fomapan 100 and 200

[puketronic]

How would you describe the look/tonality/grain between the two?

i'm interested in making one of these my slow/medium film emulsion. In 120, I like fomapan 100 but fomapan 200 seems to be the more popular film choice. From what I gather, fomapan 200 has a hybrid tabular grain structure.

Between the two would I expect fomapan 200 to look similar to fomapan 100 but with slightly more grain and slightly less contrast? Which do you prefer and why?

I'm already aware of the controversial quality control issues and lack of advertised speed.

 

[Peter Schrager]

can't speak for the 100 but there are no quality issues with the 200 sheet film or the 35mm I have used
Best, peter

 

[pdeeh]

No quality issues for me either in 135 or 120.
Not quite sure what "lack of advertised speed" means ... surely a matter of developer and personal preference for how you want your negatives, as with any film?

I prefer Foma 200 to 100, I don't find it coarser grained than 100, in fact rather the opposite. I rate it at 160 and develop it in Rodinal. I didn't care for the 100, found the grain obtrusive and the tones a bit sooty.

 

[R.Gould]

I use Fomapan 400 as my main film, I get the box speed, and no QC issues in a few years of using it, I find I get results more to my liking wit the 400 at box speed, as for tonality, Fomapan has a look that is very much it's own, to me quite beautiful
Richard

 

[Oscar Carlsson]

I had some issues with Fomapan 200 in 120, all negatives came out scratched only with this film, and it seems to have been due to a change of backing paper. This has been corrected since.

I've only exposed a few rolls and wasn't very happy with the results, but it might be due to these scratches and inexperience working with handheld meters. If I'd try it again I'd begin by exposing it at ISO100 from experiences with Fomapan 400 (which is a great ISO200 film).

 

[Ian Grant]

Having used quite a lot of both they are great films I've had no quality issues with 120 or sheet film. It's hard to chosse which to use but I prefer the 200 for hand held work (in 1200 and am happy with the 100 for LF.

Yes they aren't box speed but then I never used Tmax 100 at box speed either it was best at 50EI, APX100 was true to its box speed though.

Ian

 

[Klainmeister]

I find that the 100 and 400 have pretty similar characteristics, which could be described as fairly high contrast, medium/high grain (for their respective speeds), and overall traditional looking.

I absolutely love the 200, which seems more like a TMAX style film and holds highlights very well. The grain structure is actually quite good for scanning and is fabulous under the enlarger. Highly recommend the 200.

Had a minor QC issue with 100, but I think the emulsion is just kinda soft.

 

[puketronic]

Thanks for the comments!

I'm just going to give them all a shot.

 

[Ian Grant]

Thanks for the comments!

I'm just going to give them all a shot.

They are excellent films but you need to do some quick testing to find your own optimum dev times and EIs. My first film was way off but after testing with a couple of rolls I have the same controls as with other films.

Ian

 

[piu58]

I used 100 ann 400 film. Both tend to come out high contrasty, especially with blocked highlights. You have to develop carefully.
Additional I had issues with MF film. The backing paper emitted tiny paper speck which moved through the camera an landed eventually at the film. This gives blank spots which you cannot retouche.

 

[Ian Grant]

I used 100 ann 400 film. Both tend to come out high contrasty, especially with blocked highlights. You have to develop carefully.
Additional I had issues with MF film. The backing paper emitted tiny paper speck which moved through the camera an landed eventually at the film. This gives blank spots which you cannot retouche.

The reason for doing some personal tests is to tame the contrast, Foma films are far more responsive to changes in development times/temperatures, I shoot the 100 & 200 at half the box speed and my development times are about 70% those of other films. I did simple Zone system tests but these just confirmed others findings.

Once you've established your personal EI and dev time for Normal lighting conditions these films behave as well as any others. If you don't test for yourself you'll struggle with contrast.

Ian

 

[wblynch]

I like HC-110 in dilution H (1+63) for Fomapan. It gives me the tonality and sharpness that I like.

In Ilfosol-3 I got flat, lifeless negatives with too much grain and splotchy skies.

I haven't tried the 200 yet but I want to. I have heard it has the best tonality. I am not a super contrasty guy, I like smooth tones.

 

[TheToadMen]

Do you know this website? http://filmdev.org/
You can see the results for several film types, developers and the combination of both.
Always nice to see what others were capable of with a certain combination: could help you choose.

For instance:
- Fomapan 100, see: http://filmdev.org/recipe/search?search=fomapan+100 (139 hits)

- Fomapan 200, see: http://filmdev.org/recipe/search?search=fomapan+200 (79 hits)

- Fomapan 400, see: http://filmdev.org/recipe/search?search=fomapan+400 (118 hits)

 

[baachitraka]

@Ian: May I know the details of quick testing? I have a film(Fomapan 400 bulk roll) + Incident/Reflective meter + Developer(Rodinal 1+50 and Tanol from Moersch) + Adox vario classic paper.

I do not have any device to measure the densities or have any interest to send it to prof., testing services, if available.

How do I establish the personal E.I.?

 

[TheToadMen]

I do not have any device to measure the densities or have any interest to send it to prof., testing services, if available.
How do I establish the personal E.I.?

I recently instaled Silverfast 8 as my scanner software for scanning negatives. Silverfast has an option for a densitometer, see:
http://www.silverfast.com/highlights/densitometer/en.html
I haven't used it yet, but maybe it is a good option for you?

 

[Ian Grant]

@Ian: May I know the details of quick testing? I have a film(Fomapan 400 bulk roll) + Incident/Reflective meter + Developer(Rodinal 1+50 and Tanol from Moersch) + Adox vario classic paper.

I do not have any device to measure the densities or have any interest to send it to prof., testing services, if available.

How do I establish the personal E.I.?

I'll try and find my notes, most here in the UK don't use densitometers etc but do a practical series of tests, this is similar.

Ian

 

[Barry King]

I have just shot a roll of Fomapan 100 [35] and developed in Rodinal 1-25, 4 mins @ 20 C and very pleased with the results, good tonal quality and IQ. I think I will stick with it, may try the fomapan 400 next

 

[Agulliver]

My experience is mostly with 135, as I've only shot Fomapan 100 and 400 in 120...but....

I like both the 100 and 200. I believe it is correct that the Fomapan 200 is a hybrid cubic/tabular grain film. The grain seems possibly finer than Fomapan 100 but like Ilford's Delta 100 the highlights can blow out if you're not careful. Fomapan 100 is a lovely traditional film and it is my go to B&W medium speed film. Not as subtle as FP4+ but nonetheless a really nice film and easy to handle in the darkroom. No QC issues in the few years I've been using it.From what I've learned there were possible QC issues with Foma films 15+ years ago.

As for box speed...I've never found that Fomapan 100 and 200 exhibit any issues here. I have exposed Fomapan 400 at 320ASA and find that it possibly responds better at this speed than 400 but even that may just be personal experience. I don't quite understand the people who advocate exposing Fomapan 200 at 100 because I already find the highlights (eg white building in the sun) can blow out when exposed at 200.

I process in ID-11 stock, as per Foma's recommended times. Perhaps some more exotic potion or stand process leads to the lowering of the effective speed? In my experience Fomapan 100 and 200 can be safely exposed at box speed. My last couple of rolls of Fomapan 200 included several frames where I was inside a church under exposing by a stop in order to achieve a shutter speed of 1/15 second...and they came out fine when processed as normal alongside the rest of the shots exposed as per 200ISO. Fomapan 100 may be a little less forgiving of under exposure but the highlights don't tend to blow out. Try both, they're both very nice films. I have bulk loaders full of each

Interesting that others find 200 holds highlights better than 100 and 400. I am less experienced using 200. I do agree it's contrast is more tame than the cubic grain 100 and 400. Maybe I need to expose differently, or process slightly less time?

 

[Helinophoto]

I actually like all three of them,

However, the 100 had issues back when I was shooting a bunch of it, the film had blue base...this seems to have been changed.
I used to shoot the 100 at 80-100 and develop in Rodinal 1:50, lovely lovely tonality.
200 was always under when I shot it at 200 and developed it in HC-110B, so I do shoot it at 100.
The 400, I shoot at 200 and develop in HC-110B, seems to work just about ok.

I find the 100 to look the most "classic/old", the 200 and 400 a bit more generic perhaps.
None of the films are particularly sharp and they all exhibit pronounced grain.

 

[NB23]

Foma 100 is legendary, nothing less.

Grain is fantastic; has great body. Plasticity.
Tonsl range is wide.

It is the closest to the old tri-x and to what the modern tri-x should be.

Foma 400, I love its grain and its effect, however I dislike its look for people, thanks to its very high red sensitivity which ruins people’s faces.
However, I use it a lot with a 092 filter for street work. Unique effect and tonality. Avoid rodinal eith this film: not because of grain, which I Love, but becsuse it can’t get the speed. It’s constantly underdeveloped. Xtol is good.

Foma 200, I use it at iso 50 in order to get a proper negative. I used to like this film but in the end I just couldn’t tame it and standardize it reasonably well.

But Foma 100! It’s simply great!

As always, these are my own OPINIONS.

 

[Barry King]

Here is another shot from the same roll of Fomapan 100 [35] and developed in Rodinal 1-25, 4 mins @ 20 C

 

[Pentode]

I haven't used the 200 or 400 but I've been very pleased with the 100, processed in D-76 1:1. I'll agree with the others who stated that contrast can be a bit tricky with this film, though.
I've found that I need to be very rigid with my times and temperatures to avoid contrast going through the roof but, as long as I'm careful, the resulting tones are really pleasing.
This holds true for both the 135 and 120 versions and I've not had any quality control issues, personally.

 

[Ian Grant]

Both examples here seem lacking in a full long tonal range, no real shadow detail, and a bit too much contrast.

Ian

 

[btaylor]

Foma 200, I use it at iso 50 in order to get a proper negative. I used to like this film but in the end I just couldn’t tame it and standardize it reasonably well.

Yes, the 200 is odd. I also found I needed to rate it at 50 to get a decent negative. Finally gave up on it, though some people do great work with it.

 

[Tor-Einar Jarnbjo]

I have only worked a bit with Fomapan 100 and 400 (never the 200 speed film) and never liked the course grain. I have never had issues with the technical quality, the tonality is great, but I always had the impression that they have much coarser grain than other 100 and 400 films. As a side note, I usually do stand development in Rodinal and Foma films, both the 100 and 400, are two of the few films I have ever experienced bromide drag with, especially with the 135 films around the perforation holes. I would not risk that combination.

Mostly for my own purposes, to kind of confirm what I have always thought is right, I started a larger test to combine different films and developers a few months ago. I haven't got too far yet with my experiments, but to a certain degree confirmed the impressions I already had. Foma 100 is however one of the few films, where the choice of developer really matters. I know that faith can move rocks, but to be honest, most films only show very minor differences depending on which developer you bathe them in. That seem not to be the case for the Foma films. From my preliminary data, especially the Foma 100 film shows a very different behaviour in certain developers. In most developers, the Foma films are indeed coarser grained than the other films I have yet tested. After developing the Foma 100 in Spur Acurol N, I first thought that I had tested with the wrong film and repeated my test. It looks completely different, the grain is almost gone, sharpness and tonality still great. Acurol N was one of the developers I had never used before and only bought for this test and although it works with most films just as any other developer, I did not yet have any 'wow' experiences with that developer except for the combination with Foma 100. I have not yet tried it with Foma 400, but it is next on my list. I might do some more work with Foma and Acurol N, but the developer is so expensive that it chews away a large part of the Fomapan price advantage compared to e.g. Ilford in a regular priced developer.