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

[Agulliver]

Fomapan 100, 200 and 400 all have their own distinctive ways.

I shoot FP100 and FP200 at box speed, develop in ID11 stock, small tank with inversions every minute. For FP400 I shoot at 320ISO.

FP100 is a traditional cubic grain 100ISO panchro film...in that sense it's nothing new but it does what it sets out to do remarkably well. Is a bit finnicky with development times/temperatures but always gives great negatives as long as you don't underexpose.

FP200 looks very different and is preferred (or disliked) because it's a hybrid of cubic and tabular grain. This gives it more smooth contrast. I have actually found that highlights can blow out when shot at box speed using my processing regimen so I don't understand at all shooting at 100 or 50. Maybe different developers or agitation methods make a difference.

FP400 I find a bit grainy in 35mm so I prefer it in 120 where it can look superb in a traditional way. It's not very high contrast (lower than FP100 but greater than Retro 320).

I usually have a bulk 35mm loader with FP100, another with FP200 and a third with Ilford HP5+. I keep a stash of 120 rolls of FP400.

 

[koraks]

I haven't had any blown out highlights with any of the foma films; they just keep building density proportional to exposure for miles on end. However, you use ID11, which I understand creates a bit of an upswept curve which I have personally never cared for much; perhaps that is part of the issue? I myself prefer developers that taper off a bit; specifically, I find that the foma films do particularly well in pyrocat.

 

[mard0]

I think your might also be blowing out your highlights by shooting at boxspeed. It is at best a iso 160 film. Overdeveloping to get enough shadow detail will push the highlights all the way into the whites.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I haven't had any blown out highlights with any of the foma films; they just keep building density proportional to exposure for miles on end. However, you use ID11, which I understand creates a bit of an upswept curve which I have personally never cared for much; perhaps that is part of the issue? I myself prefer developers that taper off a bit; specifically, I find that the foma films do particularly well in pyrocat.

I think you're thinking about HC-110 which will tend to produce more of an upsweep - D-76/ ID-11 tend to produce a classic 'S-curve'. Actual 'blown highlights' take some doing, more often they're just difficult/ slow to burn in/ poorly separated when finally burnt in - and with normal contrast materials, excess highlight density is a matter of operator error on developing time, not the film's fault.

FP200 looks very different and is preferred (or disliked) because it's a hybrid of cubic and tabular grain. This gives it more smooth contrast. I have actually found that highlights can blow out when shot at box speed using my processing regimen so I don't understand at all shooting at 100 or 50. Maybe different developers or agitation methods make a difference.

That would be because you are underexposing & overdeveloping - it is not a 160-200 film in anything other than a speed-increasing developer. The Foma datasheet makes this quite clear.