Fomapan 100 classic. Is it good?

[foc]

Here are a few samples of Fomapan 100 that I shot of the last few years.



Fomapan 100 developed in D76 1+1 for 10 mins @20C




Fomapan 100 developed in Ilfosol 3 1+14 for 8 mins @ 20C

 

[Paul Howell]

Not sure about only dollar less than Tmax 100, Freestyle Foma 100 is 6.29 while Tmax is 12.99, Artista EDU which is rebranded Foma is 5.89. I shoot mostly Foma 400 but do use both Foma 100 and 200 and well as Tmax 100 in by DX depended point and shoots. Tmax 100 stands alone in terms of fine grain and resolution, Foma 100 as a traditionally grained film is not close in terms of grain and resolution, on the other hand I do like the tones. I usually expose at 100 and develop in Rodinal, but have used MCM 100, DK 50, and D76. I suspect, by looking again at the data sheet you could shoot at 125 to 150 with Excell.

 

[GregY]

Not sure about only dollar less than Tmax 100, Freestyle Foma 100 is 6.29 while Tmax is 12.99, Artista EDU which is rebranded Foma is 5.89. I shoot mostly Foma 400 but do use both Foma 100 and 200 and well as Tmax 100 in by DX depended point and shoots. Tmax 100 stands alone in terms of fine grain and resolution, Foma 100 as a traditionally grained film is not close in terms of grain and resolution, on the other hand I do like the tones. I usually expose at 100 and develop in Rodinal, but have used MCM 100, DK 50, and D76. I suspect, by looking again at the data sheet you could shoot at 125 to 150 with Excell.

"I love FP4+.... but on a cost scale, it's only $1 less than Tmax.
B&H Tmax is $10.99. FP4+ is $9.50. Foma 100 is $6.29.
I agree. there's no matching Tmax 100 for resolution & fine grain. The print below is 12x16" from a 6x7 Plaubel Makina neg. In the absence of hauling a LF camera, I really like it for up to 16x20" enlargements from medium format negatives....& it does shine in 35mm. Like the video comparison a few posts back. I find the grain in Foma 100 more like that of 400 in Kodak or Ilford films. If i were printing small I might make do with it, but in general it I prefer to have better resolution especially from 35mm negatives.

 

[DREW WILEY]

To clear up things - TMax 100 is one of the MOST VERSATILE films ever made. It was engineered to replace multiple prior Kodak films, depending on exactly how it's developed. But's that also its caveat; one needs to know how to do that, and many old dogs were hesitant to learn new tricks. And for handheld 35mm and 120 purposes, its big bother TMY400 is a godsend. Nothing in that speed range has comparable acutance and fine grain, let alone such a long scale. But I'd term these "consenting adult" products, and alas, relatively difficult for a beginner to master unless they're carefully coached.

But price per se is all relative; when Kodak went way up, Ilford followed, no doubt for similar reasons - their own cost of manufacture and distribution has gone up. And I recently paid more for a roll of Acros II than TMax itself. I look at Foma films as more in the low budget category per se, which doesn't necessarily mean they're cheaper to use if one has a certain level of quality in mind that such a film struggles to meet.

FP4 is a middle-of-the road film, not exactly high-performance with screeching tires like TMAX, but consistently excellent in quality and hard to screw up. Many folks begin with it, and stick with it. It has excellent linearity itself once you launch it off the toe.

Greg - there are even times I've had to handhold my 6X9 Fuji RF is howling mountain winds that would instantly blow over any tripod. Then I've put the resultant 16X20 print in the same portfolio as 16X20's from 4x5 or 8X10 film enlarged the same size. That's a tall order. I do it rather frequently from 6X7 Pentax 6X7 tripod shots using TMax100. Don't think I'd do the same even with FP4 roll film shots enlarged that size; FP4 sheet film, no problem, of course. Now I'm experimenting with the new ii version of ACROS roll film; there are certain differences from the original version of it which I find to be in a positive direction. And for a combination of high acutance with exceptionally fine grain, it's the clear winner in the medium speed category.

You can't put Foma 100 into the same category because it's not true 100 speed at all, not even close. And if one wants a slow S-curved film with very fine grain and wonderful acutance, there's Pan F.

 

[Paul Howell]

I look at Foma films as more in the low budget category per se, which doesn't necessarily mean they're cheaper to use if one has a certain level of quality in mind that such a film struggles to meet.

I agree, in most cased I use Foma films as my walk around films, when traveling Tmax 400 and 100, but I can get ISO 100 with Foma 100 in Rodinal, DK 50 or MCM 100, 64 with D76. I should have recommend that OP buy a roll of 100 and 200, shoot both and see how he likes either compared to Tmax 100, Delta, or PF4 .

 

[Don_ih]

But I'd term these "consenting adult" products, and alas, relatively difficult for a beginner to master unless they're carefully coached.

Why would it be difficult to master "expose at iso 100" or "expose at iso 400"? If it's actually difficult to master, that would be a failing. The instruction sheet tells you how to develop it. There's nothing mysterious about "expose at iso" whatever.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

It's developer-dependent. Try it in Rodinal 1+50, normally agitated. That's how I use it, and I like it specifically for how it renders highlights.

Someone on here had observed this exact Foma 100+Rodinal shoulder effect a few months ago in a test, can't remember their username.

This highlight shoulder is the eason for a lack of highlight separation; too soft ;don't like it.

 

[cmacd123]

I do find it stange that "Curl" is still mentioned in conection with fomapan. when I first used it, a decade ago, the 120 was on a Blue base which had a bit of a curl. Subsequently they changed to a grey base. The 35mm base has always looked exactly like the base on Ilford.

any foma I develop gets to hang with a film clip on both ends until it is dry, and over hundreds of feet I would say on average it curls less then the Kodak stocks. perhaps the drying conditions are different in other folks basements.

now I normally use the 400 speed, so perhaps the 100 has a feature I have not encountered.

 

[Don_ih]

I would say on average it curls less then the Kodak stocks

I don't find any unusual curl at all to Foma film. Maybe people are using very old examples.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Curl has a lot to do with humidity conditions, regardless of brand, and perhaps also due to age the film, if outdated and the emulsion getting brittle.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Don - I didn't say a thing about "mastering" TMax films at this or that film speed. Both the 100 and 400 products are true box speed in most developers. But exposure and development with Tmax films can be fussy if you're trying to skate right to the edge of the ice rink in term of their significant contrast range, which I one of the main reasons I love these particular films. Film with a longer toe, even FP4 or Delta 100, can't resolve deep shadow as well. But a medium or long toe film is more forgiving of exposure errors, hence less intimidating to beginners. Local darkroom classes recommend FP4 for that very reason. Most students just have some kind of TTL averaging meter, or automated, and don't even know how the use a handheld meter to compare shadow versus highlight values.

As far as factory "instruction sheets" go, they might get you in the ballpark with TMax and other films, but AA would never existed under the topic of photographic instructors if he went along with Kodak's advice. I'm not a slave of the Zone System, but because it's not precise enough for me, let alone generic Kodak tip sheet advice, which should only be taken as a starting point at best.
At least their printed box speeds are usable. Foma's certainly aren't.

 

[otto.f]

I love FP4+.... but on a cost scale, it's only $1 less than Tmax. When I need fine grain and hi resolution I'm all in for TMax 100. I'd just more judicious about wasting film. I've just come back from 5x7" (predominantly) & so i'm happy with fewer frames rather than the highspeed spray approach.

In my shop Tmax is 13,60€ and FP4 8,90€

 

[SilverShutter]

I've had mixed experiences with it. I liked the look on Rodinal and Studional although its not my favourite, but I have had many times a trouble when loading the film on the reels, and end up fighting with the film. Not sure what are other peoples experiences in this regard but I just switched to Kentmere for everyday black and white because I find it more reliable in that sense.

 

[M-88]

You can't put Foma 100 into the same category because it's not true 100 speed at all, not even close. And if one wants a slow S-curved film with very fine grain and wonderful acutance, there's Pan F.

IIRC Pan F is not true 50 speed either, more like 25-ish, so it needs more ligh. But all in all, I agree with you.

 

[koraks]

I have had many times a trouble when loading the film on the reels, and end up fighting with the film. Not sure what are other peoples experiences in this regard

No issues here spooling it or having it dry flat. It's maybe a little thin in 120 format (but what film isn't?), but snipping off the corners (which I do on 135 as well) and counter-bending the leading edge a bit takes care of any issues.

 

[SilverShutter]

No issues here spooling it or having it dry flat. It's maybe a little thin in 120 format (but what film isn't?), but snipping off the corners (which I do on 135 as well) and counter-bending the leading edge a bit takes care of any issues.

I need to try on 120 and see how I get on. This happened on 135, mostly when the roll was almost loaded and then I would have to restart all over again. Anyway, thought I'd share a shot from the last time I used it, dev in ID-11 1+1:

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hi M88. I personally rate Pan F at 25. But anything distinctly below 100 is not generally classified as "medium speed". We all adjust speeds as needed for our own purpose or due to scene contrast issues, or developer idiosyncrasies, so it's all somewhat relative. But how Foma computes their box speeds seems to live in a little make-believe world of its own.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Only one way to find out and that is to try some Foma. If it's economy you are after, don't forget Kentmere 100.

 

[Autonerd]

I am looking for inexpensive B&W. ISO100 as I would like fine grain, high res. I found that B&H sells Fomapan 100 classic relatively inexpensive. Is it any good? I am sure it's not as good as Kodak T-max 100?

As others have said, good is all relative.. (I've also found to ignore most film reviews and buy a roll and try it for yourself.)

Foma is gong to be very different from T-Max. T-Max is a tabular-grain (or T-Grain) film, a technology developed in the 1980s to vastly improve the resolution of film, especially high-speed film. In the early 90s I shot it for its superior resolution; today I avoid it as it's too much like digital for my liking.

Fomapan Classic is a traditional-grain film, so it will show more grain (which some photographers, including myself), prefer. Even among traditional-grain films, Foma has a gritty, contrasty look that can be used to great effect to create moody pictures. I find it great for low-contrast scenes that appear flat on films like T-Max. Truth be told it's not my favorite stuff but I do use it from time to time -- I think it delivers more of the classic bleak look of Kodak Tri-X, a traditional-grain film that (for me) really defines photos of the 1960s and '70s.

If you're looking for something more like T-Max 100, may I also suggest Kentmere 100? It's a traid-grain and you'll see the grain for sure, but it's flatter with nice grey tones (and you can always add contrast to scans or when printing; harder to take it away). It's a budget-priced film and IMHO greatly underrated. I am currently running through a 100' roll, bought it as a budget alternative to FP4, and it's always impressed me.

Speaking of which, if you're looking to save $$, consider buying your film in 100' rolls and bulk-rolling.

Aaron

 

[DREW WILEY]

I still don't have the slightest clue what someone means by a "digital" look. I've been shooting the various flavors of TMax ever since they first came out, and to this day, my prints don't look anything like digital prints. If scenes appear flat using TMax, just develop the film longer to increase the contrast. Duuuh. It's one of the most malleable films ever made in that respect. But if you want "shotgun grain" like classic 35mm journalistic shots, Tri-X would be more you're cup of tea.

 

[foc]

I still don't have the slightest clue what someone means by a "digital" look.

I think what people mean is that the film image looks too sharp (Tmax 100/Delta 100) and the grain is very, very fine.

I suppose using that criteria, XP2 Super could be said to have the "digital look"

Personally, I think it is a bad choice of words, a bit like some people calling grain, noise.

Film photography has a vocabulary some of which is common to digital capture and some that is unique to film.

 

[DREW WILEY]

XP2 is the black and white version of chromogenic C41 film, and has about as much look in common to Tmax film as a walrus does to Miss America. TMax grain, acutance, and contrast can be manipulated by specific development just like other ordinary films. And I do hate the way digital semantics drift into these conversations. It's misleading.

 

[baachitraka]

This film builds the contract a bit faster so some taming is necessary, that you witness in Greg’s review. You will like this film but F200 is sweet spot but marred by quality issues.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

If you like old school emultions, Foma 100 is good. If you would like a more "modern" look, Kentmere 100 suit the bill better. I use them both for different pourpose.

Try them both and see if which one you like better. Both are quite cheap.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

By the way, since your aim is better grain, go for either Kentmere 100 or Delta 100. IMHO you will get better grain with those. Also, again IMHO it seems I have more problems getting Foma 100 at ISO 100 (normally use it at 80 ISO) but get ISO 100 with either Kentmere or Delta with most developers with no problem at all.