Fomapan 100 classic. Is it good?

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yes, precisely.

Should have a seperate working solution for Foma films or I can use that weak solution for all the films, like 30sec soaking?

Only one way to find out.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Interesting. For many years I've shot Foma 200 in 120 rolls and have never exerienced the problems that others report. I always use tap water as a stop. Could that be the controling variable here?

I just went through 5 rolls of Foma 100 in 120, and they were defect free. I have tried water bath presoak with LFN and without LFN, always a water stop and just about everything else with Foma 200 120 and always had the small flaking emulsion problem. It's not worth the time, risk, or money to me, so I'm done with it until Foma cures the problem. I roll my own 35mm from bulk Foma 200 and 35mm is fine in 35mm. Some folks on here say that Foma 200 in 120 works fine in some cameras and not others. Something to do with the film path and sharp bends.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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?

I bought Fomapan films of different sensitivities over the years and didn't like any of them. They all developed too soft in D76. They may have done better in Rodinal or with less exposure but, I went back to Ilford and Kodak films for results that worked better for me.

 

[koraks]

Started using a very mild stop consisting of citric acid...5g/litre

That's in fact a quite aggressive stop bath at pH2.4 and about just as aggressive (even a little more so) than the also usual 0.5-2% acetic acid.

For many years I've shot Foma 200 in 120 rolls and have never exerienced the problems that others report. I always use tap water as a stop. Could that be the controling variable here?

Hardly. I tested quite extensively when I ran into this problem, also with a pure water stop. It didn't affect the problem at all. Moreover, the nature of the problem did not allow itself to be explained as a result of a chemical problem during processing. It quite clearly looked like pre-existing emulsion damage. The fact that Foma also acknowledged it's a manufacturing defect after I sent them samples of my affected film was enough to put it to rest for me. It just seems that the defect was/is intermittent and some parts of their master rolls happen to be unaffected. Despite this, people have kept speculating about processing variables, cameras used etc.

Mind you, I continue to use it in sheet film format and I'm very happy with it. With a stop bath, too, which doesn't do any damage to it.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

That's in fact a quite aggressive stop bath at pH2.4 and about just as aggressive (even a little more so) than the also usual 0.5-2% acetic acid.



Hardly. I tested quite extensively when I ran into this problem, also with a pure water stop. It didn't affect the problem at all. Moreover, the nature of the problem did not allow itself to be explained as a result of a chemical problem during processing. It quite clearly looked like pre-existing emulsion damage. The fact that Foma also acknowledged it's a manufacturing defect after I sent them samples of my affected film was enough to put it to rest for me. It just seems that the defect was/is intermittent and some parts of their master rolls happen to be unaffected. Despite this, people have kept speculating about processing variables, cameras used etc.

Mind you, I continue to use it in sheet film format and I'm very happy with it. With a stop bath, too, which doesn't do any damage to it.

oopsy... supposed to be .5. I should have placed a 0 before the . Thanks!

 

[koraks]

Still pH 3...

 

[Prest_400]

I am happy with Fomapan, being cheap it allows a more carefree approach under bright conditions. Saying this, I should get the Nettar and Holga out with Foma as summer approaches. Nowadays I mostly just use the 100 a bit liberally rated around EI64-80 and developed in Rodinal 1:50; Presoak for fun of the Hulk green antihalo and no stopbath. Nice negatives and no complaint at all. I am not expecting T-Max or Delta performance obviously, but the Foma films are classic and come with a fantastic classic character IMO.

Did have one of the pesky pinholes in a roll last summer, which was a batch exp. 2026. Particulrly annoying to have one in the middle of a face, oh well. I have anyways ordered another brick, and to it, one roll of Fomapan 400 to try out. That one is curious as it's a Type-B panchromatic film with higher sensitivity to red, people suggesting to expose EI 250-320 for it.
My go-to 400 films are Ilford's; Would say Delta 400 souped in XT3/XTOL. Right now I have the whole lineup from K400, HP5 to D400 at home However, prices are increasing and unfortunately even Kentmere is a notch ahead of Fomapan in my regions.

It seems that Foma's anti curl layer is a little less effective than e.g. Ilford's; they're just a little less proficient at matching the curl rates/extents of both sides of the film. The result will that Foma's films will curl more, and that this curling will depend to a significant extent on the drying conditions and the final moisture content of the emulsion. A little moisture left in the emulsion will leave it more supple and less curly, so drying film under higher humidity conditions will pose less of a curling problem. Drying film in a very low humidity environment, and drying it for a long time, will result in a very low remaining moisture content and a very curly (and somewhat 'crispy') film.

I only use 120 Foma, usually dried either on a darkroom dryer or overnight. No issues at all with curl and the negs lay really flat. Interestingly, Ilford's has some transversal curl which takes a bit of laying down in the binder to flatten. I actually like the PET base and specially like the idea of its dimensional and archival properties compared to Acetate.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Still pH 3...

Works quite well, though.

 

[koraks]

No doubt. I've never had any problems with Fomapan and acidic stop baths.

 

[loccdor]

I tested a roll of old (10 year expired) and new Fomapan 100 recently in 35mm. The old was extremely curly, like I remember, and the new did not have any significant curling problems at all. So this does seem to be something they may have worked on in the last decade. Both were developed at the same time in the same chemicals. The old was branded Arista EDU Ultra 100 in a metal cassette and the new was Flic Film UltraPan 100 in a plastic cassette. $3 per 36-roll in 2012 vs $4 per 36-roll, only briefly available, in 2023.

The grain of fresh Fomapan 100 I would compare to fresh Kodak Double-X 200. Makes itself felt pleasantly while being able to render detail well up to 4800dpi (something that Fomapan 400 can't quite do). There is the occasional emulsion defect (tiny black spot) but not enough to bother me.

I actually prefer Fomapan 100 a little underexposed, setting it at 125 or 160. It's an odd duck that it handles modest underexposure better than overexposure.

Here is an approximately 3mm x 3mm crop, about 300 of these would make up a full 35mm frame. The full frame is a standard head shot.

Other good cheap fine-grained black and white to consider are expired Fuji Acros 100 (first version), and expired Ilford Pan F+ 50. They both handle age well. Pan F needs to be processed promptly after exposure, though.

 

[koraks]

The old was extremely curly, like I remember, and the new did not have any significant curling problems at all.

Film curls badly if it has been stored rolled up for a long time. Fomapan 100 dried perfectly flat a decade ago just like it does today. At least it did when I shot it back then and it still did last time I bought a roll, a few years ago (shot some of that over the past two weeks).

 

[loccdor]

Film curls badly if it has been stored rolled up for a long time. Fomapan 100 dried perfectly flat a decade ago just like it does today. At least it did when I shot it back then and it still did last time I bought a roll, a few years ago (shot some of that over the past two weeks).

Hmm, I could see that being true. Though I was getting the curling problem from fresh Foma a decade ago. Not only the lengthwise curl that storage might impact, but a pretty big widthwise curl as well, compared to other films.

 

[koraks]

Though I was getting the curling problem from fresh Foma a decade ago.

Hm, I don't recall this from back then although I shot a good bit of it in 2014-15. If it curled, it's not something that seems to have bothered me much. I do know what you mean though - some film does that. But age seems to be the main factor.

 

[Ian Grant]

I first shot Foma films around 2007, not really by choice rather that's what was available in quantity while I was living in Turkey. I've shot many hundreds of rolls of 120 Fomapan 100 or my now preferred 200 @ 100 EI.

These are excellent films, however they do need taming in terms of EI and development time, but that's easy. I till have 2 boxes of Adox PL25, also Fortepan 200 in 10x8 but already have 2 boxes of Fomapan 200 as well . . . . . It's no brainer excellent films at good prices.

The bottom line is exhibition prints, can you tell which film was used, the answer is no.

Ian

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I tested a roll of old (10 year expired) and new Fomapan 100 recently in 35mm. The old was extremely curly, like I remember, and the new did not have any significant curling problems at all.

FWIW I never had a problem with Foma curling in 35mm sizes over the past 25 years, but significant curling in 120. The substrates of the two films are different and that accounts for the differences in how the film dries. I shot only Foma 200 in 35mm and it always dried flat as a pancake for me. I wish the same could be said for Foma’s roll films.

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

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?

Hi there, Fomapan 100 it's not an hi-res film nor a fine grain one but has a woderful greyscale, a unique white halo around bright objects that's interesting, and it's cheap like no other films.
It's no way a Kodak T-Max alternative but if one learns how to exploit its strenght It's a wonderful film.

 

[John Wiegerink]

FWIW I never had a problem with Foma curling in 35mm sizes over the past 25 years, but significant curling in 120. The substrates of the two films are different and that accounts for the differences in how the film dries. I shot only Foma 200 in 35mm and it always dried flat as a pancake for me. I wish the same could be said for Foma’s roll films.

Those are my finding also. I have Foma 100 and Foma 200 in bulk for rolling my own 35mm. Very satisfied with both. I just wish Foma 200 in 120 didn't have emulsion defects.

 

[abruzzi]

I shoot Foma 100 in 120 and sheet sizes, and I live and develop in a very dry environment. The 120 is one of the curliest films I've used--quite annoying just trying to slide a 6 inch section into a printfile sleeve--but the sheet film stays flat.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Fomapan 100 is a good film, but I much prefer FP4 Plus. It's a case of costs Vs quality.
100TMX, 100 Acros and Delta 100 will provide finer grain and higher resolution, but will cost more .