Fomapan 120 quality control

[mehguy]

Is fomapan 120 still exhibiting quality control issues? What have been your experiences with fomapan in 120?

 

[Alexander6x6]

Is fomapan 120 still exhibiting quality control issues? What have been your experiences with fomapan in 120?

Fomapan is the worst film I ever used.

 

[Paul Howell]

I've been luck, no QC issues, I did not like the curl, but recent reports state that the latest version has new base and doe snot curl as much.

 

[miha]

Is fomapan 120 still exhibiting quality control issues? What have been your experiences with fomapan in 120?

My last roll of Fomapan 400 in 120 was totally fine.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've only had issues with Fomapan 200...

 

[koraks]

What have been your experiences with fomapan in 120?

The 200 speed product is inherently problematic, the others are fine.

 

[mehguy]

Fomapan is the worst film I ever used.

I love how it looks in 35mm and wanted to try it out in 120, but I have seen threads about people complaining about some QC issues for their films in 120.

 

[Alan9940]

I've only ever used Fomapan 100 in both 120 roll and sheet sizes up to 8x10. Over the years, I've had the occasional tiny artifact on a single sheet of film, but nothing of real concern. As others have reported, I was pleasantly surprised by the lack of curl in recently developed 120 rolls. I had a little bit of cupping, but nothing that would cause issues.

 

[Valmidira]

Fomapan 100 and 400 are fine films, no quality issues (using both roll and sheet variant). Fomapan 200 is little bit more problematic ("longitudinal wires" all over the roll).

To get really great results I definitely recommend to treat them as one stop slower films (50 and 200) and use Atomal (stock or 1+1) as developer. Rodinal 1+50 or 1+100 is also very good) . They don´t like overdevelopment.

 

[Alan9940]

Rodinal 1+50 or 1+100 is also very good) .

I really like 120 Fomapan 100 developed in Rodinal 1+50. The resulting negatives remind me of my beloved Agfa APX 100 back in the day.

 

[Alexander6x6]

I love how it looks in 35mm and wanted to try it out in 120, but I have seen threads about people complaining about some QC issues for their films in 120.

I don‘t what was wrong, but the grain of my Fomapan 400 was like dirty spots. Since then never used it.

 

[mehguy]

I really like 120 Fomapan 100 developed in Rodinal 1+50. The resulting negatives remind me of my beloved Agfa APX 100 back in the day.

I concur.

 

[Wouthazel]

I use sheet film in 4x5 and 8x10. 100,200 and 400. I hardly ever seen a problem with anything.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

About 10 years ago, I bought some 120 Fomapan 100 Classic in Berlin. I did not see any technical problems with it, but it did not jump out at me. After I used the 6 or 10 rolls, I did not buy any more.

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2017/01/cement-silos-of-redwood-with-fomapan.html

 

[Valmidira]

I repeat, these are good films at an excellent price. However, they are prone to overdevelopment, which causes grain and contrast to increase more than with other films, while the shadows remain flat. The key is to expose them at ISO 50 or 200 and use a suitable developer— for me Atomal or diluted Rodinal.

 

[Sanug]

I expose Fomapan 100 at box speed and develop longer than in the datasheets with good results.

Zenza Bronica SQ-A
Zenzanon-S 3,5/50 mm
Fomapan 100, ISO 100 (Exp. 06/2025)
Adox XT-3, 1+2, 16 Min
Canoscan 8800F, Vuescan

 

[blee1996]

Arista EDU Ultra 100 (Foma 100) is the main 120 film I use to test older medium format cameras that rely on red window for frame counting. I have no QC problems over the last 10 years or so.

I also use Foma 100 extensively in sheet film from 9x12, 4x5, 5x7 to 8x10 with no QC issues.

 

[MARTIE]

No issues here.

 

[Valmidira]

May I ask why you’re intentionally overdeveloping the film? Is there any specific reason?
I develop films for a condenser enlarger, so fairly low contrast is my goal.


Adox XT-3 is similar to X-Tol?

 

[Sanug]

Yes, XT-3 is a Xtol clone. I have a Durst M605 with color head which needs more contrast. However, the negatives scanned very well, too. They do not look overdeveloped at all.

Anyway, the developing times from the Foma datasheets resulted in too thin negatives due to my experience.