Fomapan 200 questions

[Paul Howell]

Funny how some people will say Foma 200 is grainy while others will say that it's not. Of course shooting larger than 135 format will minimize a lot of grain compared to humble ol' 35mm. The above example looks nice, especially for Rodinal equivalent developer.

I've always thought that Foma 200 gain and resolving power is similar to Kodak Plus X, or PF 4, better than Foma 100 and of course much better than Foma 400, but about the same as Tmax 400.

 

[albireo]

Here I am!

FOMADON R09

Liquid normal - working concentrate developer, intended for black and white negative films. The concentrate is available in PE-bottles of 250 ml, and for use is diluted with water in a ratio from 1 + 25 to 1 + 50 (alternatively 1+100).<br /> <br />

www.foma.cz

That roll was developed in Fomadon R09 1:50 10 minutes in an AP tank. Slow continuous inversions for the first minute, followed by 3 raps of the tank on the shelf - then, 2 gentle inversion at the beginning of each minute. Fomacitro stop for 1 minute, continuous agitation, followed by Fomafix fixer fresh 4 minutes. Washed in tank using dedicated AP hose connected to tap water, followed by a distilled water bath + Fotonal 1:200.

Hope this helps.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I think this is a lovely film, I've not had good luck with it in 120 film cameras I've tried. Some folks here say cameras with straight film paths work well with Foma 200. Has anyone hear tried it respooled onto 620 spools in a Kodak Medalist camera? If not, I might just have to pick up a couple of rolls for my Medalist and Monitor cameras and see.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I've only used Kodak and some Fuji and Ilford b&w film so far.

I have some questions about Fompan 200.

-Is the 35mm on triacetate or polyester base?

-How is the quality control?

-Does the bulk film have frame numbers and edge markings?

-Is it true that it uses a grain type that's in between tabular and T-grain, or am I thinking of some other product?

-How does it compare to Plus-X and Tri-X in terms of contrast, tones, sharpness, etc.? Seems similar from photos and descriptions online, but I also read something about it being less sharp, possibly.

from my limited experience, it seems to to me that Kodak, Ilord, and Fuji's QC are second to none.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

from my limited experience, it seems to to me that Kodak, Ilord, and Fuji's QC are second to none.

Considering the recent hiccups of 120, I'd say no, Kodak and Ilford recently are no better than Foma QC.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Here I am!

FOMADON R09

Liquid normal - working concentrate developer, intended for black and white negative films. The concentrate is available in PE-bottles of 250 ml, and for use is diluted with water in a ratio from 1 + 25 to 1 + 50 (alternatively 1+100).<br /> <br />

www.foma.cz

That roll was developed in Fomadon R09 1:50 10 minutes in an AP tank. Slow continuous inversions for the first minute, followed by 3 raps of the tank on the shelf - then, 2 gentle inversion at the beginning of each minute. Fomacitro stop for 1 minute, continuous agitation, followed by Fomafix fixer fresh 4 minutes. Washed in tank using dedicated AP hose connected to tap water, followed by a distilled water bath + Fotonal 1:200.

Hope this helps.

Lovely pic. It has some "metal-ish" quality to it.

 

[baachitraka]

Here I am!

FOMADON R09

Liquid normal - working concentrate developer, intended for black and white negative films. The concentrate is available in PE-bottles of 250 ml, and for use is diluted with water in a ratio from 1 + 25 to 1 + 50 (alternatively 1+100).<br /> <br />

www.foma.cz

That roll was developed in Fomadon R09 1:50 10 minutes in an AP tank. Slow continuous inversions for the first minute, followed by 3 raps of the tank on the shelf - then, 2 gentle inversion at the beginning of each minute. Fomacitro stop for 1 minute, continuous agitation, followed by Fomafix fixer fresh 4 minutes. Washed in tank using dedicated AP hose connected to tap water, followed by a distilled water bath + Fotonal 1:200.

Hope this helps.

Thank you.

 

[GregY]

from my limited experience, it seems to to me that Kodak, Ilord, and Fuji's QC are second to none.

Exactly....why deal with avoidable QC issues when there are reliable options...

 

[FotoD]

Quality control is good in my experience.

I moved to Fomapan when Kodak had their backing-paper meltdown. Moved to Foma and Adox chemistry when Xtol stopped working properly.

I've been very happy with the material since then.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have not experainced any of the QC issues reported by other users, but I moved from Foma 120 to Kentmere as I really dislike the cural.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Quality control is good in my experience.

I moved to Fomapan when Kodak had their backing-paper meltdown. Moved to Foma and Adox chemistry when Xtol stopped working properly.

I've been very happy with the material since then.

That's exactly my path too...

 

[albireo]

Foma seems to have introduced some changes in their product line.

I've recently ordered some Foma 100 and 200 in 120 and the packaging has been redesigned. I had developed some rolls of the 100 and noticed the edge markings, frame numbers etc on the negative have been redesigned. Sadly I have no idea if there have been any technical revisions relating to the product itself and cannot find any mention of this redesign on Foma's social media channels or website.

I've now exposed two rolls of this newly repackaged Foma 200 in 120, and will develop them soon. Batch number is 014256-6 (exp 05/27).

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Foma seems to have introduced some changes in their product line.

I've recently ordered some Foma 100 and 200 in 120 and the packaging has been redesigned. I had developed some rolls of the 100 and noticed the edge markings, frame numbers etc on the negative have been redesigned. Sadly I have no idea if there have been any technical revisions relating to the product itself and cannot find any mention of this redesign on Foma's social media channels or website.

I've now exposed two rolls of this newly repackaged Foma 200 in 120, and will develop them soon. Batch number is 014256-6 (exp 05/27).

Look for revision of the tech paper... Bottom page, right.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Foma seems to have introduced some changes in their product line.

I've recently ordered some Foma 100 and 200 in 120 and the packaging has been redesigned. I had developed some rolls of the 100 and noticed the edge markings, frame numbers etc on the negative have been redesigned. Sadly I have no idea if there have been any technical revisions relating to the product itself and cannot find any mention of this redesign on Foma's social media channels or website.

I've now exposed two rolls of this newly repackaged Foma 200 in 120, and will develop them soon. Batch number is 014256-6 (exp 05/27).

Please let us know how they come out. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm keenly interested. I'm curious to see iff the emulsion flaking, scratches or whatever it is is gone.

 

[Agulliver]

I am given to understand that there were significant QC issues with Fomapan more than 10 years ago, which is about when I started using it. I don't think I've had a single problem with any Foma product across 35mm (bulk loads and manufactured cassettes), 120 and 8mm cine....and I've developed prints in Foma chemicals.

I do think that in the past a lot of people were put off by Foma QC but from what some old hands with Foma tell me, they upped their game. Possibly still not quite as stringent as Kodak and Ilford....but then their products are sometimes half the price. And I really like Foma 120 backing paper because I can actually read the numbers and symbols through the ruby windows on my folders and box cameras.

 

[koraks]

they upped their game

IDK. I don't see much/any difference between a decade ago and today. QC for the most part is pretty good, but you do get the occasional pinhole in an emulsion that's exceedingly rare or entirely absent in Kodak and Harman/Ilford products. Then again, I see systematic problems across virtually all manufacturers when it comes to 120 in particular, with backing paper offset issues popping up also at the major manufacturers, but especially Harman seems to be plagued by it. There's also the rare instance of partial fogging of factory-confectioned HP5+ a few months ago. Interestingly, I've not seen backing paper offset issues attributable to poor choice of materials or logistics issues on Foma as they have occurred with e.g. Harman and Kodak over the past decade. On the other hand, the emulsion problems with Foma 200 in 120 format have been declared resolved only to emerge within weeks after those claims that I've given up on believeing that Foma will ever change anything about that particular product.

TL;DR: I think it's hard/impossible to say anything sensible about QC as a whole; it's just too nuanced, variable and the discussion is always dominated by specific issues (sometimes of systematic nature) that are difficult to relate to regular QC procedures.

Overall I have no issue with Foma's QC especially given the price of their products, apart from that single product (200) in that particular format (120). That's really the only big, systematic and recurring problem I've had with them.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Koraks hit the nail on the head! I like all Foma products I have tried, except one. Yes, Foma 200 in 120. I have a bulk roll in 35mm and it's great. I also love the bold numbers on the backing paper since I have many older cameras I still use. When I use Ilford B&W film in my old folders I have to take a small LED penlight along to briefly shine into the window just to read the numbers. Not with Foma!

 

[loccdor]

Foma films are a good value when they are sold rebranded. If you're getting bothered by small defects, you may prefer Fuji, Kodak, and Ilford. Foma usually does a little better than the Shanghai films.

In particular I never experienced or heard of a bad batch of a Fuji product. I've seen Kodak and Ilford mess up, though rarely.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Foma films are a good value when they are sold rebranded. If you're getting bothered by small defects, you may prefer Fuji, Kodak, and Ilford. Foma usually does a little better than the Shanghai films.

In particular I never experienced or heard of a bad batch of a Fuji product. I've seen Kodak and Ilford mess up, though rarely.

Fuji doesn't make b&w films anymore, so take it out from the list...
Foma films are an excellent choice because they're readily available, they are cheap, they are sufficiently diversified, Foma carries a complete chemical line-up and it's the only manufacturer to make a real b&w reversal film, not an adapted one...

 

[albireo]

Foma films are a good value when they are sold rebranded.

Foma films are good value full stop. Buying rebranded is not a good idea, as the batch numbering information is lost and you might be buying b-stock or old stock foma.

If you're getting bothered by small defects, you may prefer Fuji, Kodak, and Ilford. Foma usually does a little better than the Shanghai films.

I am very bothered by defects and I'm very anal about my process and my results. I choose to use Foma and Ilford and overall I find that my failures are due 99.9% of the times to human error (mine) rather than issues with the media I've chosen to use.

I haven't used Kodak black and white film for many years and I honestly don't miss anything about it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, admittedly more than 10 yrs ago, but I had about a 60% defect rate (zits, linear cracks or scratches) with two different batches of Foma 200 8x10 sheet film, which certainly soured me on it. On the other hand, I can't even remember a defective sheet of Kodak, Ilford, or Fuji film. Hopefully things have changed. But given the effort and expense that goes into 8x10 photography, I just can't risk the gamble again.

 

[albireo]

[...] Kodak, Ilford, or Fuji film. Hopefully things have changed.

I agree - hopefully things have changed for Kodak. Last time I made the unfortunate decision of using some 20 rolls of their 120 Tmax 400, all of the developed images had the words 'KODAK - KODAK - KODAK' impressed on the images. That was 2019. Awful stuff. Never had even one roll of Foma or Kentmere do that to me.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sorry for your difficulty. I never encountered any of those troublesome rolls, although I shoot quite a bit of Kodak roll film, both color and black and white. The suspect batches were identified, and conscientious dealers pulled them from their shelves. But if you search older threads, and even some relatively recent ones on certain sites, you'll discover that the kinds of flaws I encountered on Foma sheet film also plagued a number of 120 rolls of Foma 200. And there have also been reported issues on the backing paper for Harman/Ilford.

I've dealt a tremendous amount with both Euro, American, and Japanese non-photo-related manufacturers over four decades before I retired. Even the most reliable product lines at some point in time experienced a change in some component or its subcontractor which temporarily turned their reputation upside down. It happens. And in this case, 120 backing paper ran out, and the substitutes obviously had a problem, and had to re-engineered. In Kodak's case, it's perfectly obvious what the new and successful backing now is. It has a completely different feel from any previous version.

 

[Agulliver]

Speaking of Foma's backing paper for 120, does anyone know whether they manufacture it or who else might be making if for them? It doesn't seem to have the problems that have occurred with Kodak and Ilford/Harman......and you can actually read the numbers on Foma paper!

 

[albireo]

Foma seems to have introduced some changes in their product line.

I've recently ordered some Foma 100 and 200 in 120 and the packaging has been redesigned. I had developed some rolls of the 100 and noticed the edge markings, frame numbers etc on the negative have been redesigned. Sadly I have no idea if there have been any technical revisions relating to the product itself and cannot find any mention of this redesign on Foma's social media channels or website.

I've now exposed two rolls of this newly repackaged Foma 200 in 120, and will develop them soon. Batch number is 014256-6 (exp 05/27).

Apologies for not updating the thread with results. I have developed the two rolls mentioned above a couple of days ago and have started processing them.

The good news is that I'm not seeing the classic 'hairline' issue so far at all.

The bad news is that something was wrong with my fixer. I had prepared it only a few days before and used it only for another roll so I dived in and poured it in the tank without inspecting it. As I was pouring it in, I started to noice a strong sulphur smell. I also noticed, upon putting the used fixer in its bottle again after use, that it was hazy and grey-ish, unlike normal (prepared Fomafix is transparent in my experience). Something 'spoilt' the fixer and I did not realise it in time. Sure enough, ALL of the scanned negatives are ruined by myriad white spots (dark spots on the negative) which I'm assuming to be some sort of fixer precipitate. Upsetting.

I'm now wondering if refixing will ameliorate this or if, whatever those particles are, they're now embedded in the emulsion and that's it.