I'm sorry, I can't. I use Foma films a lot, including 100 and 400, in mostly 35mm and 4x5". And while they're perfectly usable films, they certainly are NOT up to par with other films in a technical sense. While the 100 is by all means an acceptable product in my eyes, it certainly doesn't come close to Delta 100 or TMAX 100 when it comes to linearity, and it's also still a far cry from FP4+ in many ways. The 400 is a little worse in my book; evidently it's no anywhere near 400 in common developers, with a maximum practical film speed of maybe 250. Furthermore, it's grainy to the point of being excessively so compared to alternatives - and I'm not talking about tabular grain alternatives, but regular 'old fashioned' emulsions on the market today. To make matters worse yet, neither Foma 100 or 400 are particularly linear in terms of their response, and especially 400 has a toe that seems to stretch on for miles. To get into the linear region, you might find yourself having to expose at something like EI100, which completely defies the purpose of having a 400 film, as it'll just function as a fairly linear but extremely grainy medium-speed film. Let's not even discuss reciprocity characteristics, which we all know are phenomenally abysmal for both Foma 100 & 400.Please assure me that the Foma film dynamic is as good as it is on other brands.
You need to find old APUG thread where different films where compared on prints. If it was normal film, diffrence was next to none.
All of those film findings where to me due to scans, not prints. But even on prints I can't see details with Foma 400. It was as grainy as new TMAX 3200 now.
Too much talk, just few shots with Fomapan 400 that I think are in par with any other B&W film.
so you’ve left me quite confused... what’s the problem?
So put all your film choices in hat, pick one and stay with it until you get to be really good with it.
Can't see what your problem is, you don't seem to have a problem with Fomapan, 400, I have used that film, and nothing else for over 20 years
The other films. The better ones, the greener. The shinier. The ones that are more expensive.
Can you promise me that I will never ever regret this decision?
Don'tThank you @koraks and @ChristopherCoy for your understanding responses.
Koraks; knowing your technical expertise I trust completely in you.
Oh, whatever presents itself! In 4x5 it's mostly human subjects. I expose it at 200 for that purpose to get a more linear response. In 35mm anything where I want a nasty, gritty look, for which I expose at 400 or even higher and develop the heck out of it. Originally I started out with it in 135 for low-light photography, but due to its speed limitations and long toe, it borders on useless for that scenario, at least in my hands.Hey koraks; what kind of situations you use Fomapan films?
That's a perfectly valid reason to go for a more affordable film! I do the same, really. I try to go with the cheapest film that gives me acceptable results so I don't have to worry about costs every time I push the button. But as time progresses, I find that the balance is shifting. Mainly due to becoming more selective in pulling out the camera. After all, I need to be able to do something with every negative I come home with. If it's not worth printing, I might as well not have shot it in the first place, so I try not to. This leaves the negatives that are worth printing, and for those, how does the €0.15 - €1.00 relate to the time I need to make a decent print? In any given printing session, I usually print 2 or 3 negatives, and up to max. 6 if it's really repetitive. These prints still need finishing, most of them are toned, there's washing and drying to take into account - if I add up all the time I spend on taking that negative to the end result, and the costs of paper used in the process, the price of the film used is pushed somewhat to the background. Hence, I moved away from Fomapan 400 in 135 towards RPX400 which I shot for a while, and now on to HP5+ due to availability issues with the RPX400.If I'm using cheap film, I feel free to shoot as much as I can - and eventually I don't snap around, I still think of the photos quite carefully. But I don't want to think about the film or the price.
Your problem isn't the film, your problem is your own confidence. Any film you choose is going to have a nuance that you wont like, but as long as you continue to look elsewhere you'll never settle. "Jack of all trades, master of none." Pick one, and master it... nuances and all.
I realize that I'm probably NOT the best person to give you advice, however I can completely empathize because I've always been in the boat you're in - the S.S. Self Doubt. Do yourself a favor, and figure out WHAT you want to create, instead of what the FILM/CAMERA wants to create.
Is that the name of the boat you live on?I've always been in the boat you're in - the S.S. Self Doubt.
Brian just look at the Foma film of the windmill and you will realise the problem. Foma is so boring. After being able to see and count the bricks in the windmill I just got bored after the first 1000so you’ve left me quite confused... what’s the problem?
I'm trying, in my old age (some say "very trying") to not get too hung up on "a film."
If you want to play with different films, go ahead and have fun. But don't worry about it.
if I add up all the time I spend on taking that negative to the end result, and the costs of paper used in the process, the price of the film used is pushed somewhat to the background. Hence, I moved away from Fomapan 400 in 135 towards RPX400 which I shot for a while, and now on to HP5+ due to availability issues with the RPX400.
Especially in 135, Foma 400 just doesn't cut it anymore for me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?