I haven't used Foma films because I've been frightened off by reports of fragility (easily scratched). Is it a potential problem only when wet? Does hardening fixer make a difference?
Constant trial to faith in the film I've chosen
-
A
- Thread starter radiant
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Kodak Polytoner
- Started by Guillaume Zuili
-
For Sale PLAUBEL MAKINA 67 GRIP
- Started by Guillaume Zuili
-
For Sale FS: Gundlach-Manhattan Hyperion Diffusion 7in f/4 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
Forum statistics
Have a look at what Richard Gould says. He has used Foma for a very long time without processing problems. Is he the exception that simply proves the rule, I doubt it but we have a tendency on Photrio to give a dog a bad name and it sticks unfortunately.
This thread was started on the basis that in the OP's mind he is always concerned that there may be something better out there but from what I can gather that "better" doesn't seem to be connected to Foma's fragility
In a forum this size the odds favour, on almost any subject, finding one or two people who have had bad experiences with product X. If you want a 100% backing for almost anything then you are unlikely to get it.
pentaxuser
... unless you either ask, or believe, one person. Ha ha ha.
Over the years Forma has had a reputation for poor quality control, then there was the blue base on their MF film. I use Foma 200 and 300 in 4X5 and in the past 35 and 120, never had any issues with scratching, I use a harding fix. Tones are dependent on the developer, I get very nice tones, with MCM 100.
I've use Freestyle's rebranded Foma stocks for as long as I've known about them. Never had major scratching problems (other than trying to develop too many 4x5 at once in trays). I've used various developers -- homebrewed D-23, homebrewed Rodinal-alike, and HC-110 -- and been happy with all of them. I've push the 100 to 400, and liked the result (and almost concluded that the 400 was 100 with development times published for a two-stop push). I've used it in 35 mm, 120, and 4x5 (it used to come in 9x12, but apparently no one's importing that size now).
Let me tell you an important film quality to consider along with all that "greener, shinier": a film you can afford to shoot more is one that will let you learn more. I can shoot almost two rolls of Foma 400 for a single roll of Tri-X or HP5+. That means I can afford to shoot more, which means more practice at composing, exposing, handling the film, processing -- and more skill improvement overall for a given budget.
And face it, we're all on budgets; the only difference is how big.
Let me tell you an important film quality to consider along with all that "greener, shinier": a film you can afford to shoot more is one that will let you learn more. I can shoot almost two rolls of Foma 400 for a single roll of Tri-X or HP5+. That means I can afford to shoot more, which means more practice at composing, exposing, handling the film, processing -- and more skill improvement overall for a given budget.
And face it, we're all on budgets; the only difference is how big.
Exactly - and it really isn't hard to get a good neg first time trying a new film if a little common sense is used & the nonsensical ramblings of the photo-by-numbers crowd (who apparently won't even dare take a picture unless they've taken 50 spotmeter readings of irrelevant values and done 20 minutes of error ridden calculations first) are ignored.
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.
View attachment 246380
View attachment 246381
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
If you like to beat around bushes then Foma 400 is fine. But I was trying to photograph people on it
I wouldn't know about the fixer; I always just use whatever fixer I happen to have and no problems with scratches so far. Not any more with foma than other films in any case.
This is the core of the problem. For example Foma 400 gets so much hate constantly and in other hand I'm having good results with it (I believe). the S.S. Self Doubt sails in with full speed every time. Not anymore, thanks to this thread!
Also what gives me positive feelings is that I had concluded myself that Foma 400 is good film (in 120 at least) even when the whole internet thinks the otherwise. I trusted my latest experiences with it but the Self Doubt was just too strong and that is why I started this thread to question my experience and films.
I think the Foma 400 reputation comes from two parts: using it in 135 format and exposing it at 400. And then using bad developer for it, such as Rodinal. One ends up with muddy shadows and huge grain. If then compare this to Tmax 400, I cannot blame people for getting bad conclusions from it.
If using it for large format, I don't think you get scratches at all. But I have so many scratches on Foma films on multiple cameras (both 135 and 120) that the scratching issue on these formats is totally valid. Side note: I don't touch the wet film with anything. I have had one frame which was ruined because of the scratching. That was probably my own mistake, just too rough handling when developing the film. Overall the scratches you possibly get are so light and tiny that those are not visible in scans or prints. However I think the scratching issue can be solved by handling the film carefully (as all films should) and with a bit extra care. Not a biggie. Some people might be more allergic to any defects but I count these as part of the analog experience
I agree. If practicing and using any other film than Foma I would probably give odd looks to the person. But my doubt originally was that am I making some huge mistake using Foma films for "real" stuff. I was about to write serious, but I've decided not to take photography seriously ever again. That is also another ship that sails in some times, maybe I call it S.S. Serious
I've been shooting a lot of Foma films. The 100 version is probably my favorite slow film. The highlights glow a little, and the shadows happen more abruptly, and I happen to like this look for what I shoot. Foliage, rocks and water is not boring with Foma 100 at all
Foma 100
Foma 400
I do not shoot this film much in 35mm, but when I do, I get moody results. Now I am rediscovering Foma 400 in medium format and it gives me basically same look as Foma 100 in 35mm, but I shoot it at EI250. The samples below are 35mm, I don't have 120 shots I am allowed to share (family):
Speaking of quality control issues and easily scratching emulsion.. This is mostly an exaggeration (or maybe it used to be true before I started shooting it), but Foma does have a small problem which I'm not sure how to describe... I see a bit more tiny single-dot "dust" on Foma negatives, even when I develop it side by side (same conditions) with other emulsions, so either it's more sticky (?) or maybe that's not dust, but some kind of tiny foreign specks in emulsion? But it's rare enough that I consider that to be a non-issue.
Another reason to like Foma is consistency. It always comes out the same regardless of which developer I use: DD-X, Xtol or ID-11. So, don't shy away just because it's cheap. Honestly, my two ISO100 films are Kentmere and Foma, one for softer and sharper look, while the other is mood and contrast (great for flat light), and cost has nothing to do with my choice.
BTW you can save a bit buying Foma rebranded as Arista Edu Ultra on Freestyle.
Foma 100
Foma 400
I do not shoot this film much in 35mm, but when I do, I get moody results. Now I am rediscovering Foma 400 in medium format and it gives me basically same look as Foma 100 in 35mm, but I shoot it at EI250. The samples below are 35mm, I don't have 120 shots I am allowed to share (family):
Speaking of quality control issues and easily scratching emulsion.. This is mostly an exaggeration (or maybe it used to be true before I started shooting it), but Foma does have a small problem which I'm not sure how to describe... I see a bit more tiny single-dot "dust" on Foma negatives, even when I develop it side by side (same conditions) with other emulsions, so either it's more sticky (?) or maybe that's not dust, but some kind of tiny foreign specks in emulsion? But it's rare enough that I consider that to be a non-issue.
Another reason to like Foma is consistency. It always comes out the same regardless of which developer I use: DD-X, Xtol or ID-11. So, don't shy away just because it's cheap. Honestly, my two ISO100 films are Kentmere and Foma, one for softer and sharper look, while the other is mood and contrast (great for flat light), and cost has nothing to do with my choice.
BTW you can save a bit buying Foma rebranded as Arista Edu Ultra on Freestyle.
Last edited:
Donald, are you speaking of this one?
https://www.freestylephoto.biz/420412-Foma-Fomapan-400-ISO-120-Size
No, the .EDU Ultra; this one: https://www.freestylephoto.biz/category/2-Film/Black-and-White-Film?mfg[]=211
The price difference is trivial, but I have to presume that Freestyle makes a few cents more margin on the rebrand despite selling it for a few cents less (they get/got a discount for buying in master-roll quantities), and buying that version supports both Internet and Brick & Mortar retailers (since Freestyle is both, and I have no local outlets other than Walmart/Target class for consumer 35mm color). Another brand in the same category would be Photo Warehouse Ultrafine Xtreme, which pretty much has to be either Foma or Kentmere (ten years ago I've have said it was probably Forte, like Freestyle's old Arista .EDU, but they've been gone for a while).
The only place I'll tend to avoid Foma films is for pinhole photography. The cubic grain 100 and 400 have some of the worst reciprocity departure characteristics in the market -- but I can afford to buy TMX, Delta 100, or Acros II for pinhole photography (even Tri-X, which winds up three to four stops faster than Foma 400 for typical pinhole exposures on a bright day), in part by buying Foma/.EDU Ultra for everything else B&W.
I tried to avoid (also) this thread to become Foma thread but .. cannot avoid it.
So: In europe one Foma 400 120-size roll costs 3,7 euros if bought in packs of 10. That is 4 dollars.
BTW: just made my order for more 120-films. 10pcs Foma100, 20pcs Foma400 and 10pcs of Tmax400. That should do it for a while. One more rant; before Kodak's price jump Ektar 100 was 6,5 euros, now it is 9 euros. Damn. 38% jump. Crazy.
So: In europe one Foma 400 120-size roll costs 3,7 euros if bought in packs of 10. That is 4 dollars.
BTW: just made my order for more 120-films. 10pcs Foma100, 20pcs Foma400 and 10pcs of Tmax400. That should do it for a while. One more rant; before Kodak's price jump Ektar 100 was 6,5 euros, now it is 9 euros. Damn. 38% jump. Crazy.
As I have said earlier, I have used Fomapan, abut for me the lot of 400 and some 200, and yes the wet emulsion is soft, but knowing that you can take precautions, but in 20 years or more I have yet to have any QC issues, no scratch's or any of the problems I have heard of, I have had scratch's, on both 35mm and 120, but I always tracked them down to my own fault, to the extent that, to my mind, a lot of the so called QC problems could easily be down to not handling the wet film properly, It does need carefully handling when wet, much more than Kodak/Ilford, but, for me, the results with this film is worth the extra effort,a very ''old fashioned'' film, and I am old enough to remember these old fashioned films and the results I used to get,
As far as I am aware, Foma *used* to have QC issues years ago. I've only been using their film for about 5 years. but I've had absolutely no problems. Sure, the films have their own character. You can say this about any film, a particular film might be better for portraits than another for example.
Fomapan 100 and 400 are traditional cubic grained films which haven't had as much R&D as films from Kodak and Ilford but they're still very good. Personally I do shoot at box speed, develop in ID-11 for the recommended times and I find they work fine. I've even pushed the 400 to 1600 in 120 format. I do find that the grain of the 400 doesn't lend itself to 35mm but I want to try some more. The last time I used it in 135, I found the indoor shots under poor lights were far better than outdoor shots in sunlight on the same roll. But I've shot a lot of Fomapan 400 in 120 and found it to be a lovely film. They're both a bit sensitive to red and yes, I agree they're not always great for portraits of caucasian people. Don't over-expose for portraits - which goes against a lot of advice offered by people who say the 400 is really 250ISO. Again, personally I shoot at box speed and have no problems.
Fomapan 200 is Foma's attempt at a more modern film, being some sort of a mixture between traditional cubic grain and tabular grain (T-grains). I actually really like this film in 135 and 120 though I do find highlights blow out if I am not careful with exposure. I really like it but don't make the mistake of thinking it's just a film sitting between Fomapan 100 and 400.
As for the blue tint from Fomapan 400....it does absolutely no harm to your chemicals and there is no need to be concerned by it.
Is Ilford FP4+ or HP5+ better? Or Delta/T-Max products? Define "better". In some circumstances, yes. HP5+ and the t-grain films push better. All are more forgiving for portraits of caucasian people than Foma 100 and 400. But you can certainly get beautiful results with all the Foma films. Fomapan 100 is my "go to" film for medium speed in 135 and Fomapan 400 is my "go to" high speed film for 120.
Fomapan 100 and 400 are traditional cubic grained films which haven't had as much R&D as films from Kodak and Ilford but they're still very good. Personally I do shoot at box speed, develop in ID-11 for the recommended times and I find they work fine. I've even pushed the 400 to 1600 in 120 format. I do find that the grain of the 400 doesn't lend itself to 35mm but I want to try some more. The last time I used it in 135, I found the indoor shots under poor lights were far better than outdoor shots in sunlight on the same roll. But I've shot a lot of Fomapan 400 in 120 and found it to be a lovely film. They're both a bit sensitive to red and yes, I agree they're not always great for portraits of caucasian people. Don't over-expose for portraits - which goes against a lot of advice offered by people who say the 400 is really 250ISO. Again, personally I shoot at box speed and have no problems.
Fomapan 200 is Foma's attempt at a more modern film, being some sort of a mixture between traditional cubic grain and tabular grain (T-grains). I actually really like this film in 135 and 120 though I do find highlights blow out if I am not careful with exposure. I really like it but don't make the mistake of thinking it's just a film sitting between Fomapan 100 and 400.
As for the blue tint from Fomapan 400....it does absolutely no harm to your chemicals and there is no need to be concerned by it.
Is Ilford FP4+ or HP5+ better? Or Delta/T-Max products? Define "better". In some circumstances, yes. HP5+ and the t-grain films push better. All are more forgiving for portraits of caucasian people than Foma 100 and 400. But you can certainly get beautiful results with all the Foma films. Fomapan 100 is my "go to" film for medium speed in 135 and Fomapan 400 is my "go to" high speed film for 120.
Adrian Bacon has some charasteristic curve tests done with scanner as densitometer including Foma films and all other classics: https://adrianbacon.com/simple-photography-services/simple-film-lab/films/
He also doesn't crush Foma films but suggest exposing at 200 - that is nothing new. Interesting was exposure tip for Tmax400 which he suggest always measuring shadows since the highlight repetition is so good.
But so far so good, the S.S. Self Doubt is sailing in far distance. I hear the fog horn but cannot see it and I'm not gazing that way, still.
He also doesn't crush Foma films but suggest exposing at 200 - that is nothing new. Interesting was exposure tip for Tmax400 which he suggest always measuring shadows since the highlight repetition is so good.
But so far so good, the S.S. Self Doubt is sailing in far distance. I hear the fog horn but cannot see it and I'm not gazing that way, still.
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.
Enjoy!
What's the old saying, the best film is what's in your camera?
I'm a total novice, but I've been pleased with how the "Arista EDU Ultra 400" (say that three times fast), which is apparently "Fomapan Action 400" has performed. Depending on which website you read, it's either a very good, low cost option that some people actually prefer, or it's the excrement of Satan's offspring. But that's OK, I'm using Ilfosol 3 to develop it, which is either an excellent developer for beginners, a good option for professionals, or not even suited for watering dead flowers. Again-- opinion seems to vary.
Opinions on the internet are like clocks-- if you want a good opinion, ask one person who agrees with you. If you want to be confused, ask more than one person (or clock).
I'm a total novice, but I've been pleased with how the "Arista EDU Ultra 400" (say that three times fast), which is apparently "Fomapan Action 400" has performed. Depending on which website you read, it's either a very good, low cost option that some people actually prefer, or it's the excrement of Satan's offspring. But that's OK, I'm using Ilfosol 3 to develop it, which is either an excellent developer for beginners, a good option for professionals, or not even suited for watering dead flowers. Again-- opinion seems to vary.
Opinions on the internet are like clocks-- if you want a good opinion, ask one person who agrees with you. If you want to be confused, ask more than one person (or clock).
I'll have to give it a try. Do you like it for portraiture?
Just to be clear, it is Foma, but Freestyle buys it in bulk and has it confectioned with their backing paper and packaging. Can't say I've done a bunch of portraits with it -- but the few I've done seem fine.
Canonet 28, .EDU Ultra 100 @ EI 400, Parodinal 1:50
Zeiss-Ikon Ideal 9x12 cm, Tessar 13.5cm f/4.5, .EDU Ultra 100 @ EI 160, Diafine
Last edited:
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.
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 tried Foma 100 perhaps 10 years ago in 120 and 8x10. The 8x10 had factory installed scratches, like it was dumped on the floor, picked up and put in the bag and box and shipped to me. The 120 curled and scratched easily but looked nice otherwise.
I suppose I could give it another try since I know a few people who do decent work with it. But likely I won't. You are wise to wonder if you will ever have the opportunity to make the photo again. The logistics of the opportunities cost more than the film in many cases.
Tmax 400 for a faster film and FP4+ for a slower film are all I need. I've had zero problems with Ilford and minimal problem with Kodak (got a few rolls a few years ago where the numbers on the backing paper made it into the film). So Kodak is 99.9% perfect for my experience. I'd completely trust Kodak/Ilford/Fuji. Use a finer grained developer like D76, Xtol, Pyrocat hd/hdc. These films do not curl. They do not scratch easily. Great dynamic range, especially the tmax 400.
If you want to save some money, don't buy inferior film...Drink water instead of soda or beer. Turn down the thermostat. Whatever makes sense.
I suppose I could give it another try since I know a few people who do decent work with it. But likely I won't. You are wise to wonder if you will ever have the opportunity to make the photo again. The logistics of the opportunities cost more than the film in many cases.
Tmax 400 for a faster film and FP4+ for a slower film are all I need. I've had zero problems with Ilford and minimal problem with Kodak (got a few rolls a few years ago where the numbers on the backing paper made it into the film). So Kodak is 99.9% perfect for my experience. I'd completely trust Kodak/Ilford/Fuji. Use a finer grained developer like D76, Xtol, Pyrocat hd/hdc. These films do not curl. They do not scratch easily. Great dynamic range, especially the tmax 400.
If you want to save some money, don't buy inferior film...Drink water instead of soda or beer. Turn down the thermostat. Whatever makes sense.
Ditto this. I have played around with ortho 80 and like it as well, this is all on 135 film in D76.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |