Fomapan 100 compared to Tri-x (What??)

thaung · May 20, 2011

I need too here from you guys what you have to say about the following;

Last weekend I photographed a party using Tri-X rated at ISO 1600, developed in Rodinal 1+50 (22 mins, 20C), I had a few shots left on one of the rolls so I took some pictures from my windows on a target I use to photograph when I want to test film and lens capabilities. The "test target" is a square steel fence about 500m from my location, the squares formed by the steel wires is about 7-10cm so from where I stand it could be considered small as hell and if a film/lens picks up details of any kind there, it´s good.

Now to the "strange part", when I viewed the negative (taken with a Leica M5 and vintage 90mm F4 Elmar M @ F8) I was shocked when I realized that the Tri-X negative, although grainy, showed details on the fence! Of course it wasn´t much but still.

Quite confused about the results I proceeded to take the same photo with the same camera and lens combo at the same aperture (using tripod) with Fomapan 100 (Rodinal 1+50, 8 mins, 20C) and it´s not even close at resolving anything there.

It should be said that when I examine the negatives it is through a Focomat V35/Focotar 40mm F2.8 @ F5.6 with a grain magnifier. I am truly able to see the films capabilities with this and was amazed at the Tri-x, am I missing something here? Is the Tri-x this good or is the Fomapan 100 this bad??

I haven´t had the time to enlarge any pictures but will within the next few days. Any scanner I have is not close to pull out all that info from the negative so I will have to scan prints.

Appreciate all input on the matter.

Best wishes
Rasmus Thaung

Edtog · May 20, 2011

Think you answered your own question.
I've found Formapan OK, but doesn't hold much shadow detail, even when rated at 64.
There is probably a reason why Tri-x has been on sale (in one form or another) for 50 years

thaung · May 20, 2011

I stood like a fool watching the two negatives over and over. While the Fomapan "appears" sharper it seems to me that the resolving power is not very good at all. With the Fomapan it feels like everything is tack sharp to a certain point then everything just turns to a grainy blur. With Tri-X it is very different, there is no such steep resolution curve at all. But still, Tri-X @ 1600 should not outperform an ISO100 film @ 100, if that is true (in this case it is!) then something is seriously wrong with the Fomapan. Feel free to agree or disagree. This kind of made me rethink some of my prejudices regarding film in general and Tri-X in particular.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · May 20, 2011

I used Elmar 5 cm with Tri X on III C and I dont think any film is better may be Plus X , Super XX but they are discontinued. I think Leica and Kodak been created for each other. At Soviet times Foma was the cheapest , widely available , ugly packaged film and paper. I know some of their papers were widely loved but If I am not wrong They are not on the market.
If you compare to ugly looking Russian camera to your Leica M5 , I think you can understand what I do mean.
Dont excite with ads or peoples saying. Kodak is number one film and will be until they drown in debt.
Try same with 5222 Kodak Short End Movie Film , they sell it 1/10 price of other films at the second hand market and I watched Dolce Vita by Fellini and you can get every kind of high contrast , low contrast looks with this film and many chemicals.
This is the trick of analog photography.
Short end , dont use another film than Kodak at Leica

Umut

If you want to try 5222 , I will show you how you can find it , no there is no ram backing at this film and you can process by yourself.

thaung · May 20, 2011

Hi Mustafa and thank you for your input.

Russian cameras, yes they are very special in many ways and some of them not so good. But nonetheless I have a serviced Zorki 4 with a Jupiter-8 and it takes great photos, truly great. The camera is certainly not very comfortable to use nor is it quiet as a RF should be but still a great picture making tool and in a bizarre kind if way it is very fun to use.

Kodak 5222 short end film, sound very interesting and something I would really like to try out. Lower price is surely a positive thing as well and was the reason I first got in to shooting Fomapan, here in Sweden it is very cheap. Foma does indeed still sell papers (http://www.fomafoto.com/) is a good source to check there current lineup.

Plus-X, too bad it is being discontinued but I still have about a 100" roll left, after that it is on to a new "slow speed" film, Fp4+ perhaps.

Athiril · May 20, 2011

Perhaps your Fomapan image is out of focus.

thaung · May 20, 2011

Hi Athiril

I really dont think so but to be completely sure I am going to do the test one more time soon. But this time I will expose the Tri-x at box speed. Will have to order some more Fomapan first though. But as soon as it is done I'll post the results here for thoose that are intrested.

Anyone out there using Fomapan 100 and can share their experience using it?

Athiril · May 20, 2011

Terrible, never thought it had a lack of resolution though. I exposed it at 50, and developed for normal, or more, and it was still thin iirc.

Also dont like it much.

But I love Shanghai GP3l it even underexposes and pushes well if thats all I got. (was using Foma 100 in 4x5")

StigHagen · May 20, 2011

Fomapan 200 should be a better film I´ve heard

thaung · May 20, 2011

I have now shot 10 rolls of Fomapan 100 and can´t say it got me hooked, to much grain for the given speed even in daylight shots and just not good enough resolution is my experience. At first glance the negatives looks fine and of course it´s not that bad, just not good enough for me to keep buying. This is of course in 35mm format.

Maybe my expectations where a little to high for the type of film that it is, I don´t know but in this speed range I will probably shoot FP4+ PanF or Efke films instead. I only shoot traditional grain films since I don´t really like the look of T-grain emulsions. But that´s a highly personal opinion of course.

Tim Gray · May 20, 2011

You should try out T-Max 3200 (shot at 800-1600) and T-Max 400 in the same scenario and compare them to Tri-X. Not saying they are better, but it is illuminating to see the differences and similarities.

I've never shot Fomapan, but do shoot a fair amount of Tri-X.

thaung · May 20, 2011

I´ve actually used a couple of rolls of T-Max 3200 just recently, I was pleasantly surprised at how much detail that film was capable of. I shot it at iso 3200 and developed in Rodinal 1+50. Don´t remember the time but the negs came out fine if just a tad to contrasty. But ok, maybe I shouldn´t write off all T-grain films just like that. I´ll try it at lower speed next time to see how it performs.

As a side note, I enlarged the Tmax 3200 negatives to 9*12" and while grainy, they showed a remarkable amount of detail considering the shootingconditions (dim stage lights, handhold at around 1/60 with a 135mm lens).

Jed Freudenthal · May 20, 2011

thaung said:
I need too here from you guys what you have to say about the following;

Last weekend I photographed a party using Tri-X rated at ISO 1600, developed in Rodinal 1+50 (22 mins, 20C), I had a few shots left on one of the rolls so I took some pictures from my windows on a target I use to photograph when I want to test film and lens capabilities. The "test target" is a square steel fence about 500m from my location, the squares formed by the steel wires is about 7-10cm so from where I stand it could be considered small as hell and if a film/lens picks up details of any kind there, it´s good.

Now to the "strange part", when I viewed the negative (taken with a Leica M5 and vintage 90mm F4 Elmar M @ F8) I was shocked when I realized that the Tri-X negative, although grainy, showed details on the fence! Of course it wasn´t much but still.

Quite confused about the results I proceeded to take the same photo with the same camera and lens combo at the same aperture (using tripod) with Fomapan 100 (Rodinal 1+50, 8 mins, 20C) and it´s not even close at resolving anything there.

It should be said that when I examine the negatives it is through a Focomat V35/Focotar 40mm F2.8 @ F5.6 with a grain magnifier. I am truly able to see the films capabilities with this and was amazed at the Tri-x, am I missing something here? Is the Tri-x this good or is the Fomapan 100 this bad??

I haven´t had the time to enlarge any pictures but will within the next few days. Any scanner I have is not close to pull out all that info from the negative so I will have to scan prints.

Appreciate all input on the matter.

Best wishes
Rasmus Thaung

The percieved sharpness and the ability to give details are two different things. The perceived sharpness is controlled by the acutance; details are best done in high definition. The Fomapan has probably a better acutance with this developer.

Jed

markbarendt · May 20, 2011

Just read a thing lately that said nice sharp grain can actually create the perception (but not the reality) of sharper images and better detail.

The visual noise basically changes the brain's expectation.

thaung · May 20, 2011

Jed: You are probably correct, the Foma negatives "looks" sharp as hell but when you close examine them they are lacking detail, at least that´s my opinion. Maybe I should try the Fomapan in a developer such as Paterson FX-39 to see if I can get more details out of it. With all the negative things I´ve said about Fomapan know I feel I should also point out that I have gotten some very good shots from it as well and smaller enlargements looks really good.

Mark: Sounds true to me as well, thats why Rodinal makes for such a good developer for me, it makes the grain more crisp and thus makes prints "look" sharper. But to some extent Rodinal also makes details show up more clear than say D76. That said, none is better than the other but suit different purposes and tastes. I use both.

darkosaric · May 20, 2011

Jed Freudenthal said:
The percieved sharpness and the ability to give details are two different things. The perceived sharpness is controlled by the acutance; details are best done in high definition. The Fomapan has probably a better acutance with this developer.

Jed

+1

I use Foma films when I want that look that Foma gives in Rodinal. Big grain, but hight acutance. Even more I enjoy this effect in Foma 400, Rodinal 1+50.

brucemuir · May 20, 2011

I think the strength of Fomapan 100 lies in the tones.
I shoot people with it so I haven't really examined it's fine detail capabilities.

I really like the overall look of the film.

Michael W · May 20, 2011

A couple of things - 22 mins in Rodinal sounds like a long time. I saw someone do it today, Tri-X at 1600 developed for 18.5 minutes & the negs looked fine.
Secondly, I wonder if atmospheric haze might play a part in your test, considering you say you are photographing something 500 meters away. Perhaps one shot was done on a day with clearer air than the other. A more accurate test might be doing something at a closer distance, eg the traditional newspaper pinned to the wall.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 20, 2011

Foma claims that the Fomapan 100 resolves 110 lines per mm.
I can't seem to find the source, currently, but I believe Kodak states 60 line pairs per mm, which would be virtually the same as the Foma.

Was your camera on a tripod? 100 speed film will be two stops slower, so your shutter speed will be two stops slower, to get the same exposure - motion blur. (You were also pushing the Tri-X two stops, so there is actually a FOUR stop difference - major thing).
Now, if you compensate for that, in your camera, by opening the lens wider, you may be at an aperture where the lens has lower resolution. Ding ding ding.
Put the camera on a tripod.

If you already put the camera on a tripod, and made sure to shoot at the same aperture, then all I can offer is that perhaps environmental differences, such as wind outdoors, might move the fence during exposure.

I should add that Fomapan is a film very capable of producing beautiful prints. So does Tri-X. They are a bit different, but applied properly, both films are fine products. I have used both of them fairly extensively in roll film and 35mm, and if it wasn't for TMax 400, I'd probably still be using them. But that's personal preference. Somebody else might think TMax sucks.

thaung · May 20, 2011

Michel: A good point regarding atmospheric haze and something to consider when I get some Fomapan home to test against Tri-X next time. Regarding the time for Tri-X 1600 I saw a post somewhere stating the time, I processed my first roll using that time and found it to give good results. I should point out that I used quite long agitation intervals, 2 gentle inversions every 3 minutes. If one uses standard technique with 10 sec every minute then 18 mins would probably be enough.

Bruce: I agree with you, the tones are great and doing fine detailed photography of distant subjects maybe is just not this films strongest side.

Darko: I haven´t tried Fomapan 400 yet and have been somewhat reluctant to do so since I have read a lot of threads and fact sheets stating stat this film just doesn´t reach iso400 even when used in speed enhancing developers like Diafine. One of my main reasons for using Tri-X is that it is so flexible when it comes to over- and underexposure. But since I haven´t actually tried the F400 yet I can´t say anything. It is good to hear something good about it though and it makes me want to give it a try sometime soon.

thaung · May 20, 2011

Thomas: The camera was on a tripod when both the films where exposed so I do not think vibration played any part here. I have also read 110 lines per mm on the Fomapan 100, it´s says so in the data-sheet for the film.

The shutterspeed was of course slower when using the Fomapan 100 and maybe the wind has had an influence on the sharpness BUT, the Foma negs really do look "as sharp as they can be" just not able to resolve that level of detail.

But as pointed out, wind, haze or other natural phenomenon could have played a part. I was just so amazed, I didn´t think the Foma was bad actually, I just thought that the Tri-X (considering ISO1600) was amazing and it put the Foma in another light so to speak.

I really would like to try some Efke 25 on the same subject to see how much more finegrained those low-iso films are.

jp498 · May 20, 2011

I completely agree Kodak makes awesome film and I buy mostly Kodak film because of it's abilities and q.c.

I also like fomapan 100 (mostly for it's combination of tones and low cost) and don't think it's getting a fair shake. Some of these films have hugely different results when used in different developers. I'd suggest xtol 1+1 might be better than rodinal.

R gould · May 20, 2011

Thaung
I can't comment on fomapan 100, but I use a lot, and I mean a lot, of the fomapan 400, it is my go to film as I love the results, I very rarely use anything else, and I get 320 iso all the time with it in both 120 and 35mm, developed in both D76 stock, 8 minutes, or my main developer, Rodinal,1 in 50, 13 minutes, and I get good shadow detail,nice highlights and a good range of tones, and no QC issues,and the grain is not to bad by my standards, nice and sharp grain, not to intrusive, but I don't mind grain in 35mm, not a problem at all in MF,
Richard

Sirius Glass · May 20, 2011

There are good reasons that people buy Kodak films.

I suggest that you use XTOL replenished if you are interested in minimizing the grain.

Steve

Thomas Bertilsson · May 20, 2011

Sirius Glass said:
There are good reasons that people buy Kodak films.

I suggest that you use XTOL replenished if you are interested in minimizing the grain.

Steve

This is a really good developer for Fomapan 100, by the way. Great suggestion.

Fomapan 100 compared to Tri-x (What??)

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency