Foma and Forte: Why so cheap?

[Dave Krueger]

Anyone used Foma and Forte sheet film (or any of their films for that matter)? I've noticed that B&H sells them much cheaper than the Kodak and Ilford films I'm used to. How do they compare with TXP, TMX, TMY, FP4, HP5, Delta, etc? I've heard they use older high-silver emulsion formulas, but I don't know how important that is.

-Dave

 

[Fotohuis]

Well in middle Europe like the Czech Republic almost everything is much cheaper than in Western Europe and certainly the USA.
Try it and you know it. I do not think the amount of silver or the type of Foma film is much different than a regular FP4+ or HP5+ or maybe even closer to an APX100 or APX400 film.

About Forte I can only say they have much problems in their Q.C.

If you like Prague, shoot it on Foma film. Here is a 35mm example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotohuisrovo/190902189/

Best regards,

Robert

 

[df cardwell]

The 'older high-silver emulsion formulas' is BS Marketing Rubbish. Ignore it.

I've found the price difference between these films to be a fair indication of their quality compared to Kodak. No, that's not true. Compared to Foma, Forte, and all... Kodak's a bargain.

Robert, nice picture. But the thought of going back to Prague and having to shoot Foma instead of Kodak is like hoping I'll run into the Gestapo or KGB.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Anyone used Foma and Forte sheet film (or any of their films for that matter)? I've noticed that B&H sells them much cheaper than the Kodak and Ilford films I'm used to. How do they compare with TXP, TMX, TMY, FP4, HP5, Delta, etc? I've heard they use older high-silver emulsion formulas, but I don't know how important that is.

-Dave

Dear Dave,

Why are they cheaper?

Lower rents, lower taxes, lower salaries, less research and development...

These are for the most part less sharp than modern emulsions, and grainier. I do not necessarily see this as a drawback -- I am very fond of several of these films -- but those addicted to maximum sharpness and minimum grain will see a difference,

The 'high silver' thing is mostly a myth. What is more important is how you use the silver available. I have no figures for film but as far as I recall with papers, 1.6-1.8 gsm (grammes/square metre) is the standard, because it's what you need. There are papers at over 2 gsm with lower maximum densities than others with less silver, and with a printing-out paper you can get better densities with lower amounts of silver: even below 1.0 gsm.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com -- where there are quite a few Acupan 200/Fomapan 200 pictures next to the Ilford HP5 and XP2, and Kodak Tri-X, that my wife Frances Schultz and I normally use).

 

[Jordan]

It was the favourable reports (and examples) of images on Acupan 200 in Roger and Frances' books that got me to try Arista.EDU Ultra 200 (which is Fomapan 200). It's a nice film in 35mm and 120, though the huge amount of curl with the 120 material really bothers me for some reason.

 

[ZorkiKat]

...they also don't spend much for advertising and promotion like the biggies do.

 

[Dave Krueger]

How about Bergger, then? Same class as Foma/Forte?

I think I read somewhere that Bergger is actually made by Forte. In any case, Bergger is priced more like Kodak/Ilford.

 

[Fotohuis]

Robert, nice picture. But the thought of going back to Prague and having to shoot Foma instead of Kodak is like hoping I'll run into the Gestapo or KGB.

Thanks for your comment but do not worry I 'll be glad to show you one of the most beautiful cities of Europe. (Even with Kodak film in your camera )
About Gestapo or KGB: This is what happening if you are connected with them, a nice V2 on your roof.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotohuisrovo/189033600/

We are happy to have countries like the Czech Republic within the European Union also knowing that those prices will be low for a relative short time.

It's a nice film in 35mm and 120, though the huge amount of curl with the 120 material really bothers me for some reason.

In that case the film dries too fast, of course depending on a lot of circumstances. Talking about the 35mm and 120 roll film I can not say Foma film is curling much stronger than other regular films.

If you are searching for a film for easy scanning I would not recommend you the Foma films. In that case the choice is a film with a clear layer and a thicker polyester base with a non curling layer to keep it straight.

Best regards,

Robert

 

[Gerald Koch]

For films other than T-grain/delta here are some typical values for silver content.


ISO g/sq ft
------------------------
32 0.227
125 0.323
320 - 400 0.485
1250 0.821
------------------------
motion picture 0.653

 

[battra92]

Why is it cheaper? Well, as people said cheaper salaries, no R&D and just cheaper rent and all that stuff.

As far as Foma goes, get some ASAP! Fomapan 100 is my B&W film, partially because it is cheap and partially because it just works well. Souped in Rodinal it develops and prints great. Grain is nice and I have not experienced any of the QC issues some have had. I use the 120 and 135 versions with the Arista label sold at Freestyle. Very reasonably priced.

 

[Fotohuis]

no R&D

If you have never been at the Foma plant in Hradec Kralove this is a rather dangerous prejudice. Foma has some cooperation with Fuji. Also for the new Fomabrom Variant baryt paper you have to do some R&D.

About Q.C.: They improved a lot in 10 years time.

About advertizing and marketing: Well Foma is on the booth at the Photokina in Köln which we can not say anymore for Agfa Photo.

 

[Roger Hicks]

For films other than T-grain/delta here are some typical values for silver content.


ISO g/sq ft
------------------------
32 0.227
125 0.323
320 - 400 0.485
1250 0.821
------------------------
motion picture 0.653

Dear Gerald,

Thanks very much. I recalled that they were significantly higher but these actual numbers (rather than vague recollections) are extremely interesting: I had not realized the magnitude of the differences with ISO.

I assume that's grammes per square foot? A fine mix of Imperial and metric!

Cheers,

Roger

 

[battra92]

If you have never been at the Foma plant in Hradec Kralove this is a rather dangerous prejudice. Foma has some cooperation with Fuji. Also for the new Fomabrom Variant baryt paper you have to do some R&D.

I stand corrected. I thought I had heard that they were just going to release the current products and no new ones. I must have been confused with another company.

 

[srs5694]

Getting back to the question of how Foma and Forte films compare to Kodak and Ilford films, IMHO the best answer is to just try a few rolls (or sheets). This thread shows pretty much the whole range of answers, from "it's garbage" to "it's wonderful stuff;" clearly there's a lot of subjective judgment involved and/or some people have run into QC problems but others haven't.

My own personal experience is almost exclusively with Foma film (I've shot just one roll of Forte 100 so far) in 35mm. Foma films have crisper grain than most others, and there's something subtle about the grain pattern that I like. It's not the finest-grained film out there, but in the 400 speed, my subjective judgment is that it's not any coarser-grained than HP5+ or Tri-X. The 100 speed film does seem to be a bit coarser-grained than FP4+ or Plus-X, though. The 35mm films have poor anti-halation characteristics, but I've heard that's not true of the larger formats.

 

[PhotoJim]

For films other than T-grain/delta here are some typical values for silver content.


ISO g/sq ft

Grams per square feet? Why not ounces per square metre?

 

[don sigl]

The foma and forte films are considerably grainier to the Ilford counterparts. I would love to save a few bucks and use these films, but they just don't meet my standards when it comes to resolution compared to HP5 or FP4. The Arista products are in the same category as the foma and forte. Good for educational purposes, not very useful to me for anything else.

Of course, this is only my opinion, but I've done the comparison tests, and I see more grain, less sharpness/resolution, and less tonality.

I use PMK and Pyrocat for development.

 

[dustym]

Foma 100 5x4 at EI of 80 developed in pyro is a truly lovely film, smooth grain and and superb tonal range .
120 ans 35 I use classic pan developed in pyro another great film without the hype.

dustym

 

[fschifano]

You know, I've used a fair bit of Foma and Forte films in medium format and in 4x5. In those sizes it's not bad and keeps the cost of shooting in these larger formats reasonable. In fact, it is quite good if you keep to modest enlargement ratios. Considering that a mere 4x enlargement from a 4x5 will net you a 16x20 print, that's not too shabby. I've never used either in 35mm so I can't comment on what either of these brands will look like when enlarged to 10x or greater.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've been very happy with Foma 100, in 120, 9x12 cm and 4x5 formats, recut to 127 and 828, and in very limited trial to date in 35 mm as well. I'm less happy with Foma 400, but I've only processed a couple rolls so far; the base is a deep enough blue that it doesn't seem to like brown-staining developers like Caffenol (the brown stain over the blue base gives a very high fog level), but I haven't yet tried it in Parodinal or HC-110, my other regular soups. I've used a fair amount of Forte 400 (under various rebrands), in 120 and 4x5, and I'm pretty happy with that, too; it's not noticeably grainier than Tri-X in the developers I've tried, nor is it slower, but it's a lot less expensive.

I've have to disagree with those who feel Foma and Forte are grossly grainier than Kodak or Ilford products -- at the same magnification, I don't find Forte 400 significantly grainier than Tri-X in the same developer. Even better, Forte 400 likes Parodinal, which means it's also uber-cheap to process...

 

[Petzi]

Grams per square feet? Why not ounces per square metre?

Because of the metric system?

 

[rjas]

Some people get amazing results with these films, but I've had bad experiences. Sometimes it's fogged film because of cheesy paper backings or loose canisters, pinholes even when using a water bath instead of a stop bath, film loaded in dodgy bulk cassettes that seem to be dust magnets....etc. Maybe if I have more of an inkling to experiment I'll give them a try but I just stick to Ilford and Kodak films because I know that my films not gonna be fogged the second I take it out of the foil wrapper.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Look at a per capita GNP chart, and that should tell you a good bit of the story.

 

[stefka]

...they also don't spend much for advertising and promotion like the biggies do.

Where´s that expensive promotion and advertising for B+W ?
I´m desperately seeking some good ad that promotes classic film and paper. It would cheer up the community and stop people thinking they´re stuck in a dead end ...

 

[dancqu]

Where´s that expensive promotion and advertising for B+W ?

Too many buying on the cheap. What's left to promote the
silver gelatin segment of lens image capture? I'd have paid
$3.09 for a roll of Agfa film but they would only charge
$2.09. I think they put themselves out of business
catering to the tight wads of the world.

I did bock when Kodak went to $7.50 for Tech. Pan. Dan

 

[Dave Krueger]

Well, it looks like...

...they have some problems with leakage around the paper backing on their roll films and leaky cassettes with 35mm. The roll film problem would be trouble for me, but I roll my own 35mm and am more interested in their sheet film anyway.

As for the grain, that would be a concern. I don't like grain and don't like using film that I know to be inferior just to save money. If and when I ever take one of those really great pictures, I would prefer it to be on materials at the high end of the quality spectrum.

Having said that, I gather there are users who believe that Forte and Foma compare well with name brands. I suspect the only way I'll know for sure is to try it.

The economics of the countries where it's manufactured is certainly a factor in the low cost, but price is also market driven. Of course, when you buy Kodak and Ilford, you're buying a name which allows them to charge more. In any case, if the film were as good as the name brands, I would expect the price to be a little better than I'm seeing.

Thanks for all the discussion and info. I expect I will be trying is soon.

-Dave