Foma 100 vs Double X. Almost same price. What's your opinion please?

jodad said:

Perhaps a difficult one to answer but I’ll post the question. Would love your opinions and suggestions.


I shoot HP5 when I’m shooting something serious.

I want a 35mm B&W anything everything film that I can shoot as cheaply as possible and not worry about “wasting” film. I shoot my friends and family with this and quite carefree about shooting.

At the moment, for this purpose, I’ve gone through 4 bulk rolls of Fomapan 100. Indoors I use bounce flash. Outdoors I use full if needed or natural light alone.

I can get bulk fomapan 100 at a price that works out to 2.70 per roll.

The other affordable bulk film I can get at decent price is Kodak Double X at a price that works out to 3.54 per roll.

My questions are this:

Is double X better enough (in terms of grain, latitude, etc/overall and generally) to justify the price increase and dealing with 400ft bulk rolls (over easy 100ft rolls).

Would you switch to XX over Foma 100?

I know one is ~160-200iso and the other ~80iso. Yes, would be nice to have a little more speed but I have no issues this far with Foma 100’s speed. So that’s only a tiny consideration.

Happy to hear your thoughts widely on the topic!

Click to expand...

Nokton48 said:

Add Sodium Carbonate and you have Replenisher D23.

Click to expand...

Rayt said:

I get good results with Fomapan 100 shot at 50 developed in Rodinal. But I would rather shoot XX because I can shoot it at 400 with a number of developers or @200 with Rodinal. The thing is with XX is you don’t know how old it is unless you buy the can and spool it yourself. And there are superior film such as fresh HP5+ that are not expensive if you bulk.

Click to expand...

MattKing said:

Do frame numbers matter to you.? XX doesn't have them, although there are probably keycodes. I don't know whether Foma 100

Click to expand...

Rayt said:

I get good results with Fomapan 100 shot at 50 developed in Rodinal. But I would rather shoot XX because I can shoot it at 400 with a number of developers or @200 with Rodinal. The thing is with XX is you don’t know how old it is unless you buy the can and spool it yourself. And there are superior film such as fresh HP5+ that are not expensive if you bulk.

Click to expand...

loccdor said:

XX is a much more versatile film than the Foma. It can be pushed and pulled a lot. It has comparatively less grain for its speed than the Foma. I like the tonality of both but probably prefer XX.

Foma films tend to not handle overexposure very well. They have more manufacturing defects than Kodak. The resolution isn't quite as good, but that's something it will take a lot of enlargement to notice.

Films are like different paintbrushes in an artist's kit. They give a different feeling/result. Why not use some of both?

Just make sure you get it from somewhere reputable, there is some fogged XX on the 3rd party market out there coming from cine use, I was sold some of it, I still like using it but it gives a much "spookier" grainy effect than the fresh version.

Click to expand...

Nokton48 said:

With XX I pull off a arm's length piece, cut it and roll it up, in a Kodak Snap Cap, or metal recycled film can. Masking tape cut into proper length strips on table in front of me. Scissors go in back pocket so I can keep track of them in the dark. Easy Peasy right off the 400 foot core. AND NO BULK LOADER NEEDED, and no scratching the film inside the bulk loader.

I learned this XX trick from Tom Abrahamsson.

Click to expand...

MattKing said:

Do frame numbers matter to you.?

Click to expand...

Alessandro Serrao said:

I'd stay with Foma

Click to expand...

Don_ih said:

Do they matter to anyone?

Click to expand...

Nicholas Lindan said:

If it were my choice to make I would pick the XX. Spooling a 400' roll is a PITA and I don't think you can get 100' rolls; there may be some folks who re-spool and will make you a 100 footer. (When 100' rolls of movie film were available they came on a different core, one made for movie cameras, and would not fit a standard bulk loader (could be wrong - working from memory here, not something to put a lot of trust in).)

If you are buying XX loaded into cassettes this is all a non-issue.

Some have good luck with Foma. I can't say I am one of the some. My experience with Foma has been pretty dismal: curling, scratches, mottling and specks - the situation may have improved over the years. It is a single emulsion film and is pretty unpushable, if that's your thing.

Click to expand...

jodad said:

This is the thing: I don’t really push film any more because I use flash. I have an SB900 or whatever the big Nikon flash is. It’s strong enough for indoor and outdoor since I only shoot family and friends and those distances are relatively short. I don’t shoot landscapes or experimental/arty pictures on film - that I shoot on digital.

Click to expand...

Saganich said:

Accouterments for dealing with 400' bulk rolls should be researched before making this decision. If you spend a year shooting XX you will find it is grittier and contrasty but holds highlights and shadows well. I went for XX as a TriX alternative. Currently getting $4.00 per roll compared to $9.00 for TriX. Not yet missing the triX. Edit: Also XX likes lower light as opposed to full sunlight...think movie set lighting.

Click to expand...

Paul Howell said:

I've not shot a lot of double X, but in my limited experience Foma 100 has finer grain, double X has more latitude, and can shot closer to box speed than Foma. All in all if price is the consideration I would to with Foma. If you need more speed than Foma 100 then Foma 200 which can be shot at 160 or so. For a true 400 speed film at a better price point than HP5 then Kentmere 400.

Click to expand...