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

[jodad]

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!

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

 

[Nokton48]

I have both, and shoot both in 35mm. Both have good purposes, I buy my 400 foot rolls from NYC Kodak Cinema. It has become pricier, when I started out with XX, you could buy "short ends" from Hollywood 35mm motion picture cameras for 20 cents a foot. Unfortunately those days are over! XX is a niche film, I have six cans in the freezer. I have found that XX can be developed in whatever you have around, I kinds like Replenished Legacy Mic-X from Freestyle, it's cheap and works good in gallon size, last jug lasted three years LOL. Also it gets better as the developer "seasons" over time. Right now using D23 replenished, very similar results and only two chemicals. Add Sodium Carbonate and you have Replenisher D23. Right now I'm shooting 120 XX in my Plaubel Makinas and Minoltaflex cameras, like it a lot in 120. They had to buy a master roll from Kodak to pull this off, Applause goes to the distributor.

I want to experiment in pushing FOMA 200 as far as possible. 800 would be nice, would also take actual 400 speed. We will see. Remember Guys, this is motion picture film, so it can have a white speck here or there, makes no difference at 24 FPS. LOL. I've never had any white specks, actually, with XX.

 

[Saganich]

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.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

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.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

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!

I'd stay with Foma

 

[Nokton48]

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.

Easton Stilt Girl 21mm Rokkor QH XX 3 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Taken on a "short end" from a Hollywood movie camera. Left over scrap film bought cheaply. Replenished straight Legacy Mic-X, several years olde, this stuff does not seem to go bad! 5x7 Arista RC #2 Multigrade print developer. Minolta SRT locked up mirror, 21mm F4 QH Rokkor Minolta Yellow Green Filter, and 20mm MD F2.8 Lens Hood. A nice rig that replaced my 19mm RF Canon lens adapted to SRT mount. This is a great lens with XX

A bit of Reportage, I yelled "One Two Three" and we coordinated. Was fun to do.

 

[loccdor]

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.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Add Sodium Carbonate and you have Replenisher D23.

Ummm. The DK-25R formula calls for sodium metaborate (though you can make this in situ with borax and sodium hydroxide).

 

[Rayt]

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.

 

[jodad]

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.

Thanks. I shoot HP5 when I need guaranteed results. But in bulk HP5 is more than double the price of Foma…

 

[MattKing]

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

 

[jodad]

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

No not important to me

 

[jodad]

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.

I just bought some Exactol lux and an alkaline fixer. Think the double x would work with that?

How about the foma 100?

 

[jodad]

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.

I assumed it had a less grainy appearance than foma but I have been reading a lot saying the opposite…


I could use both but I much prefer the simplicity of just having one film to work with 90% of the time.

I’d buy the 400 roll (if I do get double x) from a seller who supplies film
Production so should be ok I’d imagine. Do the cans have exp dates like “regular” film?

 

[jodad]

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.

Thanks for the easy loading tip. That might just do it…

Is that what you mean you learnt from Mr Rapidwinder?

I wish I could find some short ends. Can’t find those in the UK…

 

[Don_ih]

Do frame numbers matter to you.?

Do they matter to anyone?

 

[jodad]

I'd stay with Foma

Thank you. Why though, Mr Serrao?

 

[MattKing]

Do they matter to anyone?

They do to me.
Perhaps a holdover from my days making prints for others based on proofs or contact sheets.

 

[jodad]

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.

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.

 

[MattKing]

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.

For flash, the slightly lower inherent contrast of movie stock may be advantageous for you.

 

[jodad]

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.

This lower light point I didn’t know. So I shouldn’t shoot it mid day? Or if I have to, how should I?

 

[jodad]

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.

And Mr Howell is another +1 that foma 100 might have finer grain than double x (albeit with a caveat of limited experience)

 

[jodad]

And BTW thank you all thus far for your thoughts and opinions

 

[Paul Howell]

As a movie film Kodak has not published much in way of data, not sure how it resolves, what the characteristic curves are various developer as Kodak recommends D96 in a film film processor, or grain size. The data sheet, as it is, was updated in 2022, but I think the film is a very old emulsion. Is it the same or related to old super double X for still?

https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/DOUBLEX-Technical-Data-EN.pdf