary, but that's what I got. Test.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

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.

Same here. I very much prefer 200 over 100. I develop it in replenished XTOL at 24C with constant rotary agitation for 4:30. This gives a contrast of about 0.62. At that development, it’s about ISO160. Lots of action in the mid tones.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It is the only "straight line" film left on the market. It has an extremely long range of sensitivity between shadows and highlights without resorting to compressing the intermediate values. Sounds great, but... Nowhere near 200 speed, horrible long-exp characteristics, and dubious quality control. If I gave up on shooting it in 8X10 sheets due to visible zits and scratches or cracks, what do you think those kinds of flaws will look like blown up from 35mm?

 

[chip j]

I can't tolerate flaws--that's what I wanted to find out. At least the 100 is free from that, in my limited experience and from what I've read.

 

[CMoore]

I bought some rolls form...The Film Photography Project.
They market it as Bulk Loaded (by them) "Surveillance Film"...with an ASA of 200...and no nomenclature of any type on the film edges...no name and no frame numbers. Nothing at all.
It has a much different Color/Cast than most other Ilford or Kodak films i have used. Kind of a light Blue/Green look to it, and it curls a lot more than Ilford HP5 or FP4.
Does this sound like Foma 200 to you guys.?
The people at The FPP say it is Foma 200.......

 

[removedacct3]

Unable to give you a definite answer, but I once bought a batch of Foma 200 film in 120 format directly from the Foma factory. The box it was in said Foma 200, the backing paper said Foma 200 but the film markings showed ULTRA 100. To complicate matters I screwed up the development of the first roll. So there I was ... overdeveloped, barely usable roll film identifying itself as ULTRA 100. I contacted Foma about it. They were very helpful. Turned out to be mislabelled 200. Foma 200 roll film gives the developer a very specific green blueish color, the 35mm does not change the color of the developer.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Interesting comments on first page about Foma films real ISO speed. And one above.
I prefer Kentmere over Foma. Good, not expensive and "honest" films.

 

[mnemosyne]

QC problems like mentioned by Drew have definitely been there, at least in the past, but have been restricted to 120 in my case. I have had almost zero trouble with Fomapan 100 and 400 in 35mm (the only exception being the slide filme Fomapan 100R). So I would say, if you intend to shoot 35mm, give it at least a try.

@CMoore
"Surveillance film" sounds more like Agfa Traffic Surveillance stuff than Foma to me

@Ko.Fe.
I agree the Kentmere films are very good value for their money and are much more forgiving in practical use. I still shoot a lot of Foma recently, as I simply like the tonality I get from the Foma stuff very much.

 

[R.Gould]

Having used Fomapan 400 in both 120 and 135 for over 15 years I have yet to have any QC problems with either format, I also use the 200 version, and I had some QC issues with the fim when they first bought out the new version, I think they rushed it to the market, but these days it is a nice film with no QC issues, I prefer the 400 simply because of the low light photographs I often take, hand held sometimes down to 1/2 second, so pwrsonally I would reccomend the film, it has a personality and look of it's own, I develop it in R09/one shot (Rodinal) and love it,

 

[Lachlan Young]

Interesting comments on first page about Foma films real ISO speed. And one above.
I prefer Kentmere over Foma. Good, not expensive and "honest" films.

Foma are the only manufacturer to actually provide an EI plot for different development gammas in their data sheets - so much for dishonesty...

The two differences (that probably have to do with cultural histories of gamma preferences & popular developer choices) are that their box speeds are determined by development in PQ developers (up to 2/3 stop shadow speed boost over MQ in general) & a higher design gamma than Kodak might choose.

 

[Trask]

I recall using Foma 200 in 120 around 10 years ago; the acetate base was blue, which may have contributed to this film doing a great job on capturing clouds. I’d be interested to know if the re-worked version of the film has the same characteristics.

 

[aleckurgan]

Interesting comments on first page about Foma films real ISO speed. And one above.
I prefer Kentmere over Foma. Good, not expensive and "honest" films.

Gamma (contrast), G-bar (average gradient) and CI (conrast index) are not the same thing and are measured differently. According to "Photography with a Microscope" by Fred Rost, Ron Oldfield "for a pictorial film gamma usually has a value somewhat less than 1, typically about 0,8", later in the text they define CI for a pictorial daylight scene to be at 0,6. Foma uses gamma as a measure of contrast, so for the "real (honest, true, etc.) ISO speed" we should be looking at gamma 0,8.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Providing gamma plot doesn't make Foma films better. Most of good films I know of have speed box working in common developers. Foma is not one of them.

 

[aleckurgan]

Providing gamma plot doesn't make Foma films better. Most of good films I know of have speed box working in common developers. Foma is not one of them.

You're right it doesn't, but that's not what my post was about. The film in question does provide box speed in Microphen, which is a common developer.

 

[traveler_101]

Having used Fomapan 400 in both 120 and 135 for over 15 years I have yet to have any QC problems with either format, I also use the 200 version, and I had some QC issues with the fim when they first bought out the new version, I think they rushed it to the market, but these days it is a nice film with no QC issues, I prefer the 400 simply because of the low light photographs I often take, hand held sometimes down to 1/2 second, so pwrsonally I would reccomend the film, it has a personality and look of it's own, I develop it in R09/one shot (Rodinal) and love it,

I also prefer FP400 to FP200, but frankly the results seem more consistent with 200. I always shoot at box speed and develop that in XTOL. I agree that FP400 gives an interesting look, but it seems more problematic to get right at least for me. You shoot it @ 400 developed in R09? Rodinal is not a speed enhancing developer and the dope on FP400 is that it is not really a 400 speed film; should be shot at 200-250 - seems to be the most popular opinion (though perhaps not on this forum). I find it to be a tricky film to handle (compared to Tri-X). I have tried it @200, 330 and 400 developed with D-76 1+1 and XTOL stock. I like the results in XTOL better (tonal range). If you shoot at 200 contrast is lowered and if you shoot at 400 shadows can be blocked - depends a lot on lighting conditions. Best single results from this film was a cloudy day shot at 200 developed in XTOL. Very beautiful. On the other hand, in better lighting and in high contrast scenes if you try exposing @ 200 the negatives are thin - look washed out.
What did you develop it in R09 at 1 + 40?

 

[R.Gould]

I develop at 1/50 for Fomapan 400, develop for 12 to 14 minutes for 120 depending on light, for sunny days I develop for 12 minutes, if very dull I would give the extra 2 minutes, for 35mm I develop for 12 minutes whatever the light, My main reason for using 400 is that a lot of my photography is in very low light sometimes down to 1/2 second at 4, and I hand hold, hence my love of rangefinders, especialy the old German ones with leaf shutters, however, this week, just for fun, I used Fomapan 400 at 200 and 400, that is I took one at 400 and one at 200 of the same subject, and TBH the difference is very slight, the 200 is very slightly heavier, but the results are the same, I have just been ptinting them and there is perhaps 1/2 grade difference between 200 and 400, I printed straight, no dodging or burning, and certainly for me my 200 negatives are not thin, slightly heavier than the 400, but they each print just as well, no blocking up no problems at all, so I will continue to use box speed as I have always done, It might not suit everybody but it suits me, I have been using the same combination of Rodinal and Fomapan 400 at box in Rodinal for 15/20 years, I have tried it in D76, stock for 8 minutes again at box speed and again very nice negatives easy to print, but I personally think that Rodinal adds something to the Fomapan both 200 and 400, I have never tried Xtol, for most of my Photographic life I have used Rodinal and I guess after so much use I know it well, and prefer it to anything else, whether it be Kodak, Ilford or Foma

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

It is the only "straight line" film left on the market. It has an extremely long range of sensitivity between shadows and highlights without resorting to compressing the intermediate values. Sounds great, but...nowhere near 200 speed....

I was thinking of trying some 4x5 Foma 200 (rebranded as Artisa Edu), due the "straight line" characteristics. At what EI would you recommended rating it, at least initially? I don't currently have the ability to process it myself, so trying several different developers is "out," for the time being. The lab I use develops B&W film in a dip-and-dunk machine with Ilford DD developer.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I was thinking of trying some 4x5 Foma 200 (rebranded as Artisa Edu), due the "straight line" characteristics. At what EI would you recommended rating it, at least initially? I don't currently have the ability to process it myself, so trying several different developers is "out," for the time being. The lab I use develops B&W film in a dip-and-dunk machine with Ilford DD developer.

I shoot quite a lot of this film. In most developers, if developed to 0.62 or “normal” contrast, I’d put it at EI 160 or 125 depending on the developer. It only gets to ISO 200 in a speed increasing developer. Most everything else is 1/3 to 2/3 less. It doesn’t have a particularly long toe, so once you hit 4 to 4 1/2 stops under, stuff drops into film base fog pretty quick. On my little point and shoot, I shoot it at 100 and generally develop to ~0.62 and it’s wonderful.

I’d ask your Lab what development time they’re going to develop it for in DD and see if there’s any published times for what that would work out to contrast wise. If your lab has an established time for that film, then they should be able to tell you what the contrast is. If their time matches the one published on massive dev chart, it likely is higher contrast than 0.62, in which case you’ll probably be fine at EI 160, though more exposure isn’t a bad thing. It can handle quite a bit of exposure. When in doubt more exposure and more development time is generally batter. You do get more grain, but I’d rather have more grain than not enough shadow detail.

 

[koraks]

I regularly shoot F200 as well, both in 120 and 4x5. I agree with Adrian above: it does fine at 100, and don't expect to get any more than 125-160 from it. It's a fine film - as long as you don't run into defects. Foma's coating operation seems to not always be perfect. I've had obvious coating defects in mostly 135 and 120; their sheet film seems more consistent, so you may not experience any issues. I personally find their sheet films very pleasant in use, but have started moving away from their smaller formats due to the various coating issues I kept running into.

 

[Arcadia4]

Fomapan 200 is unusually a mixed cubic grain/ T-grain film. Also sold as Arista Edu 200.

I have had good results in 35mm at box speed developed in Fomadon Excel - An Xtol clone in 1L packaging, ideal if you have only a few films to process

Its worth noting that depending on source cartridges may not be DX coded. No issues with quality to date.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Thank you, Adrian and koraks! I'll get a 25 sheet box and see how it goes. I'll initially rate some of it at EI 100 and some at EI 125, based on your suggestions...thanks again.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Le

Thank you, Adrian and koraks! I'll get a 25 sheet box and see how it goes. I'll initially rate some of it at EI 100 and some at EI 125, based on your suggestions...thanks again.

Let me know how it goes. I usually run it in replenished xtol for my own stuff and for customers who send their film in to be processed. I have a bottle of DD-X, but have never used it with fomapan 200, but have always wondered how it would turn out. As others have said, assuming you don’t run into QC issues, it’s a nice budget film that can look wonderful.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Like others above, I cut the box speed at least in half, to 100 or less. This obviously depends on the specific developer. I use PMK pyro. It develops exceptionally quickly, however.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Like others above, I cut the box speed at least in half, to 100 or less. This obviously depends on the specific developer. I use PMK pyro. It develops exceptionally quickly, however.

Thanks!

 

[Tim Stapp]

I shoot it in 4x5 at box speed and develop in Xtol, rotory processed. 5 minute presoak and 6 minutes developer.