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 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 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?
It is nothing like TMAX-100. That said, it is not necessarily a bad film, just different. Some people like it, some don't. I've used
rebranded Foma 100 (Arista.edu Ultra 100) and I like it. If you're curious about this, or any other film, pick up a few rolls and
use your favorite film developer to process the film. Experiment with different EI's and developing times to see how it responds.
Only you can decide if you like it or not. As I said earlier, some people like it, others may hate it.You can't really know for sure
until you have experimented with it and come to your own conclusions. Never let others make up your mind for you! Only you
can make that decision.
it is quite popular. probably based on technology from a few years ago. depending on where you live you may find it cheaper as Arista EDU Ultra. But it might be less in europe as Fomapan 100. As you can tell by the name, Arista markets it to folks taking Photography courses, so it is quite good enough for Photography instructors to get their students to use it.
ONLY gotcha that I am aware of, is the folks at Foma do not use DX coding on their cassettes. SO if you use a camera that sets itself from the DX code you will have to see if you can override that. not a problem with most cameras.
"Good" is relative. Comparing Foma to TMax is like comparing a skateboard to a BMW. You get what you pay for. But maybe all you need is a decent skateboard. Try it for yourself and see if its meets your personal expectations, but don't expect it to be anywhere near real 100 speed.
I don't understand the data sheet. In the characteristic curve The X axis which said relative log exposure I don't know what that means. On the Kodak TMax100 curve it said log exposure (lux.second) which mean the -1 is 0.1 lux.second. I don't think the fomapan sheet means the same.
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.
I can only speak for 35 mm, because that's what I usually shoot.
Compared to other Foma films, Fomapan 100 truly stands out. It actually attains ISO100 sensitivity unlike Foma 400 and is more fine-grained than Foma 200. However, it is a cheap (and I mean really cheap) film with occassional quality issues that has traditional grain. Tmax on the other hand is a T-grain film. There's not even a contest here. If fine grain hi-res is your goal, go with Tmax. Or the next best thing - Ilford Delta 100. I don't think Foma will do the right job. Heck, even Ilford FP4+ which has traditional grain, looks finer-grained than Fomapan 100.
It depends on the format. IMO the larger the format, the more relative the idea that Fomapan is only a compromise. The price of a Tmax sheet is beyond imagination and at that level of sharpness you’re starting to think whether it still adds something to the content of the image. I’m not saying it doesn’t but neither will it always. Which is in 35mm a totally different story.
I totally agree with Delta100, which is never a compromise. Tmax 100 isn’t that easy either and is actually not exactly an all purpose film. If you want that deep blacks FP4 is just as good and will always deliver in all kinds of situations, although it is most recognizable in landscape.
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?
It's fantastic. Try it without hesitation. It really does scale up well with technique, so you'll need to fine tune method to optimise exposure and development to your final end result (whether scanning or printing). I agree with Otto: it gets even better as you go up in format.
As for TMAX - in my experience TMax is (at least here in Europe) currently a very overpriced film that seems to be very popular only amongst the all-caps-named armchair photographers populating darkroom printing forums. Technically a good film mind you, but often gets exposed/developed/scanned/printed so poorly that any intrinsic technical advantage will be lost due to sloppy technique.
Go on and try some of that Fomapan 100. When you get good at it, you'll be hard-pressed to see any difference in your results in an ABX blind test against much more praised brands.
Just have a go at it. It took me some time to get used to (which says more about me than the film) but now it's one of my favorite 100-speed films. I shoot it at box speed and that works well for me.
As said, be aware there is no dx code on the canister so make sure you either set ISO manually or that your camera defaults to 100.
It's quite a different look than T-Max, old emulsion with traditionnal grain versus modern-looking almost "digital" T-grain. Only one way to find out if you like it or not.
It's a great film, only major drawback if you do long exposures is it's terrible reciprocity. I never experienced the curling problem with 35mm that some here seemed to have.
Foma 100 has a distinct S-shaped curve that you either love or hate (or perhaps both, depending on the application). Films like Delta100 and TMX are more linear. If you like your highlights to roll off so they are easy to print, you might like Foma100. I've used it a lot, but in many cases I find the lack of separation in the highlights a disadvantage. In the shadows something similar happens (the film has a long toe) and to get decent shadow detail you may have to give it a bit more exposure and rate it at 50 or so.
It's a perfectly fine film IMO, but like any product, it has its specific characteristics to keep into account. I do find it much more dependable than the also "competitively-priced" Shanghai GP3, which seems to be plagued by QC issues. Foma100 is way better in that respect.
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?
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.
There was actually someone on here who had observed this exact Foma 100+Rodinal shoulder effect a few months ago in a test, can't remember their username.
Yes, with rodinal, the curve sweeps up a little more in the highlights. It's the sole reason I've made up some more parodinal lately. But for carbon transfer, it's still not quite what I'm looking for, although certainly less sloped off than e.g. pyrocat!
There was actually someone on here who had observed this exact Foma 100+Rodinal shoulder effect a few months ago in a test, can't remember their username.
My primary LF film is Fomapan 100, mainly because I love the more nostalgic grayscale rendering of this film. I've never had any of the quality control issues I see posted on various forums. My only "negative" comment (it's really not a negative) is that the emulsion seems softer than, say, Kodak or Ilford films. I use a hardening fixer to mitigate this "issue."
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.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.
