Foma 400 is now my go to film

[abruzzi]

b) Foma 400 has WWII levels of grain, and is manufactured by a bunch of domesticated raccoons who pour emulsion on the gelatine in exchange for a sugar cube

c'mon, racoons wouldn't be ideal. Moles would be preferable--they're already used to working in the dark.

 

[foc]

Have used 35mm Foma in 100 and 400 and never had any problems. I like both and have shot them always at box speed and used different developers.


Foma 400 in Ilfosol3 1+14 for 12 mins 20C


Foma 400 in Promicrol for 13 mins 20C


Foma 100 in D76 1+1 for 10 mins 20C

 

[pentaxuser]

c'mon, racoons wouldn't be ideal. Moles would be preferable--they're already used to working in the dark.

Yes I am sure you have responded in the vein that albireo meant you to. Not his fault if others fail to recognise this and fail to provide good repartee.

pentaxuser

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

I don't think the recommendation to shoot at higher than box speed is a dig at the films. I always shoot Tri-X at 250 rather than box speed.

I have tried Lomo Lady Grey 400 (which I understand is repackaged Foma 400; it says made in Czech Republic and I'm pretty sure there is only one film factory there) at 250 and thought it was comparable to Tri-X. Maybe a bit grainier but nothing to get worked up about. Currently shooting my first roll of Arista 200 (which is also labeled made in Czech Republic so likely Foma 200) at 125. Will evaluate after I get that roll developed and adjust metering accordingly.

 

[markjwyatt]

c'mon, racoons wouldn't be ideal. Moles would be preferable--they're already used to working in the dark.

Yes, but during Covid at least, raccoons already have a mask (wrong location, but who's checking?).

 

[relistan]

I don't think the recommendation to shoot at higher than box speed is a dig at the films. I always shoot Tri-X at 250 rather than box speed.

Shooting Fomapan 400 at lower than box speed at EI 200-250 is exactly what is shown in Foma’s own data sheet depending on the developer. So definitely not a dig, just facts.

 

[Paul Howell]

Microphen and Foma LQN get close at around 320, I shoot at 320 for Clayton F76+ while D76 and Xtol are at 250, many post that they shoot at 200. Foma 200 shoot at box speed while 100 shoots close to 125, not much of a increase but still there.

 

[darkosaric]

Question; which of the Foma films is the "best" (i.e. given different speeds and all, but if I am to shoot box speed and light is adequate, which is worth trying first)?

Subjects to be people.

my voice goes to Fomapan 100

 

[grat]

So, with the disclaimer that I shoot Arista EDU Ultra 400 (4x5), which might be Foma Action 400, I've found that shooting at EI 200 is a bit risky when developing with Ilfosol 3-- Apparently Ilfosol 3 is a bit aggressive with highlights.

 

[bluechromis]

Careful! The Antifoma brigade will be along shortly to let you know you that

a) you're wrong
b) Foma 400 has WWII levels of grain, and is manufactured by a bunch of domesticated raccoons who pour emulsion on the gelatine in exchange for a sugar cube
c) you need to expose Foma 400 at 50, Foma 200 at 7 and Foma 100 at -1 EI, otherwise an X-rite densitometer, somewhere, will cry in agony.
d) Foma is probably produced by non-baptised communists the other side of the Eastern Block, so it's EVIL stuff - use TriX

Ha, ha.

 

[albireo]

Shooting Fomapan 400 at lower than box speed at EI 200-250 is exactly what is shown in Foma’s own data sheet depending on the developer. So definitely not a dig, just facts.

I think the problem is that this concept of 'shooting a film at X speed' is a hazy one at best - an over-simplification that does no one, and especially the newbies who are coming to this website for advice, any favours.

What exactly does one mean by 'shooting at x speed'? I'd suggest this is heavily dependent on how you expose, and that the variance coming from the measurement error in exposure will greatly overshadow, in most cases, the variance coming from 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop in planned EI. Here are some of the factors I can think of - there will be many more no doubt.

• how exactly do you expose? Do you guess, do you sunny 16, do you use an in-camera meter, do you use an external meter or a phone app?
• Is there any calibration error in the instrument used?
• Which method are you using? If you use an external meter, is it an incident, spot, reflective? If you use an in-camera meter, are you using spot, centre-weighted or a variant of the so-called matrix/zone metering?
• If incident or spot, how do you measure? Do you, say, look for the most interesting shadows you still want detail in, take a measurement, and replace the measurement to let those shadows fall in zone III? Or something else entirely?
• If in-camera exposure is used, and say centre-weighted is used, do you carefully place the centre 70% area on the main subject, meter, then compensate, or do you let luck take care of it? Or something else entirely?
• Camera and shutter: many of us use 50+ years old cameras with old mechanical shutters. Are you sure your shutter speeds are correct, and can you guarantee they'll be reliable, within an interval of plus minus a stop?
• Planned usage of the negative: do you plan on using the negative for wet-lab enlargement via condenser head or other head? Do you plan on scanning and stay in the digital domain? Do you plan on inverting and projecting? Film photography is no more what it was 40 years ago. Different people do different things with that negative. For instance, in my experience, the negative needed for an optimal scan and the negative needed for an optimal wet-lab print via condenser head will be _vastly_ different. No, you cannot cheat with photoshop. A poor negative will look poor even when scanned, to a trained eye. A negative optimised for wet lab printing will not always be optimal for scanning in my experience.

And so on and so forth. So honestly I find all this obsession with simplifying everything to the magical 'EI' number a bit silly. Given all the above sources of variance, whether I state that I shoot Foma 400 at 320 EI or 250EI or 200EI makes absolutely no sense to me. Apologies, just my opinion based on personal experience.

 

[bluechromis]

I sometimes like the glow or aura in the highlights you can get with Foma, presumably due to a less efficient anti-halation layer. I see it most with Fomapan 400 in 35 mm.

 

[relistan]

And so on and so forth. So honestly I find all this obsession with simplifying everything to the magical 'EI' number a bit silly. Given all the above sources of variance, whether I state that I shoot Foma 400 at 320 EI or 250EI or 200EI makes absolutely no sense. Apologies, just my opinion based on personal experience.

Describe it however you like, but Foma rate their film at 200-250 in the most common developers. That's different from the other 400 speed films from e.g. Ilford and Kodak. Again, I am not knocking the film but if you tell people "go shoot this at 400" and they are used to shooting another 400 speed film at that same speed with all the same camera settings and light readings they will see a loss of shadow detail on the Fomapan 400 vs the other film. I would have liked to have known that way back in the day when I shot the first roll of it. Some folks may like that look, but it's not the native speed of the film.

See https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-400 on Page 2

.

 

[relistan]

I sometimes like the glow or aura in the highlights you can get with Foma, presumably due to a less efficient anti-halation layer. I see it most with Fomapan 400 in 35 mm.

Yes, this can be pretty cool for night shots IMO

 

[Wayne]

well this stayed about Foma 400 for a few posts

 

[albireo]

Describe it however you like, but Foma rate their film at 200-250 in the most common developers. That's different from the other 400 speed films from e.g. Ilford and Kodak. Again, I am not knocking the film but if you tell people "go shoot this at 400" and they are used to shooting another 400 speed film at that same speed with all the same camera settings and light readings they will see a loss of shadow detail on the Fomapan 400 vs the other film. I would have liked to have known that way back in the day when I shot the first roll of it. Some folks may like that look, but it's not the native speed of the film.

See https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-400 on Page 2

.

Take a look at the bottom left plot in the spreadsheet you linked. See the curve for Fomadon LQN? That's one of the recommended developers and I'd be prepared to bet, not the the developer your 'generic 400iso film' shooter will use when trying out Foma 400. Foma's recommended ISO rating follows the old Agfa convention of using an alpha (contrast index) of ~.7 instead of .5.2-.6 (which is what traditionally Kodak & C recommended for condenser heads). A gamma of .7 is perfectly manageable by modern scanners and most projectors btw. Anyhow, when you intersect the gamma curve at .7 with the ISO curve you get to 320EI. This is extremely close to the advertised 400 and in real life the 1/3 stop will not be the cause of your blocked blacks: something else in the chain will.

 

[Auer]

I kinda like Foma Retropan 320 as well, I develop mine in HC110 with good results.



Multiply by Eric Auer, on Flickr

 

[relistan]

Take a look at the bottom left plot in the spreadsheet you linked. See the curve for Fomadon LQN? That's one of the recommended developers and I'd be prepared to bet, not the the developer your 'generic 400iso film' shooter will use when trying out Foma 400. Foma's recommended ISO rating follows the old Agfa convention of using an alpha (contrast index) of ~.7 instead of .5-.6 (which is what traditionally Kodak & C recommended for condenser heads). A gamma of .7 is perfectly manageable by modern scanners and most projectors btw. Anyhow, when you intersect the gamma curve at .7 with the ISO curve you get to 320EI. This is extremely close to the advertised 400 and in real life the 1/3 stop will not be the cause of your blocked blacks: something else in the chain will.

Where in my phrase "the most common developers" does referencing Fomadon LQN make sense? It does not. Basically no one is using that developer for this film when they try it out. I think you are just arguing to argue. If you shoot this film with the same parameters you would use for another 400 speed film from Kodak or Ilford, you will not get the same speed from e.g. D-76 or XTOL. Even at your gamma of 0.7. But you do yours, and enjoy!

 

[relistan]

I kinda like Foma Retropan 320 as well, I develop mine in HC110 with good results.



Multiply by Eric Auer, on Flickr

This looks good!

 

[grat]

Based on the varying opinions of what Foma 400 is, isn't, can and can't do, what it's supposed to be exposed at, and then the comments of Foma themselves...

I'm starting to think this film is just a collective hallucination. And I've got some pictures I rather like taken on it.

From the data sheet:

FOMAPAN 400 Action has a nominal speed rating of ISO 400/27o , but due to its wide exposure latitude the film gives good results even when overexposed by 1 EV (exposure value) (as ISO 200/24 o ) or underexposed by 2 EV (as ISO 1600/33o ) without any change in processing, i.e. without lengthening the development time or increasing the temperature of the developer used.

Anyone tried EI 1600 with normal development?

 

[Lachlan Young]

From what I've used of Fomapan 400, it seems a lot like it's trying to squeeze the last drops out of a single layer film construction (though with monodisperse-ish blended emulsions I guess) - the two things I noticed were that it seems rather susceptible to internal halation (from emulsion turbidity?) on contrast edges if even slightly over-exposed & you can hit the highlight roll-off fast if you exceed a 7 stop brightness range while exposing 'correctly' for a given developer at a nominal 0.6-ish CI/ G-bar etc.

I think I'd tend to characterise the character of Foma 100/400 as having some degree of commonality with films of the era of FP4/ HP4 (late 1960s) in terms of granularity/ colour sensitivity habits, but possibly more like slightly older emulsions than those in terms of the tendency to not produce particularly strong/ enhanced MTF performance.

Generally I've found the QC to be fine - the main thing I'd point out is that they aren't as heavily hardened as the very highly hardened current Ilford/ Kodak/ Fuji etc emulsions are.

 

[Paul Howell]

I normally use T4 for film, with Foma a standard fixer with hardener, could use a harding bath before fix as well. I've tired to push Foma 400, my thoughts are if it not a true 400 then how do get any shadow without a push in time?

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Nice images. I have come to really like FOMA/Arista EDU films. I shoot their 200 at box speed in XTOL straight (original form) rotary in my JOBO. I add a 5 minute presoak and develop for 6 minutes.

Yeah, that's my combo too and it sure is great. I was very surprised that I get the images I get, exposed and processed in the same way you do.

 

[Auer]

Based on the varying opinions of what Foma 400 is, isn't, can and can't do, what it's supposed to be exposed at, and then the comments of Foma themselves...

I'm starting to think this film is just a collective hallucination. And I've got some pictures I rather like taken on it.

From the data sheet:



Anyone tried EI 1600 with normal development?

You mean like actually go outside and take pictures and then develop them????

 

[grat]

You mean like actually go outside and take pictures and then develop them????

It happens occasionally. Not nearly as often as I'd like, though. *sigh*