CatLabs X80 is Fomapan. Buy either - it’s the same product.
Vaughn,Primarily FP4+ if I am buying new. But mostly in larger formats for alt printing.
Ian,Another Delta 100 & HP5 user here for 5x4, Delta 100 & 400 for medium. HP5 is mainly for hand held work with a Super or Speed Graphic.
I also shoot Fomapan 200 in all formats up to 10x8.
Ian
I also use FP4+ in 120...but still with contact printing in mind. I like its flexibility and Ilford's quality control and dependability.Vaughn,
Would you still buy it new for regular monochrome printing or would you shoot something besides FP4+. I'm just curious.
Like Tri-X 400 for example: it has a "long toe".
I understand "deep blacks" as meaning good separation into the darkest tones.
Foma 200 sheet film is one of the reasons I started this thread. I wanted to know how others felt about Foma 200 in 4X5. Is it similar to FP 4+ in rendering very good tonal qualities and sharpness? How about QC flaws? Just wanted to get a general rundown of Foma 200.
Relating to this it may emerge its higher sensitivity to mechanical strain mainly during movement of the rollfilm throughout some middleformat cameras.
A few years ago when I started making salt prints (and later, Kallitypes) I was adamant that I remove all computer/printer technology from my workflow (no digital negatives for me, thank you very much), which meant making in-camera negatives for alt processes. I discovered Ellie Young's document on Salt Printing which gave detailed instructions for producing in-camera negs precisely for this purpose. In it, Young demonstrates FP4's superior ability to be manipulated to work optimally for Salt and other "alt" processes, using PMK as the developer.I also use FP4+ in 120...but still with contact printing in mind. I like its flexibility and Ilford's quality control and dependability.
FP4+ seems to build up greater highlights than HP5+ is capable of...which may not be as big of an issue with silver gelatin printing...some alt processes need the extra density range FP4+ can nicely expand to.
Ahhh - Portriga Rapid. What a magnificent paper that was. Vaughn, have you looked at Fomatone MG Classic? It has some similar qualities to Portriga Rapid, at least color-wise. Behaves differently, but it can look a lot like the old Agfa paper.I am so out of touch with silver gelatin printing. The long-ago loss of Agfa's Portriga Rapid turned me to the alternative side.
Yeah, that story keeps being pushed, especially by Foma themselves. In reality, for the most part what plagues the 120 format is emulsion defects that have nothing to do with the camera.
I am using either PyrocatHD or Ilford's Universal PQ Developer....In it, Young demonstrates FP4's superior ability to be manipulated to work optimally for Salt and other "alt" processes, using PMK as the developer.
...
Ahhh - Portriga Rapid. What a magnificent paper that was. Vaughn, have you looked at Fomatone MG Classic? It has some similar qualities to Portriga Rapid, at least color-wise. Behaves differently, but it can look a lot like the old Agfa paper.
That's pointed out in another thread on this forum as another reason to choose Ilford over other certain brands. I just went through that problem trying to scan Foma 100, what a bitch! If I had my Nikon LS8000 scanner fixed I could use my glass holder/carrier, but I don't. My Epson flatbed carrier just doesn't cut it with curly film. It's still hard to load curly film in a double sided Nikon glass holder and get it aligned straight. Yes, I tried to get it flat by keeping it in a heavy book with 30lbs of lead weight on top. it help some, but it was still bowed when I took it out. The flatter the better for both scanning and enlarging.I must be lucky, the only reason I don't use (although I just a few rolls of Foma 100 as rebranded Catlabs. ) 120 is I don't like the curl. At point it was the curl and the blue base. Printed ok but I could easily judge the contrast. I guess its just a matter of time before I have issues.
Paul, I can get by just fine with HP5+ and I suppose if I really had to I could get by with Foma 400 too.I guess the closest to Delta 400 would be of course be Tmax 400, but $56.00 for 10 sheets is out of price range. If I have troubles with Foma 400 and 100 I think I will go with HP4 or 5.
I too wanted to use Delta 400 in sheet film. On a visit to Mobberly in 2007 I asked Simon Galley whether they would make it, and his response was a firm "no". I have a hazy memory that they did, in fact, attempt to make it but there was a problem with adhesion between the emulsion and the base. For landscape work in MF, it's my no 1 choice.UPDATE!
Just got a reply from HarmanTech to my question about the possibility of Delta 400 in sheet film size. My question to them was specifically about Delta 400 and no other film.
That's a new one. I had never heard or at least don't remember an emulsion adhesion problem being an excuse for no Delta 400 sheet films. I suppose it's possible. Truth is, only they know why and we can only speculate.I too wanted to use Delta 400 in sheet film. On a visit to Mobberly in 2007 I asked Simon Galley whether they would make it, and his response was a firm "no". I have a hazy memory that they did, in fact, attempt to make it but there was a problem with adhesion between the emulsion and the base. For landscape work in MF, it's my no 1 choice.
That's a new one. I had never heard or at least don't remember an emulsion adhesion problem being an excuse for no Delta 400 sheet films. I suppose it's possible. Truth is, only they know why and we can only speculate.
For 4x5 I've been using Foma/EDU 100. I've shot a few hundred sheets of it in 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10, also many rolls of 120. I tend to standardize on one film and get to know it as well as possible. I've shot a couple of hundred sheets of 5x7 Foma 200, I have yet to find it's sweet spot for what I like. Lately I've been shooting Rollei IR 400 in 120 and 4x5, I think I may settle in on it for a while. I honestly wish it were available in 8x10.
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?