Fomapan 100 classic. Is it good?

[pentaxuser]

View attachment 340434

As the Jones boy from the Valleys used to sing "It's not unusual " on Photrio

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

You're right. I've only tested 200 and 400 Foma. But heck, if two out of three examples are confirmed to be way off and downright misleadingly labeled, why would I trust the third? In the case of Foma 200, it was an obvious marketing ploy to give the impression their product was a realistic replacement for Kodak Super-XX. It wasn't. I remember it being marketed as 200 Classic fifty years ago.

 

[Minox]

Although I do not use Foma 100 extensively, it is one of my go-to films when traveling. Probably not up in the first 3-4 films, but I like it. My first rolls shot at 100 and developed at 100 were a disappointment, so I started to shoot at 100 and develop at 50, and it looks better. I usually develop in D76, 1+1 for 10 mins. Rodinal, in whatever dilutions, seems not to be working for me, for some reason.

Shooting at 50 and developing it at 50 looks all right too, but I do not do this very often.

 

[subsole]

You're right. I've only tested 200 and 400 Foma. But heck, if two out of three examples are confirmed to be way off and downright misleadingly labeled, why would I trust the third? In the case of Foma 200, it was an obvious marketing ploy to give the impression their product was a realistic replacement for Kodak Super-XX. It wasn't. I remember it being marketed as 200 Classic fifty years ago.

The Classic 200 was made by Forte in Hungary not by Foma.

 

[DREW WILEY]

No. Somewhat later Lotus/Bergger 200 was made by Forte. I remember precisely when it was introduced, and shot a lot of it in 8x10 until it was discontinued. But the Foma "200" product has been issued in several different names over the decades, and was sold under the Classic 200 label well before Lotus 200 arrived. Have you actually used both? I have.

I'm under the impression that for awhile, at least, Kodak Super-XX was being coated in Europe. This was a different film from either Bergger 200 or Fomapan 200; but it's a least hypothetically possible that some of it might have found its way into private labeling. I don't know. I do know that sheets of both Super XX and Bergger 200 had a whole different feel than Foma 200, which was relatively unfinished in terms of cut quality - downright sharp-edged in fact. Then there were significant differences in performance. The late Michael Smith made comparisons of all three using expletives about Foma/Classic 200 which I can't repeat here.

But perhaps you have your own inside kind of knowledge? All of this is, of course, largely academic, since only Foma/Arista "200" remains.

 

[npl]

About fomapan 100 speed : I use incident metering or the built-in reflective meter on my camera body, EI 100, and develop in XTOL. I can't say if I get full box speed because I don't have any equipement to test that, but what I do know is that I never had to complain about not having enough information in the shadows in my negatives.

All fomapan films are diffferent animals, best not to judge one using an other. Fomapan 400 is also a traditionnal film, but I do give it one stop or so of extra exposure, common EI being 200/250 among users. Fomapan 200 is an hybrid (traditionnal and T-grain), very different from the other two, and it's box speed is not too unrealistic, I shoot it at EI 160 in XTOL.

With rodinal you definitely want a lower EI with all three than box speed (EI 64 with foma 100 looked good when I tried), but that's not specific to foma films.

 

[SilverShutter]

Right, so after my previous comment on how I had trouble loading Foma 100 on 35mm I thought I'd try a roll on 120 and see how it goes. Didn't have any trouble loading into the plastic reels, although I was slightly amused at the spent ID-11 coming out bright green. But the negatives are extremely curly, which I do not like, and don't remember being a thing on 135. ALSO my negatives are weirdly offset? Granted I shot it on a Lubitel but I have never had anything similar to this on any Ilford film. The negatives overlap on the side numbering, I must have loaded it incorrectly or something. Anyway, at the same price as Kentmere 100, I doubt I will buy another roll anytime soon. I'm sure I'll like the look of the film once I get around scanning it but I cant be bothered with the small inconveniences I've had with this film so far.

 

[laingsoft]

I do like foma, but like a lot of cheap films I notice that it can get really muddy if conditions aren't perfect. Even in harsh conditions I still tend to get soft photos. It's not an issue so much as it's something that you need to be aware of when using it. The only time I have been truly disappointed in the results from foma was on a half-frame camera. The pictures were just far too soft to use.

 

[koraks]

the spent ID-11 coming out bright green.

Anti-halation dye. It's normal, and harmless. Pretty color, isn't it?

But the negatives are extremely curly, which I do not like, and don't remember being a thing on 135.

120 is generally coated on a thinner base. To offset the curling problem, it generally (and Foma 100 certainly) has a back-side gelatin coating as well. Just cut the negatives and store them in appropriate sleeves, weighted down with a book or something. They'll straighten out alright, at least sufficiently so for scanning and printing.

The negatives overlap on the side numbering

Overlapping negatives is an in-camera transportation problem. I'm not sure what you mean by 'overlap on the side numbering'. If you mean they partly overlay the frame numbers, perhaps your camera's image gate is unusually large and/or there's an alignment problem with your film back. I'm not familiar with the Lubitel cameras, but given their origins and reputation, I think anything is possible (including getting very nice photos from them).

Overall I've never found Foma100 in 120 format (or any other format, really) a particularly problematic product. Kentmere 100 is likely slightly better in some ways. I think where I live, the Foma is a little cheaper, but if that's not the case for you, I can very well imagine your preference for Kentmere, even though the difference will in the end be slight.

 

[SilverShutter]

120 is generally coated on a thinner base. To offset the curling problem, it generally (and Foma 100 certainly) has a back-side gelatin coating as well. Just cut the negatives and store them in appropriate sleeves, weighted down with a book or something. They'll straighten out alright, at least sufficiently so for scanning and printing.

Overlapping negatives is an in-camera transportation problem. I'm not sure what you mean by 'overlap on the side numbering'. If you mean they partly overlay the frame numbers, perhaps your camera's image gate is unusually large and/or there's an alignment problem with your film back. I'm not familiar with the Lubitel cameras, but given their origins and reputation, I think anything is possible (including getting very nice photos from them).

Yes, I've had experience before with curling negatives, especially with Tri-X on 35mm. The negatives are spending a couple of days under a few heavy photobooks.
But my issue is not overlapping, the frame spacing is fine, its just that the image is not centered, its farther to the left than it is to the right. I can't think of how it would be the films fault, likely an error on my part but its the first time I have seen it, and I have shot a good few rolls through the Lubitel. Just thought it was interesting.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

umm mixed results with curly negatives here. I've found it is mostly related to weather issues. If the area where you hang the negatives to dry is too hot/dry (like my city) it is more common to get curly negatives. What I did was to move the drying area to a place with A/C and use a weight to get the negative straight. Haven't found Foma to be particular curly by the way.

 

[Dali]

Never had curling issue with 120 Fomapan 100. Can't say the same about Fomapan 400... Awful curling even with sleeves being pressed for several weeks... A real nightmare.

 

[Agulliver]

Foma 400 in 120 used to curl but I find that it hasn't for years. I find Fomapan 100 at box speed is fine developed with D76 stock. Though I suspect Kentmere is a little better, I've shot more of the Foma than Kentmere.

 

[M-88]

But my issue is not overlapping, the frame spacing is fine, its just that the image is not centered, its farther to the left than it is to the right. I can't think of how it would be the films fault, likely an error on my part but its the first time I have seen it, and I have shot a good few rolls through the Lubitel. Just thought it was interesting.

Sounds like a camera issue and a photo of the negatives (you know, the "whole" section of film) woulc probably help with pinpointing the problem.

Lubitels are infamous for their quality check. After all, their name means "amateur", kinda speaks for its quality.

 

[kl122002]

How about Ilford Pan F, if speed is not an important factor? I know recently Pan F 's price have been up a bit but still I am keeping few rolls on shelf.

T-max is a very modern film, comparing to Fomapan . Just like the others have mentioned their differences. Personally I don't won't buy both, unless i really have to. Fompan also gives a very soft feeling to me while T-max is a bit too sharp. That's why I keep using Ilford .

 

[Dali]

Lubitels are infamous for their quality check.

Is it your experience or just your opinion?

 

[georg16nik]

[...]

Lubitels are infamous for their quality check. After all, their name means "amateur", kinda speaks for its quality.

Actually, the etymology of the word is “to love”, “to desire” and while some cameras are largely neglected due to low cost, the well kept Lubitels are pretty decent cameras.
Fomapan 100 is also regarded by many as an amateurish film, but in reality, the film is quite good if you know what you are doing and is capable of stellar results on par with the big three.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Actually, the etymology of the word is “to love”, “to desire” and while some cameras are largely neglected due to low cost, the well kept Lubitels are pretty decent cameras.
Fomapan 100 is also regarded by many as an amateurish film, but in reality, the film is quite good if you know what you are doing and is capable of stellar results on par with the big three.

My thoughts exactly. Pretty nice little camera. Didnt had worst luck than with japanese TLR on the same condition. Lens was surprising good actually.

 

[M-88]

Actually, the etymology of the word is “to love”, “to desire” and while some cameras are largely neglected due to low cost, the well kept Lubitels are pretty decent cameras.
Fomapan 100 is also regarded by many as an amateurish film, but in reality, the film is quite good if you know what you are doing and is capable of stellar results on par with the big three.

Wrong. "Lubit" is "to love", "Lubitel" is "amateur". I'm from FSU country, Russian is my second language.

 

[koraks]

Wrong. "Lubit" is "to love", "Lubitel" is "amateur".

Alright, but would you say it's possible that the etymology of 'lubitel' goes through 'lubit', in that sense mirroring the etymology of the Western (French) 'amateur', which also happens to trace to the verb 'to love'?

 

[M-88]

Alright, but would you say it's possible that the etymology of 'lubitel' goes through 'lubit', in that sense mirroring the etymology of the Western (French) 'amateur', which also happens to trace to the verb 'to love'?

Absolutely, yes! Even in my first language, word we use for "amateur" has the root "to love".

And apologies for off-topic.

 

[SilverShutter]

Well since I brought up the Lubitel to the topic, just thought I'd add that it's not given me much trouble, it's a very lightweight and quick camera to use once you get the hang of it and the results are very decent. I serviced the shutter and calibrated the lenses, which is easy enough. I know they are somewhat unreliable, perhaps not as much as other soviet cameras, but they are simple enough to work on if you know what you are doing.

 

[Dali]

SilverShutter, this is also my experience with Lubitel cameras.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Foma 400 in 120 used to curl but I find that it hasn't for years. I find Fomapan 100 at box speed is fine developed with D76 stock. Though I suspect Kentmere is a little better, I've shot more of the Foma than Kentmere.

I can speak only to Fomapan 200 in 120 rolls: It curls like a demon. I love the film's look, hate the curl. I shot a fresh roll last night: Still a curl demon. Which is too bad, because Foma 200 was always my goto film for 35mm, and it dried flat on Foma's 35mm base.

I've also recently shot Kentmere 100 and Ilford Ortho Plus -- both dry flat. And both give good results. I have to wonder whyHarman sells Kentmere 100 as a budget film, and what one gets for moving "up" to Ilford FP4.

 

[agentlossing]

That is odd, I never had 35mm Foma 200 curl either. The 120 base must be different. Foma 100 doesn't curl, 400 does.