Constant trial to faith in the film I've chosen

I feel like I'm constantly in "what film I should pick?" spiral. Once settled in one, the grass is greener somewhere else. It might be a other developer that I'm using or other film I'm using.

I have currently settled to Foma 100 and 400 films, now I know how to expose and develop them. I like the look those produce and I think they are in par with overall dynamics with other films. Curves might be a bit different but I don't think Foma films are muddy or anything like that. Only complaint for Foma films is that the emulsion scratches from even looking at it. However that is part of the analog world, nothing is perfect.

So why my faith in Foma films is in trial or test? Because I'm afraid I will be shooting years on some "muddy" film and realize how big mistake I have made and curse myself for not choosing the double or triple expensive film. And because there is no way to go back shooting the frame with other film.

Am I the only one who has a thin faith in the film they have picked? Why does some single "analysis" of Foma film put me so easily off the track?

Please help me. Please make my faith stronger. Please assure me that the Foma film dynamic is as good as it is on other brands. Or then please convince me to move to other film brand to not be sorry in future.

vedostuu said:

Please assure me that the Foma film dynamic is as good as it is on other brands.

Click to expand...

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.

If you want to get as close to technical perfection as you can, consider using TMAX 100 and 400 for faster speeds and excellent linearity. Ilford's alternatives are certainly not much worse and the choice between them is mostly a matter of personal taste, IMO.

If you want something just a little more decent in a technical sense without having to break the bank (although TMAX really isn't all that expensive as long as you don't insist on shooting sheet film...), consider FP4+/HP5+ or even lower-tier films such as Rollei RPX400 (which is not expensive by any means and just blows Foma 400 out of the water in my experience).

Before I forget: the above argument is mostly based on technical specifications. And those of course do not have to correlate to personal experiences or taste. If you are happy with what you get with Foma 100 & 400, then don't worry and remain happy! For sure I have made negatives on both films that I'm very happy with. So I'm not saying Foma films are crap. Absolutely not. But don't expect top-notch performance at this price level.

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.

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.

Thank you @koraks and @ChristopherCoy for your understanding responses.

Koraks; knowing your technical expertise I trust completely in you. And speaking of knowing the Foma 400, I actually learned to expose it at 160 and after then I started to get good results. I have exposed Foma 400 at 100 and then pulled by 25% and got what I think as really good dynamic range; shadows visible, sky and clouds visible. Hey koraks; what kind of situations you use Fomapan films?

And yes, it is a good question why use Foma 400 if you need to expose it at 250 or 180 or whatever. For me there have been two reasons; price and the look. I've shot Fomapan 100 too and I think it is good film, but I've liked more of the punch I have achieved with Foma 400 at @180 or pulled.. Also I try to shoot when there is enough light and loosing stop or two doesn't really matter in those cases. If there isn't enough light, I use tripod or don't shoot at all.

When I say price, it is not totally about actual money. Maybe you know this too, small things can affect to the creative process. I'm 100% sure I get crappy photos if I load Acros 100 to my Mamiya RB67 and even maybe using tripod for all photos. It is my problem but I prefer being "loose" and spotaneous when shooting, that way I've found that I get good frames. If anything comes between, I start to tumble. 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.

I know many of you question now "well, why don't you shoot Fomapan then?". Someday I'm totally fine with that. Cheap film, nice punch, I like it. And then in a sudden I'm on that S.S. Self Doubt because some silly writing on internet.

A word of warning; don't get triggered. I'm going to say that I've tried to like HP5 but I seem to fail every time. I just don't like the flatness of it. I've heard it is excellent film in darkroom but as I've shot so little with it I haven't got enough practice of enlarging frames from HP5 film. But when scanning it I totally prefer any other film than HP5. I don't know why but both HP5 and Fomapan 400 are awful at portraits. I've heard HP5 is better when exposed at 200, but then we return back to question, why use 400 film if you cannot shoot it at 400.. But please, I know this isn't popular opinion to dislike HP5 and please don't get triggered by this comment. It's just me.

Maybe I need to give a change to Tmax films again in 120 size which I usually shoot. I have 10 pack of 135 unopened in the freezer and I have used Tmax on my point-and-shoot Pentax PC35AF with good results. Also in studio portraits I think Tmax is the only choice.

I know I'm full of problems and questions but sometimes I don't like how technically good Tmax films are. They can be like digital and I'm not shooting film to make technically perfect images. However one selling point for me could be that if I could adjust the output in darkroom more flexible with Tmax films and still capturing the scene with the "best resolution available" - and not having to worry that my work is badly captured in the first place.

Too much talk, just few shots with Fomapan 400 that I think are in par with any other B&W film.

Ko.Fe. said:

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.

Click to expand...

Man that thread would be interesting to read.

When I first head that scanning is bad, I was totally pro-scan-guy. Now when I've achieved good prints I understand what you are talking about. I only scan to see what I want to print and test the exposure, contrast and burning on computer first to save a bit of darkroom time and to have a reference where I try to aim in darkroom.

Here are few closeups of those photos to see the grain. The films were scanned at 2400DPI on Epson V600, film directly on the glass.





But I stop posting photos. Because I'm not trying to prove you anything about Foma 400. These are just examples of my frames and looking at those I just keep questioning should I even consider other films

vedostuu said:

Too much talk, just few shots with Fomapan 400 that I think are in par with any other B&W film.

Click to expand...

so you’ve left me quite confused... what’s the problem?

I find Foma to be very good films, comparable to non T grained films, like PF4 or old Plus X, or double XX if you can find it. T grain films like Tmax, Delta or Acros are different critter, smaller grain, better resolution, but different curves. Shooting MF or LF grain or resolution isn't as much as issue for me as 35mm, still I get 11X14 from 35 without issues. What I find interesting is that Foma 200 and 400 are very close in terms of speed, looking at the published data sheet, Foma 200 can be shot at 200, while 400 only Microphen and Formadon come close to 400 at 320. The longer you work with a film you get to know it's limitations. In terms of price, you can shoot a lot more Foma than Tmax.
When I was in the U.S Air Force, later worked as a PJ more often than not I shot what every the paper,r wire or the AF was using. A good photographer learns to shoot any film any where and get results. So put all your film choices in hat, pick one and stay with it until you get to be really good with it.

If you have lived with scratches, no reason to switch now. I find Kodak film doesn’t scratch as much

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,,and love it, I expose at 250 and develop in either ID11 stock for 10 minutes, or Rodinal 1/50 for 20 minutes, over the years I have tried all combinations and have found that these 2 suit my way of working, I get good shadow detail, good highlights, I like negatives with a bit of ''meat'' on them and that's what I get, tge grain is not that bad, and it is ''nice'' grain, which I like, in fact it reminds me in looks of the Original Tri x, long before Kodak ruined it

BrianShaw said:

so you’ve left me quite confused... what’s the problem?

Click to expand...

The other films. The better ones, the greener. The shinier. The ones that are more expensive.

Paul Howell said:

So put all your film choices in hat, pick one and stay with it until you get to be really good with it.

Click to expand...

Is this so easy? Do you really mean that film doesn't matter? Well then I will continue with Foma 400, definely. But what if I found out that some of my best shots would be even better if I only had shot them at with More Expensive Film.

R.Gould said:

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

Click to expand...

Good to hear. I don't have any problem with Fomapan films (except the scratching). The problem is that there are other films.

Could we agree that for 120 use I can safely use Fomapan films and for 135 size I will use Tmax 400? Can you promise me that I will never ever regret this decision?

Each photo is independent. You look at them one by one. They are all unique experiences.
Therefore shoot many films and be happy.

Like what I’m doing: I’m all over the place. I’m basically shuffling through 6 sorts of film and I’m in awe over each of them.

yes, I print a lot, and I’m aware of all the technical stuff, but in the end it’s only about the poem you’re looking at.

vedostuu said:

The other films. The better ones, the greener. The shinier. The ones that are more expensive.

Click to expand...

Got it. Every time I want diversity I just try it, but keep returning to my “old reliable”... FP-4+

BTW. I recently tried Foma 100 and almost didn’t return to old reliable. Great balance of price and reasonably decent quality.

vedostuu said:

Can you promise me that I will never ever regret this decision?

Click to expand...

Nobody can do that. An unreasonable request.

Foma 400 has a unique look which is dramatic and fine for architecture and street, but horrendous for portraits and people. Its extra high sensitivity to red is not flattering.

Tmax films, on the other end, have this very finely tuned spectral sensitivity, which makes everyone look good. Especially tmax 400. Which is probably the very best film on the planet, IMO.

But still, look at this: although I openly believe that tmax 400 is the best film on the planet (with tmax100 close to it), I have none in stock while I have about 15 cans of pan-f, 20 cans of tri-x, 80 rolls of tmax 3200 (my favorite film!), 50 rolls of tmax 100, 100 rolls of hp5, and few acros.

I will definitely have to shoot tmax 400 at some point.

vedostuu said:

Thank you @koraks and @ChristopherCoy for your understanding responses.

Koraks; knowing your technical expertise I trust completely in you.

Click to expand...

Don't I know only just enough to be dangerous! More importantly, in this matter, what is important is your own judgement and preference.

Hey koraks; what kind of situations you use Fomapan films?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Then there's the other part of 'cheapest film that's still acceptable' - as I shoot a particular film for a period of time, I get to know it and invariably I always am forced to face its drawbacks. No product is perfect, but there's only so much I'm willing to accept in terms of compromise. Especially in 135, Foma 400 just doesn't cut it anymore for me. In 4x5 its drawbacks are a little less problematic; grain isn't really an issue (since you seem to shoot 120, you know what I mean) and 4x5 is tripod work anyway, so lower speed is also not much of a concern. But in 135, I need a 400 film to work decently on box speed or close to it. So out it went, and it was replaced with something else. Good thing there's no law that tells us to stick with just one film and that we still have options (while it lasts...)

Is this so easy? Do you really mean that film doesn't matter? Well then I will continue with Foma 400, definely. But what if I found out that some of my best shots would be even better if I only had shot them at with More Expensive Film.

It is that easy, after a few test rolls you nail your personal ISO for your camera and developer, you should be able to get the shot you want without trouble. I have shot so many different films over the past 55 years, there are some that were not my favs, but still got usable images. Then on the other hand your choice is to use more expensive film, Tmax 400 and 100 are really pretty bulletproof. Tmax 400 has a great long curve, very similar to old Double xx, great contrast, printable highlights, resolution is good at 100 LPMM, the Kodak Data Sheet is very complete, gives good advice on how to use Tmax 400 in almost every situation. Tmax 100 resolves at 200 LPMM but has steeper curve, blocked highlights if your not careful, but best in class resolution and very fine grain. Both pretty much shoot at box speed and push really well.

I use a 120 and 35mm film (Ultafine) from a company packaged here in the States, not sure who coats it, it is cheap, it's my shoot around film. Film I take on my walks, trips to the zoo or the hikes in the desert. For 4X5 I shoot with Foma 400 as my walk around film. If I am traveling or shooting for money (not much of that anymore) I shoot with Tmax 400 or 100 in 35 and 120, HP5 or Delta 400 in 4X5. The reason I dont shoot Tmax in 4X5 don't want to buy 50 sheets at a time.

The problem is that all of this fuzzy, no one best answer, too many variables, too much too go wrong.

ChristopherCoy said:

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.

Click to expand...

+1

Pick one and stick with until you’ve shot enough to know it pretty well. Then you can identify likes and dislikes about it and evaluate if you can live with the dislikes.

I've only ever tried one film whose characteristics mattered so much that I stopped using it, and that was J&C film that curled like spring steel!
Slow films obviously aren't ideal where light is low, and grainy films are obviously better for uses where grain is either desired or unimportant, but generally speaking it really doesn't matter a lot which film you use, as long as you are familiar with it, you can find it, and you can afford it.
There are certain special characteristics in certain films that make them desirable in particular situations - near IR sensitive films and very fine grain slow films come to mind - but just because you decide to use them for those situations doesn't mean you have to use them always.
If you want to play with different films, go ahead and have fun. But don't worry about it.

ChristopherCoy said:

I've always been in the boat you're in - the S.S. Self Doubt.

Click to expand...

Is that the name of the boat you live on?
If so, I bet all the counselors at the marina want to leave you their card!

I'm trying, in my old age (some say "very trying" ) to not get too hung up on "a film." When I first came back to analog B&W processed at home circa 2005, I shot some Plus-X and some Tri-X; they seemed like old friends. So I was feeling good -- and then a few years later Kodak dropped Plus-X -- and then some years after that Tri-X was on the list for possible wrapper offset. Along the way I also became interested in Neopan 400 -- Fuji dumped that before I finished off the rolls I bought to test (I liked what I saw from my first roll of it!) I was happily shooting Acros when speed wasn't a necessity, and when I started with that it was one of the least expensive. Then the price ramped up -- and then they killed it! (I haven't tried Acros II yet as it's $$$$ and I also seem to have overbought for some treks a year or two back anyway.)

So for what I currently do, I find Tri-x ("400TX") and HP-5 Plus are pretty much interchangeable, other than the developing times, and I've been fairly happy with FP-4 Plus for slower film (all this assumes medium format). In my very limited 35mm shooting, I've felt pretty good about 400 Tmax (and some 1987 vintage Panatomic-X in my Argus C3!)

I just figure to roll with the punches, and occasionally shoot a roll or two of something I've not tried, using it on a non-critical project to get an idea of what it might or might not do. (I know, a disgusting pragmatist! )

BrianShaw said:

so you’ve left me quite confused... what’s the problem?

Click to expand...

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 1000 Usually counting bricks is a real challenge but not with Foma where there is no challenge at all.

Uncertainty is a real problem but changing film is at least cheaper and quicker than say changing wives so every cloud has a silver lining. Then there's the choosing right developer for 3 days of stand development.

On a serious note, vedostuu, buy a set of films and take the same picture on each film in say three different light conditions. Then do it again with different developers. If you are still not sure which is the best film and developer scan all of them in and ask us to rank them. The one who can name the film and developer for all of them or the most of them wins first prize. Offer say 3 prizes. I can help here. I am willing for the prizes to be a night out with me. First prize is one night out with me, second prize is two nights out etc

It is after all Saturday night where some merriment is permitted despite the Corona virus lockdown in whatever form this might take in our respective countries or in the U.S. in its respective states.

I have even contacted Matt King and if the winner is in the North of Washington State he has agreed to fool the border guards by rowing a crate of Canadian whisky across Vancouver bay instead of strolling 12 blocks into the U.S which is what they expect him to do

I have arranged for him to be met by Kevin Costner and Sean Connery on the U.S. side. I trust him when he says that his taxes are in order

pentaxuser

DWThomas said:

I'm trying, in my old age (some say "very trying" ) to not get too hung up on "a film."

Click to expand...

That is what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to get rid of thinking of film. I just want to make good photographs for the future. If I constantly need to worry about the film and try and change the films and never settle, I feel it is distracting me. I want to be in faith what I'm doing and find my peaceful corner nothing bugs me. Like someone in instagram writing how good or bad some film is.

MattKing said:

If you want to play with different films, go ahead and have fun. But don't worry about it.

Click to expand...

I have played with different films but the amount of shooting and analyzing it takes to understand all films is too much and messes my head completely. So truthfully speaking I don't want to play around with films. That creates too much movement in area where I don't want it. I constantly seem to be driven more and more by the end result, not the methods - which is of course good.

I wish I could know how to use different films but I'm struggling with learning even one well.

koraks said:

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.

Click to expand...

I understand completely. Large format is a bit different story anyways since the frame count is usually really low on that when shooting. In large format the film price is irrelevant I think. But in 120 size it's a bit different story. I like to grab my Rolleiflex, take few boxes of film and go somewhere sniffing for good scenes. Sometimes I might shoot the whole roll in evening but usually not. So in my case does the film price count? Probably not.

koraks said:

Especially in 135, Foma 400 just doesn't cut it anymore for me.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean. I think it is important to know the format one is using when talking about Foma films.

One really creative combo I have used this spring have been; Foma 400 bulk loaded, exposed to 100 - so pulled. Then using orange filter (metering thru lens) with my first SLR that I bought in middle of 90's (Dynax 500si). The camera has some hot glued flash wires hanging to it and tripod thread is fixed with thick metal plate. And without strap. That is imporant, no strap and no bag. And then just open eyes and move around. If you watch my instagram, the last 8 photos have been taken with this combo. The photos have similar look which I have found interesting and pleasing to my eyes. What is interesting is how the methods itself can affect to creativity.

Foma 400 at 135 format is not completely useless, it can be used to get certain look. Just do not expect it to be Acros or Tmax

Based on all the comments I think we still agree that Fomapan 400 is totally OK on medium and large format. Except portraits. Altough I want to try it and test if overexposing would help at the skin tones. And for 135 I should go spending my stash of Tmax 400 from the frige.

At this point I like to thank all discussion participants for a good chat, thank you for all your wisdom. I'm probably quite cured now Lets keep the discussion flowing if needed but just wanted to thank again from bottom of my heart.

I've been there. It's an equation with too many variables. Now I'm there again, because I can't go to the darkroom due to COVID-19 measures, in order to eliminate some variables. For my MF stuff, I've solved it for now with the thought that if I go for MF, I might as well go for high image quality (relatively, I know many here do LF and see MF as the light, quick way), shoot less of a slightly more expensive, slower film and use a tripod. Ironically, the shooting less part hasn't really worked, but that's not a bad thing. I think this is one way for people like us, who overthink, to think ourselves into a corner where we can commit: try to maximize one parameter. The midling solutions can be uncomfortable because there's wiggle room to all directions. You've done that if you're minimizing cost.
I can't tell you anything concrete about the Foma films other than that I've had no more problems with scratches with the Fomapan 200 I've shot than with Kodak films. It may be more sensitive, but in my use, I either scratch the film or I don't, its softness has little to do with it because all films are softer than paint or metal in the camera, or their own edges. I have a prejudice against the Foma 400 that I've picked up on the internet and haven't gotten rid of yet, as it has effectively prevented me from ever using it. I'd need to see or better yet, make large wet prints from it...
What you really need is to make a large print, wet or from a scan of the highest quality that you can get anywhere, to convince yourself that the quality is there.

whatever film and developer you choose, stick with it for a year. you learn all about both!

i was given this advice and it's been really valuable, as well as less angst about the "grass being greener..."