Fomapan 100 classic. Is it good?

[foc]

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.

I think you may have misunderstood my point. I know the difference between XP2 and TMax but I was making the point that people that think the grain free look is like "the digital look" (regardless of chromogenic C41 or B&W)

 

[DREW WILEY]

I assumed you knew the difference, but made a statement in response to the mere mention of XP2 in this context. There's nothing inherently "grain-free" about TMax. Just enlarge it enough. My main complaint with TMX100 (vs TMY400) is it's lack of sharp-edged Mackie line acutance in some developers. That can be an advantage in certain port applications, but a disadvantage in other subjects. But I know how to develop it for slightly crisper grain and distinctly improved acutance (which should not be confused with detail capacity). Even so, it still comes out finer-grained than Delta 100, FP4, or TMY400. That seemingly slight distinction is important in medium format shooting where I anticipate much larger prints than when shooting 35mm. Once I get into sheet film, TMY400 makes more overall sense, though I often shoot TMX100 and FP4 in sheets too; and in the past have used numerous kinds of sheet film.

Digital images pixelate at a certain point anyway, especially 35mm ones, which makes any "smooth digital-look" comparison with silver film a ridiculous assertion to begin with.

 

[M-88]

Hi M88. I personally rate Pan F at 25. But anything distinctly below 100 is not generally classified as "medium speed".

Thank you Drew! I remembered something like it from some other thread on here. And those few times I used Pan F 50, it seemed to fare better when exposed for EI 25, especially in the shadow area.

how Foma computes their box speeds seems to live in a little make-believe world of its own.

Very true. Their 400 film isn't 400, their 100 film could do better at EI 50... Seems like only their ISO200 film is truly 200. Then again, all of those are substantially cheaper than anything else on the market, so under the right circumstances, they can get the job done. Not as well as Tmx or Delta 100, but still. I have some nice prints from Foma 400.

 

[pentaxuser]

I don't take Foma's specs with just a grain of salt, but with a full carton of salt. You might want to try it at 50 instead of 100. But TMax is a true 100 speed film in most developers.

Drew, it would appear from Greg Davis' video provided for us that it also has a true speed of 100 unlike its 400 brother which by general consensus is less than 400. Of course that relies on the validity of Greg's test method but he seems to get other film speeds right

pentaxuser

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Thank you Drew! I remembered something like it from some other thread on here. And those few times I used Pan F 50, it seemed to fare better when exposed for EI 25, especially in the shadow area.


Very true. Their 400 film isn't 400, their 100 film could do better at EI 50... Seems like only their ISO200 film is truly 200. Then again, all of those are substantially cheaper than anything else on the market, so under the right circumstances, they can get the job done. Not as well as Tmx or Delta 100, but still. I have some nice prints from Foma 400.

Well, Kentmere 100/400 IS cheaper that either Fomapan or Arista EDU 100/400. Definitely a different look than Foma (probably more contrasty) but I had been able to get full speed with most developers.


Marcelo

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pentaxuser - You stated it correctly. It's Greg's method, not necessarily your's or mine.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

By the way, some months ago I got a 5L Arista Premium developer bottle and been testing a lot of film with it. This developer (which is F76+) got me the best results with Arista 400, closer to 400 speed that other developers I've tried. Tested just a couple of rolls since that what I had at the moment.


Marcelo

 

[M-88]

Well, Kentmere 100/400 IS cheaper that either Fomapan or Arista EDU 100/400. Definitely a different look than Foma (probably more contrasty) but I had been able to get full speed with most developers.


Marcelo

I used Kentmere films extensively. What I really didn't like about K100 is its poor responsiveness to red filter and apparent lack of anti-halation layer. So I finally moved on to FP4+. It's pointless to skimp on film/paper/chemicals when I use so little anyway.

 

[GregY]

I used Kentmere films extensively. What I really didn't like about K100 is its poor responsiveness to red filter and apparent lack of anti-halation layer. So I finally moved on to FP4+. It's pointless to skimp on film/paper/chemicals when I use so little anyway.

M, I whole-heartedly agree. We're talking about 30 cents/image using Tmax 100.....in135

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I used Kentmere films extensively. What I really didn't like about K100 is its poor responsiveness to red filter and apparent lack of anti-halation layer. So I finally moved on to FP4+. It's pointless to skimp on film/paper/chemicals when I use so little anyway.

Well, it is, if you use 120 film like me. Kentmere or Arista are about $6.00 while TMax 100 is at least $10.00. We are talking about $1.25 (Tmax100) vs $0.75 for Arista/Kentmere since I use 6x9 a lot.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I used Kentmere films extensively. What I really didn't like about K100 is its poor responsiveness to red filter and apparent lack of anti-halation layer. So I finally moved on to FP4+. It's pointless to skimp on film/paper/chemicals when I use so little anyway.

FP4+ is a great film. Normally use it when I'm doing something serious. Pretty dependable. One of my favorites.

 

[pentaxuser]

Pentaxuser - You stated it correctly. It's Greg's method, not necessarily your's or mine.

OK Can I ask what your method is and what speed it establishes for Foma 100?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[GregY]

Well, it is, if you use 120 film like me. Kentmere or Arista are about $6.00 while TMax 100 is at least $10.00. We are talking about $1.25 (Tmax100) vs $0.75 for Arista/Kentmere since I use 6x9 a lot.

Well yes. the bigger the film... the more it costs. & in my view, the bigger the film/paper, the more i value image quality. & to go back the the original post..... "I would like fine grain, high res."

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hi Pentaxuser. My method is entirely logistical or practical. I regard any realistic film speed in relation to what is necessary to begin resolving steps of shadow value, or lifting them up off the toe threshold enough, to equate to reasonably discernable gradation in the print itself, or something equivalent in a densitometer reading. Some people call that personal ASA, some talk Zone System jargon, whatever. But it has to work. I encounter a lot of high contrast situations. I need to know at exactly what point the film reasonably launches off the toe, and at what point it begins shouldering of at the top. This is all specific developer dependent, of course.

This past week I've been doing my first shots with Acros II 120 film. I already knew it had a slightly steeper toe than the original version, which I always shot at 50. Today the contrast was generally moderate due to an amount of coastal fog, so I'm confident I bagged full tonality even shooting it at box speed 100. But on that same roll I have a couple shots made in relatively high contrast settings, which I also shot at 100 just to see how they will turn out. When I get up to high altitude usage, then it will be critical to know the real-world parameters. I've done lots and lots of Acros 4X5 shooting at high altitude, but it's always been at 50. The ONLY med speed film I trust at box speed under those conditions is TMX100. So this is an appropriate time to fiddle around with the new Acros II and see just how much it differs from original Acros, and if it comes closer to the long scale of TMax than its previous version. It is also slightly less blue sensitive, another improvement in landscape applications.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Hi Pentaxuser. My method is entirely logistical or practical. I regard any realistic film speed in relation to what is necessary to begin resolving steps of shadow value, or lifting them up off the toe threshold enough, to equate to reasonably discernable gradation in the print itself, or something equivalent in a densitometer reading. Some people call that personal ASA, some talk Zone System jargon, whatever. But it has to work. I encounter a lot of high contrast situations. I need to know at exactly what point the film reasonably launches off the toe, and at what point it begins shouldering of at the top. This is all specific developer dependent, of course.

This past week I've been doing my first shots with Acros II 120 film. I already knew it had a slightly steeper toe than the original version, which I always shot at 50. Today the contrast was generally moderate due to an amount of coastal fog, so I'm confident I bagged full tonality even shooting it at box speed 100. But on that same roll I have a couple shots made in relatively high contrast settings, which I also shot at 100 just to see how they will turn out. When I get up to high altitude usage, then it will be critical to know the real-world parameters. I've done lots and lots of Acros 4X5 shooting at high altitude, but it's always been at 50. The ONLY med speed film I trust at box speed under those conditions is TMX100. So this is an appropriate time to fiddle around with the new Acros II and see just how much it differs from original Acros, and if it comes closer to the long scale of TMax than its previous version. It is also slightly less blue sensitive, another improvement in landscape applications.

Drew,
I don't mean to ver off the main topic here, but do you actually get box speed from Tmax 100 souped in your diluted Perceptol? I don't shoot Tmax 100, but when I soup other films in Perceptol, even 1+3, I never get full box speed. Close, but not 100%.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes. Full 100 speed. But remember, I prioritize my metering on shadow values in high contrast situations, using a spot meter; then I compare the high values. I'm actually visualizing in my mind the shape of the characteristic curve. It's a film I'm very familiar with.

 

[Autonerd]

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

Yes, that exactly. In the film days I wanted grain to be as invisible as possible, but now that we can get that so easily with digital, I prefer the grittier look of traditional-grain films.

Regarding contrast or flatness, I think that's a red herring, as contrast can (and should be, right?) adjusted during printing. I'd rather have a negative that's a little flat, then adjust contrast in the scans (just as I could do in the darkroom), because it gives you more options.

Aaron

 

[albireo]

Hi Pentaxuser. My method is entirely logistical or practical. I regard any realistic film speed in relation to what is necessary to begin resolving steps of shadow value, or lifting them up off the toe threshold enough, to equate to reasonably discernable gradation in the print itself, or something equivalent in a densitometer reading. Some people call that personal ASA, some talk Zone System jargon, whatever.

Please show some samples of your Foma work and describe your Foma 100 EI determination procedure.

Please clarify how your procedure differs from the one by the Naked Photographer, whose results you seem to question.

In this and other threads, you have been making specific claims on Foma products. You need to substantiate those claims.

Do you shoot Foma film? Please describe your process and show some examples of your work.

 

[Don_ih]

You need to substantiate those claims.

He doesn't, actually. This is an informal discussion, not a juried scientific panel. He can state his experience without any justification and you can dismiss it as you wish.

 

[John Wiegerink]

He doesn't, actually. This is an informal discussion, not a juried scientific panel. He can state his experience without any justification and you can dismiss it as you wish.

Very well put, Don, and we all should remember just that. Informal discussion means informal discussion!

 

[Dali]

Informal discussion means informal discussion!

Or waste of time depending on what you are looking for.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes. Full 100 speed. But remember, I prioritize my metering on shadow values in high contrast situations, using a spot meter; then I compare the high values. I'm actually visualizing in my mind the shape of the characteristic curve. It's a film I'm very familiar with.

Drew,
I almost always expose for "MY" important shadows and "TRY" to develop for retained features in the highlights. Still, I can't get box speed. Very close, but no cigar. I also have to remember that my method of metering, my metering tools, camera shutter speeds and all other variables make my reading differ from yours with neither one of us being right nor wrong.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sure, you can see some samples of my work, alberio. Get a plane ticket, fly over, and I'll show you some ACTUAL PRINTS, including from Foma 8X10 films. The relevant shadow and highlight distinctions aren't evident over the web, but do make all the difference in the world between a compelling print and a so-so one. But I'm not stating anything about Foma that hasn't been said frequently before.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Drew for #64. I think I can infer from lack of information about you test of Foma 100 that you have never actually tested the film speed of Foma 100. If I can infer that then out of curiosity can I ask what you base your statement on that Foma 100 is not a 100 speed?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]