Fomapan 200 questions

[loccdor]

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.



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.

I'm glad you like using Foma films. So do I. I've used them for 15 years, both rebranded and original, and have found a larger amount of defects in them than I get from the big 3 manufacturers. But, I think I have a higher tolerance for these defects than most, and sometimes even enjoy them.

I think that buying rebranded is a good idea because I've been able to pick up fresh Foma for as little as $4 per roll in the past year, which is unprecedented at today's prices, and the performance was not any worse than buying original.

As far as Kodak B&W goes, I'd definitely miss anything in their -X line of films if it were no longer available. The others I can take or leave.

 

[loccdor]

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...

The original Acros is still widely and economically available on the 3rd party market and ages very well, usually performing with near-fresh results. I have tons of it I stocked up on in 120, and have bought a couple dozens rolls in 35mm in the past year also.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

The original Acros is still widely and economically available on the 3rd party market and ages very well, usually performing with near-fresh results. I have tons of it I stocked up on in 120, and have bought a couple dozens rolls in 35mm in the past year also.

Not in EU. Where Acros II in 35mm 36exp is over 13€ a roll, not quite the 4,5€ of Fomapan 100 classic.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm down to my very last roll of original 120 Acros. Fuji is now offering Acros II, although the final part of the process (cutting, spooling, etc) appears to involve Harman. It is even better than the original Acros but significantly more expensive. And it is only available in 35mm and 120, no more sheet film sizes.

 

[loccdor]

It is even better than the original Acros but significantly more expensive.

I don't know that it's better. My understanding is the second version came about to get around a problem with some chemical's availability/regulation, not in order to improve the film.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There are two distinct minor improvements in ACROS II, but small enough that you seldom need to worry about changes in exposure or development. First, the blue sensitivity has been reduced a little, allowing better differentiation of clouds versus blue sky with contrast filtration, etc. Second, the toe has been steepened a little more, giving better deep shadow gradation, an improvement I particularly find rewarding. No, it's still not going to have the linearity of TMax way down there, but does have enough improvement that I can often get away with box speed of 100, rather than shooting at 50 like I generally had to with the original product in order to open up the shadows in high contrast scenes.

The only minor downside I can think of, is that the spools are no longer the curved-end EZLoad Fuji kind, but the regular Ilford type. The staggering price hike is, uh, er, more of a major issue.

 

[albireo]

I'm glad you like using Foma films. So do I. I've used them for 15 years, both rebranded and original, and have found a larger amount of defects in them than I get from the big 3 manufacturers. But, I think I have a higher tolerance for these defects than most, and sometimes even enjoy them.

I on the other hand don't enjoy defects. I have found Foma 100 and 400 and Retropan 320 to be defect-free, and I use them because of their reliability, and because I like their curve+spectral response+grain structure.

Foma 200 is a different case. I like it quite a lot, so I've persevered in spite of encountering the well known scratch defect every now and then. I will abandon it eventually, if Foma doesn't solve this issue permanently, and keep using the other stuff they make.

Kodak makes incredible colour film, but for European consumers IMO their black and white stuff has long stopped making any sense whatsoever price-wise. Anyone with a little experimentation can obtain indistinguishable results with other brands at 1/3 to 1/2 the price.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm unaware of any realistic substitutes for what TMax films consistently deliver. Yes, Delta 100 can be coaxed into similarity, but requires shooting at 50 to get it to launch it off the toe onto the straight line portion; and it has grain about midway between 100 and 400 Tmax; and the specific spectral sensitivity is noticeably different. The other hypothetical substitute is Foma 200, which has an even longer straight line way down into the shadows than TMX;
but then you've got to deal with the absolutely wretched long exposure recip characteristics and dicey quality control. I rate it at 100; it's nowhere near the alleged box speed of 200.

My fussiest application for TMax is in the 120 version (6X7 and 6X9 cameras or film backs). That's because I often mix 120 shots into the same 16X20 print portfolios as large format 4x5 and 8x10 work, especially of mountain, desert, or deep forest subjects, where contrast levels can be extreme. The sheer difficulty of getting to certain places amplifies the anguish if important shots are lost due to quality issues. I experienced that on the last batch of Ekfe R25, (they had dust contamination problems on their last batch), an otherwise stellar performer beforehand, itself with an exceptionally long straight line combined with superb detail capacity, valuable to me in the mountains.

But those same characteristics also make TMax films, or TMY400 in particular, my favorite sheet film currently available. And TMax 100 sheet film is absolutely the best product for unsharp masking purposes or color separation negatives. I realize these are advanced applications; but that is the kind of thing I do. Fortunately, I stockpiled a quantity of it in my freezer before the pricing went bonkers.

All of this being stated, by all means keep reporting on how Foma 200 works for you. I'd certainly welcome a conspicuous improvement in quality control. It's a unique interesting film.

 

[Mark J]

Foma 200,
but then you've got to deal with the absolutely wretched long exposure recip characteristics

It doesn't have wretched reciprocity characteristics.
It's MUCH better than the datasheets info they provide.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Dream on. My own opinion (and actual testing) is hardly unique.

 

[FotoD]

It's great for long exposures in the studio. You compensate like with any other film, no problem.

I agree that Formas compensation factor probably is a bit high when you get to 100s metered and beyond. For the shorter times it has worked fine though.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Out in the field, things move. And their own spec sheet tells the consensus story. I can't think of any other film with such an uncooperative long exposure response. Add a deep contrast filter, with the lens on your 8X10 set at f/64, and you need a Carbon 14 timer.

Short story : After learning this the hard way, I simply avoided that kind of scenario when shooting Foma 200. I quit using it due to my bad experience with the quality control. Otherwise, I could have put up with certain idiosyncrasies in tradeoff for its superb extreme contrast range linearity. I was experimenting with it as a potential replacement for Bergger 200 once that was being phased out (which, unlike Foma, was a true 200 speed film, but too grainy for me except in 8x10 sheet size - Foma has much finer grain).

If I gamble with it again, I'll try more affordable 4X5 size.

 

[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).

So I've managed to develop three rolls of the new batch as above.

Fomadon R09 1:50, 9min at 20°C, continuous inversions 1st minute, then 2 inversions per minute
Fomacitro Stop 1+19 as per leaflet, third use
Fomafix 1+5, prepared fresh, 4 minutes
Washed in AP/Kaiser tank using AP hose connected to tap, followed by a final rinse in distilled water
Fotonal (photoflo) 1:200 and distilled water

Results are pathetic. I am seeing zero hairline scratches - however, ALL frames are covered by defects as shown in the following two sample scans. I see two types of defect: first, dark specs on the negative appearing white on the scans. These affect the entire frame, uniformly. Second, light spots on the negative appearing as clusters of black spots in the scans.

Further notes:
-it's not the camera
-it's not the scanner
-I've tried three rolls from the same batch, in two different development sessions
-It's not the fixer - new bottle, freshly prepared fixer for the occasion.
-It's not the cabinet where I dry my negatives overnight. I get ZERO dust with all other film dried in the same cabinet.

Given what I'm seeing, and unless I'm missing something obvious (please feel free to jump in!) I cannot recommend this batch for use. In fact I'll go further, and say I am now tired of Fomapan 200 in 120. I will now agree with everyone else. It is a shame that Foma keeps selling this crap. Please note: those who know me on these boards will know I am a huge fan of the brand and in many occasions I've been known to share my experience, that has on occasions been extremely positive with this product: I have often attempted to suggest the issues with Foma 200 in 120 were batch dependent, as this is what I was observing: some batches giving me excellent results, some batches for the bin.

I'm now moving away from this narrative as I'm sick of this. Like many others, I will stop entirely purchasing this product until this manufacturer owns up to this, acts on this, and communicates this properly.

Really a shame, Foma. You've lost another customer. Recall this product from the market or f**ing fix it!

Apologies to everyone I've argued with so far - you were right all along. In my defense I can say I DID see excellent results over the past few years of usage of this product, so I was moderately optimistic. Now no more.

 

[grain elevator]

Sad to see and hear. I hope they get their shit together. I haven't had bad experiences except some of my own making, but the price difference to Ilford to me doesn't support the gamble in 120, which I tend to use more deliberately than 35 mm. I have a bulk roll of Foma 400 now which is fine. Might buy bulk 200 in the future for an everyday film, but the higher sensitivity for me is am advantage for this purpose... I don't know.

 

[albireo]

Sad to see and hear. I hope they get their shit together. I haven't had bad experiences except some of my own making, but the price difference to Ilford to me doesn't support the gamble in 120, which I tend to use more deliberately than 35 mm. I have a bulk roll of Foma 400 now which is fine. Might buy bulk 200 in the future for an everyday film, but the higher sensitivity for me is am advantage for this purpose... I don't know.

just to clarify . My observations are only wrt Foma 200 in 120.

Foma 200 in 35mm is fine IME. Foma 100 and 400 both in 35mm and 120, Foma Retropan 320 and Foma Ortho 400 in 120 have given me zero issues over the past years of continuous usage.

It's just the bloody Foma 200 in 120 that I will stop supporting. I've already thrown the remaining 5 rolls from this batch away. Enough is enough.

 

[koraks]

The black (in positive) "peppering" looks identical to what I've also seen on this film. I never got the white marks; they look like a backing paper interaction problem.

Yes, it's a pity that this film in this particular format is so problematic. Thanks for sharing your experience and let's hope that Foma will eventually work this out.

 

[albireo]

The black (in positive) "peppering" looks identical to what I've also seen on this film. I never got the white marks; they look like a backing paper interaction problem.

I was thinking more along the lines of problematic anti-halation layer that didn't fully dissolve but yours sounds like a good guess also.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

So I've managed to develop three rolls of the new batch as above.

Fomadon R09 1:50, 9min at 20°C, continuous inversions 1st minute, then 2 inversions per minute
Fomacitro Stop 1+19 as per leaflet, third use
Fomafix 1+5, prepared fresh, 4 minutes
Washed in AP/Kaiser tank using AP hose connected to tap, followed by a final rinse in distilled water
Fotonal (photoflo) 1:200 and distilled water

Results are pathetic. I am seeing zero hairline scratches - however, ALL frames are covered by defects as shown in the following two sample scans. I see two types of defect: first, dark specs on the negative appearing white on the scans. These affect the entire frame, uniformly. Second, light spots on the negative appearing as clusters of black spots in the scans.

Further notes:
-it's not the camera
-it's not the scanner
-I've tried three rolls from the same batch, in two different development sessions
-It's not the fixer - new bottle, freshly prepared fixer for the occasion.
-It's not the cabinet where I dry my negatives overnight. I get ZERO dust with all other film dried in the same cabinet.

Given what I'm seeing, and unless I'm missing something obvious (please feel free to jump in!) I cannot recommend this batch for use. In fact I'll go further, and say I am now tired of Fomapan 200 in 120. I will now agree with everyone else. It is a shame that Foma keeps selling this crap. Please note: those who know me on these boards will know I am a huge fan of the brand and in many occasions I've been known to share my experience, that has on occasions been extremely positive with this product: I have often attempted to suggest the issues with Foma 200 in 120 were batch dependent, as this is what I was observing: some batches giving me excellent results, some batches for the bin.

I'm now moving away from this narrative as I'm sick of this. Like many others, I will stop entirely purchasing this product until this manufacturer owns up to this, acts on this, and communicates this properly.

Really a shame, Foma. You've lost another customer. Recall this product from the market or f**ing fix it!

Apologies to everyone I've argued with so far - you were right all along. In my defense I can say I DID see excellent results over the past few years of usage of this product, so I was moderately optimistic. Now no more.

Have you tried another developer?
Why don't you send a sample to Foma to inspect?
How fresh is the fixer concentrate? Is it cloudy?

 

[albireo]

Have you tried another developer?

No. But the same bottle is working fine with other film I'm developing in this rotation. Foma 100 in 120, Kentmere 100 and 400 in 120 and 135, Foma 200 in 35mm, Ferrania P33, Rollei Retro 400S..

Why don't you send a sample to Foma to inspect?

I've done it far too many times. Can't be arsed anymore tbh.

How fresh is the fixer concentrate? Is it cloudy?

Very fresh. Transparent. Ordered 3 bottles last June from Foma, same order as the problematic film.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

No. But the same bottle is working fine with other film I'm developing in this rotation. Foma 100 in 120, Kentmere 100 and 400 in 120 and 135, Foma 200 in 35mm, Ferrania P33, Rollei Retro 400S..



I've done it far too many times. Can't be arsed anymore tbh.



Very fresh. Transparent. Ordered 3 bottles last June from Foma, same order as the problematic film.

The solution of your problem is at reply #10 here https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/white-dots.175654/

 

[Tomro]

If this were the solution (and I’m not saying it isn’t) it is Foma’s (!) duty to point it out in the development recomendations not for users to find it out after(!) running into such issues.
However it is, this is a f***-up by Foma now going on for years.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

If this were the solution (and I’m not saying it isn’t) it is Foma’s (!) duty to point it out in the development recomendations not for users to find it out after(!) running into such issues.

No, since it's not a "feature" but a "problem" of certain batches. In other words it's temporary.

 

[miha]

I've done it far too many times. Can't be arsed anymore tbh.

This means they either didn't reply or their response was inadequate?

 

[albireo]

The solution of your problem is at reply #10 here https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/white-dots.175654/

Go back to the post referenced by the one above. It's by me. That's because the 'solution' proposed was proposed by Jiri Crtek (apologies for mispelling his name) of Foma Support to me and I then shared it here. Believe me, I've put a lot of work into this already.

By the way - my query to Foma was about an (old, isolated) issue with Foma 100, not Foma 200. I've not seen that anymore in Foma 100. It would have to be proven that the issue is the same I'm now seeing with Foma 200.

In any case. I've tried my best.

As one of the biggest Foma 200 fans out there - I've taken some of my favourite pictures with it - I now wish Foma 200 in 120 all the best.

I will replace it with Kentmere 400 pulled in D23 and - if it comes out - Ferrania P33 in 120.

 

[Tomro]

No, since it's not a "feature" but a "problem" of certain batches. In other words it's temporary.

it’s certainly recurring, which is a better description than temporary in this case