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

thaung

foma films and trix have different looks --- tonality and grain &C can change
depending on your chosen film speed and developers.

if you want to compare tri x and foma100 sill some more... shoot a few rolls, of a variety of subjects,
using a full range of apertures and process them in different developers.

have fun !
john

Forma in xtol for a tonality orgy. Delicious mids, similar to agfa apx but a little less clinical. Also great in xtol. Capable of good detail.

As a further suggestion for the new tests, I strongly suggest using mirror lock-up on the camera (if the camera used for the test is a reflex, that is). And I know it is superfluous to say so, but the use of a flexible cable is mandatory in this kind of comparisons.

When the aperture (or relative aperture, f/stop, YKWIM) is the same, and you compare a film exposed at 100 EI with another exposed at 1600 EI, you have 4 steps of difference, so you have a situation where maybe the 1600 is tested at 1/125th and the 100 is tested at 1/8th.

If you don't use MLU this will affect results as the mirror-induced vibrations are much more likely to affect image quality at shutter speeds in the 1/4th - 1/30th interval than outside this interval. So the Foma film might show a lack of definition which is due to the vibration of the camera, a vibration that will be much less visible in the 1600 film. This will make a noticeable difference, it's no chance that producers insert MLU capabilities in their most refined cameras.

If you don't have a reflex with MLU you might maybe test your films with a range-finder camera. Lacking a rangefinder camera, you should try to keep shutter speeds high, e.g. 100 EI at 1/125th and 1600 EI at 1/2000th.
In the unlikely case you don't have a flexible cable and you don't want to buy one I suggest using the camera self-timer. If you take a picture of a far distance object, I suggest doing the test on the same day, after a copious rain, so that the air is cleaner, and surfaces are cool. The distant detail should in any case not be behind a surface (such as asphalt) which can get easily get warm under the sun and generate air turbulence (such as is typically seen in pictures taken at airports with long lenses) as this turbulence can vary "randomly".

The good old newspaper should work better.

Fabrizio

I think OP is using a rangefinder, however. Leica M6. So there is no mirror...

Still, tripod with cable release is very important. Longer shutter speeds is simply a dynamic making the results more susceptible to vibration of all kinds. Even walking on the floor next to the tripod, someone slamming a door shut, things like that.

In order to do the test, the light source would have to be varied so that both films were exposed using the same aperture AND the same shutter speed, which would eliminate differences in results resulting from the environmental.
That's why I like the idea of the newpaper. Illumination level can easily be altered so that the comparison is apples to apples.

Wow, a lot of replies while I have been away, great!

Xtol, thank you for the suggestion I will give it a try next time I have Fomapan at hand. I will of course not give up so easily, the film is cheap and from your comments I hope I still can get some good results from it. Buying it on 100ft rolls here in Sweden or from Germany is almost half the price of Kodak or Ilford film, a good reason to further explore it´s possibilities.

The next time the test will be performed I will take your advice in using either self release timer (I have an M5, last M with that function!) or a cable release. The first test I shot the Tri-X the day before the Fomapan so naturally changes in weather and other factors could play an important part. It was however more light (hazy sun) when the Fomapan was shot and overcast when the Tri-X was exposed so the difference in shutterspeed was probably not much if any at all.

I will as said, conduct further tests before speaking in such drastic terms I first did. But I am still very impressed with the Tri-X capabilities when pushed to iso 1600 and developed in Rodinal.

Another thought on the Foma-

shoot it at ISO 50, instead of 100. Their films generally rate a stop slower than box speed for best results.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

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.

Click to expand...

Foma are probably quoting a higher contrast resolution than 1.6:1 (the only useful figure for most pictorial photography imho).

Athiril said:

Foma are probably quoting a higher contrast resolution than 1.6:1 (the only useful figure for most pictorial photography imho).

Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't really care too much about resolution either. It doesn't seem to improve my pictures any, so I don't think about it in practical terms.
Just trying to help the thread.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Yeah, I don't really care too much about resolution either. It doesn't seem to improve my pictures any, so I don't think about it in practical terms.
Just trying to help the thread.

Click to expand...

you can say THAT again !

as long as whatever film you use gives you the results You want then, in my view, the technicalities don't really matter, I use Fomapan 400, it is my film of choice, it gives me a look and feel that no other film gives me, and I will continue to use the film in both 35mm and 120, I don't really mind the grain I get, in fact I rather like it, and for me resolving power and LPM simply don't mean a thing to me or matter to me, it is the look I am after and fomapan gives it to me like nothing else does. Choice of film is a very personal thing, we use the films that we do because we like them and for no other reason, not price or anything else, and I believe that is the way it should be,
Richard

R gould said:

as long as whatever film you use gives you the results youwant it doesn't matter, I use fomapan 400 a lot, it is my film of choice simply because it gives me results I love and cannot get with any other film, and for that reason alone I will continue to use it, and to be honest I don't care about LPM, resolution Etc, just the look of the finished prints, and that is all anyone can hope for,
Richard

Click to expand...

Richard, I couldn't agree more. Sometimes the technical tidbit gets in the way of picture making. Just learning how to use our materials, to get the most out of them, gets you ahead of the curve in terms of making beautiful and impact-full prints.
To support your own observations, I used Foma 400 for a long time in 120, and then in 35mm because I found a batch very inexpensively when I was hurting for cash. I've been able to make 9x12" and 13.5x18" prints from the 35mm negs, with a quality that I think many would be surprised by. And by the numbers, Foma 400 just doesn't look that impressive. But the pictures speak for themselves, don't they?

But back to the original post: Some of your findings may still be interesting, but at the same time perhaps it's a good idea to wonder how important those differences are. Just to counter balance your observations a little bit.

Thomas: You are absolutely correct, my findings may have come through as if it meant the world to me but in practice it does not and when I actually look at prints I´ve made from both Fomapan, Tri-X or my current film, expired Plus-X, they are still great in every format I have printed them in. Although because of space issues up until now I haven´t done anything bigger than 9*12".

Considering I am content in using old Plus-X with it´s increased base fog and grain the Fomapan 100 prints hold up very well. Further more when taking into account the price difference in Foma´s favor it is a very capable film.

One thing I´ve noticed when using old film is how forgiving it is when these negs are used in traditional darkroom work compared to scanning witch makes them look rather bad.

thaung said:

One thing I´ve noticed when using old film is how forgiving it is when these negs are used in traditional darkroom work compared to scanning witch makes them look rather bad.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what scanner you're using, but usually scanning negatives merely highlights the limitations of the scanner (which becomes worse as the film gets more dense - i.e. film with more base fog). When you use a precision enlarger and lens, especially with 35mm film, you will come closer to the full potential of the film, and you usually burn right through extra base fog.

Thomas,
I agree that sometimes it is interesting to compare films, I have done so myself, also papers, but the important thing is to not let it get in the way of picture making, and I think that some people, including a good friend of mine, become obsessed with the technical side that they forget the real reason for what we do, I am happy doing what I do, and for me that is all that matters, but I got here by trying different films,papers,developers until I found what works for me and now I simply get on with making photographs, and that is what it is all about, at least for me,
Richard

I have used a lot of scanners, including really good dedicated ones but have actually settled for an old Agfa Duoscan HiD. It only has 1000 dpi as maximum resolution but I have found out that it is enough for my digital needs. It is also very good at getting out details in both really dense and thin negatives.

But enough of the technical, I have been hung up on that for too long. It was actually when I got in to darkroom work more seriously this last year that I stopped chasing "the next must-have". Now I am content with the equipment I have and focus more on taking pictures. That is the way it is should to be, I learn more and have a lot more fun doing so as well.

Starting working in the darkroom is the best thing that has happend to my photography, it has changed both the way I take pictures and the way I "see" them.

I have only shot a couple of rolls of Fomapan 100 (35mm size). I have developed them all in D76 1+1 (diluted). I think that, despite being rather grain for a 100-speed film, Fomapan has uniquely beautiful tones - a rather strange contrast chracteristic. Whether you like it or not, it is a very unique film among current films. Here are three scanned 8x10in darkroom prints, to show why I like it:

Incidentally, the last image has produced my highest-quality 12x16in print I have yet produced from a 35mm negative (regardless of grain) - although this may have more to do with the Voigtländer Heliar 50mm f/3.5 lens than the film.

Still, it really is a lovely film - but either a bit prone to scratching, or there are quality control issues (i.e. maybe my bulk roll came from the factory with a faint scratch all along the film).

I used to shoot a lot of Ilford HP5, and HP5 (which is similar to Tri-X) is definitely much more grainy than Fomapan, and has a completely different "look".

Nice photos philosomatographer and thank you for sharing them.

Well I can agree on the grain, it sure has a lot of it for being a ISO100 film. But since you probably have read in my previous posts I shoot a lot of films that are considerably more grainy than Fomapan and grain in general does not concern me, on the contrary I kinda like it.

Film resolution is another matter I tend to take a bit more seriously, not that it make or brake a photo for me but if I intend to shoot subjects (architecture is one example) I naturally also want a film that can give my that. I know I can shoot Adox CMS 20 or Efke 25 or any other superfinegrain film but I shoot primarily Kodak or Foma films and have never really been let down by any of their products.

My initial reason for starting this thread was that I was so impressed by the Tri-X resolution when pushed to ISO1600, more so than that I was I was let down by the Fomapan 100. It just happened to be the film at hand when I did the comparison. I have shot a lot of Tri-X during the past years but never really considered it as film that can give high resolution images, I was wrong.

It so happens that today I thought of digging out some Tri-X shots I took the summer of 2010 that I at the time thought was really good but never got to work with in the darkroom for various reasons. I went into my darkroom and printed a couple of negs I liked and sure enough, Tri-X is good. Although I like it much better developed with Rodinal than D76, but that´s just me.

thaung said:

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.

Click to expand...

The perceived sharpness is mainly caused by the acutance of the image. The acutance is enhanced by edge-effects. And the edge-effect are determined by the kind of developer, dillution of the developer and the agitation. High dillution of the developer and little agitation leads to a higher acutance and a higher perceived sharpness. But the ' reality' of the image is less. By choosing the developer and the developing procdures ( agitation scheme), one can balance these two.
The properties of a developer as Rodinal are such that the effects show up more clearly than in a developer as D 76. The nice thing of Rodinal is, that one take advantage of these properties by adjusting the development procedure.

Jed

I have actually gotten the best results from Fomapan 100 when developed in Rodinal 1+100 for 21 minutes, 2 gentle inversions every 2 minutes. Lower contrast and somewhat higher resolution I think. I tried developing it this way when I had to shoot in bright sunny conditions to compensate the high contrast. In short, I like Rodinal when it is more diluted.

Further more it seems as though I like the results from Rodinal better when fewer and more gentle agitations is used.

thaung said:

I have actually gotten the best results from Fomapan 100 when developed in Rodinal 1+100 for 21 minutes, 2 gentle inversions every 2 minutes. Lower contrast and somewhat higher resolution I think. I tried developing it this way when I had to shoot in bright sunny conditions to compensate the high contrast. In short, I like Rodinal when it is more diluted.

Further more it seems as though I like the results from Rodinal better when fewer and more gentle agitations is used.

Click to expand...

When you like the Fomapan more with a higher Rodinal dilution, you will get a higher acutance. And the same is true for fewer and gentle agitaion. You apparently, like a higher perceived sharpness.
Just try different dilutions and agitation schemes, and you will find the image quality you like best.

Jed

put foma 100 thru Xtol 1+1 and the grain vanishes almost completely, as it did for APX100 and this developer. Strange but true...

Foma 100 is 64 or so with Xtol for my eye, so 50 at best with D76.

I find Foma 100 has appreciably higher resolving power than TriX. Rating TriX at 1600 is several stops of underexposure which with increased devlopment would see high contrast and fine resolution in medium density parts of the neg. Just a thought as to what might be going on here

Now I´ve heard from many sources that Xtol is they way to go when Fomapan is concerned. I´ll order a bottle along with my next roll 100ft roll of Fomapan 100 when I place my order later this week. I have never tried any other developer than D76 or Rodinal for any of my films so I look forward to using it.

Overexposing in general seems like a good way to go, I tend to rate Plus-X at ISO64 and shorten the dev. time a bit, wonderful results. But alas that film is leaving us so I try not to get to attached to it.

thaung said:

Thomas: You are absolutely correct, my findings may have come through as if it meant the world to me but in practice it does not and when I actually look at prints I´ve made from both Fomapan, Tri-X or my current film, expired Plus-X, they are still great in every format I have printed them in. Although because of space issues up until now I haven´t done anything bigger than 9*12".

Considering I am content in using old Plus-X with it´s increased base fog and grain the Fomapan 100 prints hold up very well. Further more when taking into account the price difference in Foma´s favor it is a very capable film.

One thing I´ve noticed when using old film is how forgiving it is when these negs are used in traditional darkroom work compared to scanning witch makes them look rather bad.

Click to expand...

If you like Plus-X, give GP3 a whirl

Xtol is only the way to go if it is your way to go.

I am not a super fine, "where did the grain go?" chaser, so I don't use Xtol and never liked it when I tried it. This is not to say that it isn't a good developer, it just isn't for me. You of course have to figure out what you like for yourself.

If I want fine grain I would mix up some Edwal 12. But that is just the contrarian in me that wants to be different.

patrick,

I agree. This film is beautiful in Xtol for portraits but it is not my choice of developer for anything else. Even with 1+2 Xtol it is still creamy and a bit toothless. I have found the best mix to be Xtol and rodinal mixed. Rodinal alone is very good at 1+50 or so and there is lots of sparkle. Mixes with Xtol, you get sparkle and some tooth, but the grain is controlled and tonality is very nice.