Fomapan 200 questions

[Agulliver]

I'm nearing the finish line with a 100 foot roll of Arista.edu 200 (Foma creative 200) and here are my thoughts.

I really like the look developed with D76/ID11 at stock or 1:1 dilutions, at ei 160. Fairly medium contrast, somewhat grainy but with the right exposure it shines.

I do NOT, however, recommend TMAX developer with the recommended times. Highlights were blown, grass looks like snow, and the grain atrocious. I tried one last time with a 4:00 dev time at 68F with TMAX 1:5. Finally tamed the contrast but the brighter highlights still block. This stuff develops FAST. Fixes fast, too.

Interesting and useful observation. I've certainly found that Fomapan 100 and 400 are quite picky with developers and times/temperatures. I didn't find FOmapan 200 to be as picky, but I haven't tried TMAX developer.

 

[redbandit]

400 isnt bad. use the massive development chart data ive had decent luck in my opinion, perhaps better then most using xtol.

 

[relistan]

Thanks It was the link between temp and increase in speed that I was really interested in. Yes the shortening of dev time is clear and known but I hadn't heard of it improving speed. On the basis that 20C = 160 and 30C = 200 then that is quite a lot

It looks as if this is a Foma assertion but I'd have thought that for such a company to make such an assertion there had to be some form of science to back it up

pentaxuser

Having tested Fomapan 400 in some fairly hot bleaches when experimenting with reversal and peroxide, I can assure you that at least that emulsion is fine to over 40C. Not recommending it, but it’s not as fragile as folks think.

 

[baachitraka]

I'm nearing the finish line with a 100 foot roll of Arista.edu 200 (Foma creative 200) and here are my thoughts.

I really like the look developed with D76/ID11 at stock or 1:1 dilutions, at ei 160. Fairly medium contrast, somewhat grainy but with the right exposure it shines.

I do NOT, however, recommend TMAX developer with the recommended times. Highlights were blown, grass looks like snow, and the grain atrocious. I tried one last time with a 4:00 dev time at 68F with TMAX 1:5. Finally tamed the contrast but the brighter highlights still block. This stuff develops FAST. Fixes fast, too.

Yes, Foma films builds the contrast really fast. Nevertheless they are good films with usual recommended times minus 20-30%

 

[redbandit]

Yes, Foma films builds the contrast really fast. Nevertheless they are good films with usual recommended times minus 20-30%

Would you care to explain that a bit for me.. Ive been using foma/arista 400 in 135 and i havent gotten huge grain at all. No matter if i developed at home or sent them to a lab to do.

ive been using the straight film shot at 400 iso on the dial, and using the full times listed by massive development chart and they come out BETTER then commercially done tri x 400

 

[John Wiegerink]

Would you care to explain that a bit for me.. Ive been using foma/arista 400 in 135 and i havent gotten huge grain at all. No matter if i developed at home or sent them to a lab to do.

ive been using the straight film shot at 400 iso on the dial, and using the full times listed by massive development chart and they come out BETTER then commercially done tri x 400

Are you wet printing or digitizing? I've found that Foma 400 isn't too bad if you only enlarge 35mm to 8X10 or maybe up to 11X14 for some subjects, but go past that and grain can be very apparent. I don't know exactly how it comes out scanning wise since I've never really tried that. I'll gladly use HP5+, but I also know that film better. Foma 100 compared to FP4+? That's a different story.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Foma 400 is pretty damn grainy compared to TMax 400, which is actual 400 speed. Foma 400 certainly isn't. If someone isn't seeing grain at all, something in the printing workflow is just plain out of focus.

But compared to Tri-X, more like birdshot rather than buckshot.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Any thoughts here about stand development of 120 Fomapan 200 in Rodinal? I just bought a few bricks of the stuff and am planning to shoot it at maybe EI125.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Any thoughts here about stand development of 120 Fomapan 200 in Rodinal? I just bought a few bricks of the stuff and am planning to shoot it at maybe EI125.

I don't see why it wouldn't work. You'll get folks here telling you to stay away from "stand developing" or they'll say it doesn't work as well as a certain agitation regime. Well, I've had very good luck with Rodinal 1+100 for 60 minutes with Fuji Acros original and the new II and Ilford PanF+. I've had the best luck with fairly heavy agitation for the very first minute and then a gentle 10 sec. one right at 31 minutes. I don't seem to get any bromide drag doing it that way. I also pre-soak for 2 minute prior to adding the developer. The biggest problem I had was bromide drag, but have been fairly lucky as of late. I will admit that I don't use stand very often, but for some situations it works great. I guess what I'm saying is, take a practice roll and try it. All you have to lose is one roll of film, a little time and very little Rodinal. Please post your results since I have a bulk roll of the Foma 200 to try myself.

 

[redbandit]

Are you wet printing or digitizing? I've found that Foma 400 isn't too bad if you only enlarge 35mm to 8X10 or maybe up to 11X14 for some subjects, but go past that and grain can be very apparent. I don't know exactly how it comes out scanning wise since I've never really tried that. I'll gladly use HP5+, but I also know that film better. Foma 100 compared to FP4+? That's a different story.

fomapan seems to be better for my bird work then Ilford products, delta kentmere fp4 hp5 just nasty mud in comparison. And for some reason, even my worst fomapan 100 negativs that were developed wrong by a mail order lab, were able to create a print. the ilford ones that were processed wrong, even the same 100 iso were not able to generate more then multiple clouds of black on slighter lighter black background.

 

[relistan]

Would you care to explain that a bit for me.. Ive been using foma/arista 400 in 135 and i havent gotten huge grain at all. No matter if i developed at home or sent them to a lab to do.

ive been using the straight film shot at 400 iso on the dial, and using the full times listed by massive development chart and they come out BETTER then commercially done tri x 400

I’m not a big fan of Fomapan 400 but I do like the tonality sometimes and I shot almost 100ft of it. Never got good results at 400 but I learned that exposing it at EI200 and keeping dev time short can help a lot. I got pretty good results with my two bath developer with it. Here’s one showing pretty ok grain behavior. Only a bit more noticeable than Tri-X.

 

[Roger Cole]

Thanks It was the link between temp and increase in speed that I was really interested in. Yes the shortening of dev time is clear and known but I hadn't heard of it improving speed. On the basis that 20C = 160 and 30C = 200 then that is quite a lot

It looks as if this is a Foma assertion but I'd have thought that for such a company to make such an assertion there had to be some form of science to back it up

pentaxuser

One third of a stop is “quite a lot?”

 

[Agulliver]

The first time I shot Fomapan 400, I shot at 320 as I'd read it's really no faster than this and ended up with very grainy, unpleasant outdoor shots whereas the indoor shots where I'd actually set the meter to 400 to get a little faster shutter speed were great. Less grain too.

With Fomapan 200 I don't find grain is a problem and it has a gorgeous range of contrast but I do only shoot at box speed in sunny or medium cloudy conditions outside. It's not a film I'd push. I imagine it's technically possible but I'd just shoot faster film myself.

 

[npl]

Fomapan 400 will yield radically different results depending on exposure and developement (isn't it true with all films ?). I did two 24x30cm prints recently from two different rolls, the first was shot at EI 400 and developed in rodinal 1:50, the second EI 200 XTOL 1:1. As expected, the rodinal one was moody and grainy, with low shadows details. The Xtol one was the opposite : smooth, low contrast, very low grain (you can't see it on the print unless being very very close), good shadow details.

OP asked about fomapan 200 compared to Tri-X. I happened to shot both last spring and used XTOL 1:1. I'm not sure if one was sharper than the other, but the "look" is definitely different. Like others I found the fomapan more modern-looking, very clean and lean, no grain to speak of. Later I shot some architecture with it, it was a good match for that.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

The OP asked about Fomapan 200. Fomapan 400 is a different film, different grain structure, that shares only a name and substrate with Fomapan 200.

If you trust manufacturers' data, the RMS for Foma 200 is 14, as opposed to 17.5 for Foma 400, suggesting substantially finer grain for the Foma 200. That puts Foma 200 in between Plus X (10) and Tri-X (17) -- which tracks my experience with Foma 200 in its 35mm version. Comparisons are subjective -- if it helps, here is a frame I shot ages ago on Foma 200 at EI100 through a 5cm Nikkor S.C. @f/2, processed in Rodinal. It is typical of my experiences with the 35mm version of the film.

 

[FotoD]

The first time I shot Fomapan 400, I shot at 320 as I'd read it's really no faster than this and ended up with very grainy, unpleasant outdoor shots whereas the indoor shots where I'd actually set the meter to 400 to get a little faster shutter speed were great. Less grain too.

The high red sensitivity of Fomapan 400 can make it seem faster indoors in warm light.

 

[grain elevator]

fomapan seems to be better for my bird work then Ilford products, delta kentmere fp4 hp5 just nasty mud in comparison. And for some reason, even my worst fomapan 100 negativs that were developed wrong by a mail order lab, were able to create a print. the ilford ones that were processed wrong, even the same 100 iso were not able to generate more then multiple clouds of black on slighter lighter black background.

Something in your process is amiss. If you show us a pic of the negatives, we can help troubleshoot!

 

[pentaxuser]

One third of a stop is “quite a lot?”

Well it may or may not be "quite a lot" but as I said before it is the scientific basis for the increase that stems from the increased temp that I am curious about and so far no-one has come up with what this basis is.

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Foma 200 has been private labeled several different ways over the years, including Classic 200 and Arista 200. It's been marketed all along as a competitive product to now-extinct Kodak Super XX and Berrger/Lotus 200 after that. Yes, it does have a very long comparable straight line, but simply won't cooperate when it comes to plus or push development. I've heard the late Michael Smith speak in expletives about this film due to that limitation, among its other significant idiosyncrasies.

Foma 100 and 400 are entirely different products, and it can be misleading to combine them in the same thread unless carefully distinguished.

 

[relistan]

Foma 100 and 400 are entirely different products, and it can be misleading to combine them in the same thread unless carefully distinguished.

Yes they are different. A subjective point was made by someone and then ridiculed, so there was a little discussion about 400. It’s useful to compare.

But those films are quite different and use different tech from 200.

 

[koraks]

Well it may or may not be "quite a lot" but as I said before it is the scientific basis for the increase that stems from the increased temp that I am curious about and so far no-one has come up with what this basis is.

Different developing agents have different temperature-activity relations. In a developer that contains two different compounds (as is commonly the case), there may be slight differences in the overall functioning of the developer depending on temperature.
But frankly, the more scientific explanation I'd like to offer is that it happens to be a marginal difference that may just as well be an idiosyncrasy without any significance. Imagine, for instance, that the 160 ISO measurement was in fact 175 or so, while the 200 ISO measurement was 185, then the first might be rounded down to 160 and the latter rounded up to 200, while the difference between them was marginal at best. Keep in mind that a 1/3 stop difference is already quite marginal to begin with. Just saying that in reality the difference might have been even smaller, yet.

Don't get carried away suspecting all kinds of big, interesting stuff hiding behind a small difference like this. The odds that it's a fluke and/or insignificant anyway are pretty big. And even if the difference is as real as the datasheet implies, it's still insignificant for 99.999% of the photographers using the film. If I'm being generous.

 

[baachitraka]

Would you care to explain that a bit for me.. Ive been using foma/arista 400 in 135 and i havent gotten huge grain at all. No matter if i developed at home or sent them to a lab to do.

ive been using the straight film shot at 400 iso on the dial, and using the full times listed by massive development chart and they come out BETTER then commercially done tri x 400

I only talked about to reduce the recommended development times to tame the contrast. Grain is pronounced but I only develop using Rodinal and the real speed is -1 stop or less. So be generous with your exposure...

X-tol may deliver slightly better results in terms of grain. One day I will give Atomal-49 a try...

Its a good film but please be generous in your exposure.

 

[pentaxuser]

But frankly, the more scientific explanation I'd like to offer is that it happens to be a marginal difference that may just as well be an idiosyncrasy without any significance. Imagine, for instance, that the 160 ISO measurement was in fact 175 or so, while the 200 ISO measurement was 185, then the first might be rounded down to 160 and the latter rounded up to 200, while the difference between them was marginal at best. Keep in mind that a 1/3 stop difference is already quite marginal to begin with. Just saying that in reality the difference might have been even smaller, yet.

. And even if the difference is as real as the datasheet implies, it's still insignificant for 99.999% of the photographers using the film. If I'm being generous.

Thanks I've reduced your quote simply to save space but hopefully retained the spirit of what you are saying

This make sense to me and was all I was looking for

pentaxuser

 

[redbandit]

I only talked about to reduce the recommended development times to tame the contrast. Grain is pronounced but I only develop using Rodinal and the real speed is -1 stop or less. So be generous with your exposure...

X-tol may deliver slightly better results in terms of grain. One day I will give Atomal-49 a try...

Its a good film but please be generous in your exposure.

ive always set my iso dial to 400 and went to shooting. perhaps i have been generous with exposure, but i do know that if i dont check multiple areas of the composed image in the frame, the ftb can give odd results.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Any idea why Microphen at 30 degrees C achieves box speed but presumably only achieves EI 160 at the more normal 20 degrees C Is there a known link between increasing temperature and boosting speed and if so is this a general link for all developers, only some or only Microphen?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Could the 30 degrees be a typing error?
I know some people love this film in sheet sizes as it's usually a lot cheaper than the main manufacturers films.