Foma Fomapan "Creative" 200 -- a first try

DREW WILEY · Jul 22, 2015

Quality-control wise, it's way behind Kodak, Fuji, or Ilford. The tonality is unique; so I understand the appeal of this film. But shooting it in large format was risky, though some of the flaws probably wouldn't show up on a contact print. The most common problem was very fine long linear scratches parallel to the long side, about half an inch in. That makes me suspect it was related to how the transport transpired during either cutting or packaging. That's not the kind of pattern than might accidentally happen during processing. This would not likely show up on small film. But it's also a lot easier to snap a spare shot with 35mm than 8x10. This film has actually been around quite awhile, clear back when some Super-XX was still around in sheets, along with Bergger 200. You could even tell from the cut edges that Foma was using a lower quality method. I'd be happy to try the film again if serious 8x10 users gave it a bill of health. That's an expensive ballgame,
and I don't want any unwanted surprises again!

Xmas · Jul 22, 2015

37th Exposure said:
Recently I was about to order some more Arista Edu Ultra 100. It's $3.41 for a 36 exp. roll. At B&H Kentmere 100 36 exposure is only $2.95. Since this film is just for fun shooting I got the Kentmere to try. And I know the quality is beyond reproach since it is an Ilford product. If I really don't like it I'll pay the extra 46 cents a roll next time. But for once in a lifetime shots I'll just splurge and get Ilford or Kodak even if the "look" isn't always what I get from Fomapan. I'm hoping someday to be able to trust Foma film just as much.

The QC issues with Fomapan were the same as others have reported. Flecks in the emulsion. I also had one roll with complete fog mid roll, just the middle. It could be my fault. But the other rolls in the tank, from the same camera, all loaded in the same darkroom all at once we're just fine. Nor have I ever had subsequent problems with that tank set or camera or any fog whatsoever. The camera is bottom load so the whole first half of the roll would have shown fog on one edge if the bottom fell off without my knowing! (One entire side of the take up would be exposed to light rather than protected over by other layers of film as on a back loading camera so I don't think it's because I unlocked the bottom mid roll, and if it did unlock it should just fall off and I hope I would notice that!)

If the Kentmere is cheaper I'd use it.
But I've not had issues with Foma and it is cheaper here.

karl · Jul 22, 2015

I shot a box of in 8x10 last year. It's a lovely film. I had none of the quality control issues Drew mentions. I rated it at 100 and processed in Rodinal 1+25.

Paul Howell · Jul 22, 2015

Xmas said:
If the Kentmere is cheaper I'd use it.
But I've not had issues with Foma and it is cheaper here.

I would stick with Foma, it has great latitude, nice gain, works well in a number of developers.

NB23 · Jul 22, 2015

Foma is a name with a mix of "mama" and "foam". What's not to like?

Xmas · Jul 23, 2015

NB23 said:
When I have time.

NB23 may have post street shots on RFF?

But Kodak says derate two stops in contrasty light. Which I do do when taking average reflected or incident readings.

Wet printing is more difficult with zone1 information in toe.

DREW WILEY · Jul 23, 2015

Thanks for chiming in, Karl. I'll keep my ears open. But when I buy TMax or FP4, it's very predictable batch after batch, year after year.
As far as tonality goes, I could work Foma 200 clear down to Zone 0 with clean shadow detail separation, and hold relatively extreme highlights at the same time. That would be impossible simply by reducing development in ordinary film, which basically scrunches the cumulative contrast along with shadows and highlights themselves. Super-XX was famous for the ability to resolve long scales.

MrBrowning · Aug 13, 2015

Harry Lime said:
Has anyone developed Foma 200 in Barry Thornton's 2-bath?
thx

MrBrowning said:
I have and I've had very good results with it. I would offer to scan some but my scanner stopped working about a month ago. Give me a couple of days and I'll see if I can find someone to scan them for me.

Harry Lime Sorry it took so long to get these uploaded (honestly I forgot all about it) here are 3 shots I took while walking through town waiting for the concert they put on every Thursday during the summer. I know number 2 needs to be straightened out but my Photoshop is on my laptop which is at work.

pentaxuser · Aug 14, 2015

MrBrowning's first "big " scan is only a part scan on my screen. The other two are fine as are the thumbnails. I noticed this occur with the first scan only in a thread on "Fog with FP4" recently so I am unsure if this is my machine or the way the poster has scanned or an APUG fault

Does anyone else see only half a scan on the first picture of the flag?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Simon R Galley · Aug 14, 2015

Dear Pentaxuser..... I think its you !

I can see it all...

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

pentaxuser · Aug 14, 2015

Yes Simon as can I now when logging on two hours later. Strange thing is that everything else about my connection to APUG and other sites was fine 2 hours ago so I remain puzzled.

To avoid the feeling that I may be going mad, can anyone else say if he had the problem earlier this afternoon and if in his case this has now corrected itself

pentaxuser

peter k. · Aug 14, 2015

pentaxuser said:
To avoid the feeling that I may be going mad,...

pentaxuser

Ah Yaa.. go mad... gives ya more freedom for discovery ... think of the shots you might try...

pentaxuser · Aug 14, 2015

peter k. said:
Ah Yaa.. go mad... gives ya more freedom for discovery ... think of the shots you might try...

Yes but it has to be madness on my initiative. By the way, all, the first scan to which I referred has just reverted to half width again. Help!

pentaxuser

MartinP · Aug 14, 2015

The answer is simple, just pour two litres of holy water in to your computer to get rid of the picture-eating poltergheist. What could possibly go wrong?

peter k. · Aug 14, 2015

Have you tried cleaning up your hard drive, and getting rid of some files.. there be a conflict coming from something you downloaded.
I use free CCleaner from time to time.. when something starts going a little weird.

dosilverhalide · Aug 14, 2015

I've got a 100 ft roll of Kentmere 400 in the mail. I'm going to Very Carefully check the film straight from the shipping can before I self load any. I've cleaned out my film cartridges and bulk loader and I have more that one camera to shoot it. I'm also going to use filtered water for all processing steps. I've used Ilford in the past with no problems. J

Foma Fomapan "Creative" 200 -- a first try

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency