Constant trial to faith in the film I've chosen

[radiant]

Don't worry about it. I checked your Instagram darkroom prints and without the label I certainly couldn't have told you what film you used, or what paper, or what camera. It matters little, and since your images are excellent already there is really no need to change anything. What improvement will you reasonably be able to expect if you change films: 3% better? 2%? If you're happy with the price and results you're getting that's all that matters.

Thank you, glad you visited there. And thanks @BradS too.

Maybe this sounds a bit stupid, and it does, but now I've come in to steady state I don't need any better film. I am not pixel peeping. Silver halide peeping? Anyways. I was just feeling not confident using cheap film which has controversial reputation - even I personally like the results. And I was afraid that if I shoot the rest of my life with this film, I will regret it in some place. Currently I like the look and now I can safely also say that my own evaluation was correct.

My starting point was not about finding or using specific film, more than about the self doubts and how to cope with that. And the photrio army has come to savior in large amounts, this is so nice place.

But life is a bit too short to get too hung up on all this.

I agree. I want to choose one film and not to think about film anymore. It is just a medium. If it works, then rinse and repeat.

In my case, worrying about different films is like worrying if my dslr has enough megapixels. Both are more than enough for my skills, and I would notice no difference unless I “pixel peep”.

Gosh. I wonder what kind of ships are sailing in the sea of computer photography. Maybe my worry was a bit like pixel peeping but as there aren't any hugely better films, it is hard to pixel or halide peep

Tmax 400 for a faster film and FP4+ for a slower film are all I need.

This sounds so good. Simple plan and then just execute the actual photography.

 

[Paul Howell]

If your going with Tmax 400, then why not Tmax 100? Tmax 100 is sharper and has smaller grain than FP 4, takes some testing to tame the contrast, but once you nail your developer and times, best film for detail.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Two thoughts-

Foma makes some very nice films. I'm most happy with the Foma 200. I have used it extensively in sheet film formats and it is wonderful for alternative process printing because it is very easy to boost contrast to where I need it. I have not found it to be that delicate in sheet film format. I expose it as a 100 speed film though, to make sure I have plenty of shadow detail. None of the Foma films have very good reciprocity response past 1 second exposures, though.

Film, like a camera, is a tool. just as I wouldn't try to shoot auto racing with an 8x10 studio portrait camera, neither would I try doing night photography with Fomapan 200. But studio portraits? you bet! Fit the film to the task being performed.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Scott,

How have you found the Fomapan 200 sheet film processed in the Jobo Expert Drums?

Tom

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Scott,

How have you found the Fomapan 200 sheet film processed in the Jobo Expert Drums?

Tom

It works very nicely. I do mine in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100, 7.5 mins @ 75F (23.8C). Produces gorgeous platinum/palladium prints.

 

[jp498]

If your going with Tmax 400, then why not Tmax 100? Tmax 100 is sharper and has smaller grain than FP 4, takes some testing to tame the contrast, but once you nail your developer and times, best film for detail.

I shoot sheet film and 120. Tmax 100 sheet film has a UV inhibiting layer that makes it unsuitable for alt process contact printing, which I do sometimes. I have tried it in smaller formats and it seems to have different sensitivity or response than tmax 400.. It's not just a slower speed sibling, it seems to function different and I never fully figured it out. Other people do a nice job with it. With pyrocat HD/HDC I can make FP4+ and tmax400 work about the same but with different speeds. FP4+ is also a good deal less expensive than tmax 100 for sheet film. Not much difference pricewise for rolls. You can figure out films well if you don't try too many of them.

Not a total Foma hater... They make some nice paper I'm very thankful for.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

It works very nicely. I do mine in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100, 7.5 mins @ 75F (23.8C). Produces gorgeous platinum/palladium prints.

I should probably dig out my box of Fomapan 100 in 8x10 and give it another go. I've always been rather nervous of Foma quality control but perhaps my apprehension is misplaced.

 

[Maris]

I shoot exclusively Fomapan 100, 200, and 400 sheet film in 4x5 and 8x10 formats and have done so for years.

No problems with grain or sharpness; it is sheet film after all.
No scratches. Film is developed, one at a time, emulsion up in trays. Only liquid and air touch the emulsion.
Films are rated at half the ISO number. That's slower but, hey, the camera is on a tripod anyway.
Exposure is fairly uncritical as long as it is enough. Reciprocity failure is nowhere near as bad as the data sheets suggest.
Development is uncritical as long as it is enough. A minute either way is not a knife edge of success or failure.
The negatives get printed on variable contrast paper which takes care of the N- and N+ zone system stuff.
Fomapan is cheaper film and cheaper film is more productive. You shoot more.

But in the end the film doesn't matter so much. Nine tenths of the photography problem is finding expressive subject matter that shows what you want to show, says what you want to say.

 

[Black Dog]

I use lots of different films and enjoy doing it. I am continually glad that there are so many different films out there to try.

But if I ever decided to settle on one film and one developer it would be Arista EDU Ultra (Foma) 100 developed in home brewed (which means very fresh) D-23 1+1 for 10 minutes. A close second would have to be Arista EDU Ultra (Foma) 400 exposed at EI-320 and developed for 15 minutes in my home brewed D-23 1+1.

Of course there is also JCH Streetpan 400...and Ilford HP5+...and (see what I mean. It is hard to eat just one chip! )

Just my own thoughts.

But life is a bit too short to get too hung up on all this. Of course, if I had to make a living with film I think I would stick to Ilford HP5+ just because of Ilford's commitment to film and the fact that HP5+ is so amazingly flexible.

I agree-I've shot HP5+ since 1982, though I'm also a big fan of XP2 which I've used for almost as long. In the interests of research, I've tried out Fomapan 400-not bad at all in ID-11 1+1, and I've been using quite a bit in 35mm...it's kind of an Aldi Agfapan (the 100 is my favourite Foma film).
Summertime in Edinburgh, July 2019. Olympus Trip, Foma 400 .

 

[Pioneer]

Like the shot Black Dog.

 

[grain elevator]

So the supposed scratch issue is with Foma films is only while wet? No wonder I haven't noticed, it's really hard to scratch rollfilms while wet.

 

[Black Dog]

Like the shot Black Dog.

Thanks- I usually do landscapes but enjoy trying some different approaches and subject matter.

 

[pentaxuser]

Nice shot. Is this Princes Street Gardens below the castle? Clearly the three nearest people and the bird saw you load the Foma film as they are blanking you. After you left I believe they all ( bird included) got together to discuss the QC issues of Foma.

It's a bigger issue in Edinburgh than Hearts v Hibs or so I am told

pentaxuser

 

[Black Dog]

Nice shot. Is this Princes Street Gardens below the castle? Clearly the three nearest people and the bird saw you load the Foma film as they are blanking you. After you left I believe they all ( bird included) got together to discuss the QC issues of Foma.

It's a bigger issue in Edinburgh than Hearts v Hibs or so I am told

pentaxuser

Hello yes it is-the Castle was on my left as I took this picture. Loved your last comment. What would Kodak vs Ilford be in terms of sporting rivalries I wonder?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I should probably dig out my box of Fomapan 100 in 8x10 and give it another go. I've always been rather nervous of Foma quality control but perhaps my apprehension is misplaced.

Do remember that the Foma films are best shot at least 1 stop over rated box speed - so shoot your 100 at 50, or even 25. How old is your box? Remember to add another stop for every decade-ish of age beyond the expiry date on the box.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I shoot exclusively Fomapan 100, 200, and 400 sheet film in 4x5 and 8x10 formats and have done so for years.

No problems with grain or sharpness; it is sheet film after all.
No scratches. Film is developed, one at a time, emulsion up in trays. Only liquid and air touch the emulsion.
Films are rated at half the ISO number. That's slower but, hey, the camera is on a tripod anyway.
Exposure is fairly uncritical as long as it is enough. Reciprocity failure is nowhere near as bad as the data sheets suggest.
Development is uncritical as long as it is enough. A minute either way is not a knife edge of success or failure.
The negatives get printed on variable contrast paper which takes care of the N- and N+ zone system stuff.
Fomapan is cheaper film and cheaper film is more productive. You shoot more.

But in the end the film doesn't matter so much. Nine tenths of the photography problem is finding expressive subject matter that shows what you want to show, says what you want to say.

This is what so many people ignore - if you don't need the absolute highest speed relative to grain & the lower edge sharpness/ worse halation performance of the Foma films don't cause serious aesthetic problems for what you want to make images of, they are an excellent way to get on with actually making images. Too many people get bogged down in the pseudotheoretics of bowdlerised sensitometry and other stuff that really doesn't matter if they are making 2-5x enlargements on average! If they can't make an excellent 8x10 from a 4x5 neg, they're doing something seriously wrong...

 

[Bormental]

Do remember that the Foma films are best shot at least 1 stop over rated box speed - so shoot your 100 at 50, or even 25.

Definitely true for Foma 400, it's much better at EI 200, I tried both. Less true for Foma 100, I enjoy shooting it at box speed. The characteristic curves in Fomapan data sheets basically have the answers.

 

[NB23]

True for foma 400 and 200, but definitely not for foma 100!

 

[JWMster]

But in the end the film doesn't matter so much. Nine tenths of the photography problem is finding expressive subject matter that shows what you want to show, says what you want to say.

BINGO! The film isn't the most important item in the shot... all it takes is experience and confidence. Finding the right composition and right light.... 4X5 is making me pickier about these, and that's good. Fairly, when I hit a road bump with FOMA I went back to FP4+ for exactly those two matters. Will try FOMA again... because the price is right LATER once I have more confidence in my 4X5 efforts... a condition that seems to be improving every week, I'm sure I'll be able to adapt with the right amount of care in the process. Funny thing is that everyone tells you to start with a cheap film when you switch to LF, but my experience suggests maybe folks would be better of staring 4X5 with a film they know backwards and forwards, get the LF process is up and running, and then switch to a cheaper film for "education" purposes.

That said, looking at some FOMA shots folks have posted, I see soft images great for portraits and certain landscapes. Think I'm beginning to side with Scott on FOMA fits certain purposes superbly, and seems to have a different sort of tonality all its own, but it can also be the wrong film... in certain shots.At least that's what I see from FOMA 100 shots others have posted that I like. Will have to give it another go.... most likely FOMA 100.

 

[koraks]

soft images

Nothing about any of the foma films strikes me as particularly 'soft' in terms of sharpness, resolution, edge effects, contrast etc.

 

[JWMster]

Nothing about any of the foma films strikes me as particularly 'soft' in terms of sharpness, resolution, edge effects, contrast etc.

I was referring to the tonality... which seems soft. I see dark grays but not a lot of black.... which may be the photographer's choice or his/her development (or print in some cases), but the result is contrast often seems "soft" or "flat" relative to what my eye sees in other shots. Love to see otherwise... but haven't so far.

 

[koraks]

Well, I can sort of relate, although linguistically things seem to get a little vague. No real blacks is just a matter of printing (determining proper exposure) or digital post processing (setting black point). But foma films do have a fairly long toe, which means that exposed at box speed, all the shadows tend to get bunched quite close together at the bottom of the curve. Perhaps that's what you're seeing - it's certainly what I try to avoid at all times.

 

[Donald Qualls]

In my case, it's how I scanned the two portraits I posted. Both of those images could be displayed with much higher contrast, and the negatives are normal in every way.

 

[JWMster]

Yep, my semantics... my bad. Thanks for your patience.

 

[Wallendo]

When I first returned to film and started developing my own film, may first major film purchase was 100 feet of Arista EDU Ultra (at that time significantly cheaper than the Foma-branded version. I have had a soft spot for this film ever since. I never really tried Fomapan 400 since, at that time, Freestyle was selling re-branded TX400 as Arista Premium 400 at a great price, and I have been hooked on TX400 ever since.
My general rule is that I don't really know a film until I have shot 100 feet or so (15-20 rolls). I have been through HP5+, UltraFine Xtreme 400, Legacy Pro 100 (Fuji), and currently am shooting FP4+ and TX400. I did recently purchase another 100 feet of Fomapan 100 - it may never be my full-time film, but there are situations where it feels like the right film.