Fomapan 200 questions

[relistan]

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.

No not a typo, they post 20 degree and 30 degree times for all their films. 100 reaches box speed (or more) at 20 degrees, but 200 only does at 30 degrees except in Microphen, and 400 never does. According to their own spec sheets. They are good films, just not quite the ISO posted on the box.

Here’s 200 in XTOL, from the spec sheet. ISO rating on the left, measured on top curve. Lower curve is density, numbered on the right. Base+fog on the bottom line.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

No not a typo, they post 20 degree and 30 degree times for all their films. 100 reaches box speed (or more) at 20 degrees, but 200 only does at 30 degrees except in Microphen, and 400 never does. According to their own spec sheets. They are good films, just not quite the ISO posted on the box.

Here’s 200 in XTOL, from the spec sheet. ISO rating on the left, measured on top curve. Lower curve is density, numbered on the right. Base+fog on the bottom line.

View attachment 324360

Thanks for explaining. I have only tried the 35mm film once and never used it again. I'm sure it gives good results in the right hands.

 

[pentaxuser]

No not a typo, they post 20 degree and 30 degree times for all their films. 100 reaches box speed (or more) at 20 degrees, but 200 only does at 30 degrees except in Microphen, and 400 never does. According to their own spec sheets. They are good films, just not quite the ISO posted on the box.

Here’s 200 in XTOL, from the spec sheet. ISO rating on the left, measured on top curve. Lower curve is density, numbered on the right. Base+fog on the bottom line.

View attachment 324360

These 2 graphs seem to show that at 20C the S curve gets close to ISO 200 but not quite and at 30C there is no 200 on the graph but it reaches ISO 160 Have I read these graphs wrongly?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[gone]

I use Foma 100 (it's a great film) and 400 in 35mm as my main films, w/ the odd roll of Tri-X and Delta 100 thrown in occasionally. Those 4 films will do everything I want. Haven't had any issues w/ grain in any of them, except w/ the 400 in Rodinal. W/ a more diluted mixture it may have worked, others here get good results w/ it in Rodinal.

The 400, in my case anyway, works well if shot at 250, so that comes in handy when the 100 (which works best for me at 50) isn't the right film for low light. The 100 always gets Rodinal. The 400 always gets D76 or F76 Plus. Very little grain in my 11x14 prints, exposure will influence that though. I was living in Tucson, but now I'm in Little Rock. The native lighting is totally different in both places, so it will be interesting to see if I need to adjust any of this for the new light.

 

[relistan]

These 2 graphs seem to show that at 20C the S curve gets close to ISO 200 but not quite and at 30C there is no 200 on the graph but it reaches ISO 160 Have I read these graphs wrongly?

Thanks

pentaxuser

That’s right: for XTOL. The rating is quite different with microphen.

 

[pentaxuser]

That’s right: for XTOL. The rating is quite different with microphen.

Thanks I had assumed that the suggestion of a typing error was in connection with Microphen's ability to reach an ISO of 200 at 30C so overlooked the fact that both curves apply to Xtol

It looks as if the curve for Microphen and the claim it reaches 200 may be an error i.e. a false result within statistical error.

At least this is what I interpreted Koraks to have said in his reply to me. I am no statistician but it would appear to me that whereas the Foma charts for Microphen indicate a speed increase over a 10C range, the opposite may be true of Xtol?

On the other hand it may be as Koraks suggested that no conclusions can be drawn from a 10C increase in developing temperature

I must admit that while there seems to be general agreement that Microphen may be produce 1/3rd to 1/2 a stop faster speed, I had always thought this occurred at the standard operating temperature of 20C which was why your statement about the Foma Microphen charts piqued my interest

pentaxuser

 

[relistan]

Thanks I had assumed that the suggestion of a typing error was in connection with Microphen's ability to reach an ISO of 200 at 30C so overlooked the fact that both curves apply to Xtol

It looks as if the curve for Microphen and the claim it reaches 200 may be an error i.e. a false result within statistical error.

At least this is what I interpreted Koraks to have said in his reply to me. I am no statistician but it would appear to me that whereas the Foma charts for Microphen indicate a speed increase over a 10C range, the opposite may be true of Xtol?

On the other hand it may be as Koraks suggested that no conclusions can be drawn from a 10C increase in developing temperature

I must admit that while there seems to be general agreement that Microphen may be produce 1/3rd to 1/2 a stop faster speed, I had always thought this occurred at the standard operating temperature of 20C which was why your statement about the Foma Microphen charts piqued my interest

pentaxuser

Yeah I think the short answer is: it's not the ISO that's on the box, and it behaves noticeably differently in some popular developers so claims about it's speed will entirely depend on the developer in use.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I like it in 135. I'm about half way through shooting a 100 foot roll which is my second bulk roll having tried a few of the regular cassettes a few years ago. It looks a bit more modern than Fomapan 100 or 400 and perhaps more importantly seems less picky with developers. Unlike some, I find it achieves box speed just fine....but I don't tend to like dark, contrasty negatives. I've tended to use ID-11 or Microphen and it seems to like those. I don't push Fomapan 200 nor do I try long exposures in the dark with it. I shoot at box speed in sunny or overcast conditions.

I've shot 3 rolls in 120 too, and I think I prefer Fomapan 400 in 120. I'm not a big fan of Fomapan 400 in 135 as the grain can be intrusive though with Microphen it's far less so than ID-11.

The bulk rolls I've had of various Foma films under their own name and Arista EDU don't have edge markings....so no frame numbers. I've not noticed any QC issues but I am not a pro and perhaps wouldn't notice very minor variations between batches. But certainly nothing major such as holes in the emulsion or anything like backing paper problems.

Same here. I bulk roll Foma 200 in 135 and quite like it. I run it in replenished Ilford DD at 24C in a Jobo and expose it at 125. Exposing it at 200 leaves the reflected blacks a little empty, 160 is better, but 125 really shines and gives nice punchy reflected blacks with lots of fine details in the shadows. I've shot lots of emulsions, and for some reason I keep finding myself coming back to Foma 200. There's something about how it renders that just has a look.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Same here. I bulk roll Foma 200 in 135 and quite like it. I run it in replenished Ilford DD at 24C in a Jobo and expose it at 125. Exposing it at 200 leaves the reflected blacks a little empty, 160 is better, but 125 really shines and gives nice punchy reflected blacks with lots of fine details in the shadows. I've shot lots of emulsions, and for some reason I keep finding myself coming back to Foma 200. There's something about how it renders that just has a look.

I've only shot one 135-36 film at EI125 and developed it in homebrew Xtol 1+1. It looks very nice and the grain is moderate, but it had long, thin scratches lengthwise and other short, small ones at random directions. Too bad that they have QC issues with it, I'm hesitant to buy more of it. Not all frames were affected, but quite a lot...

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I've only shot one 135-36 film at EI125 and developed it in homebrew Xtol 1+1. It looks very nice and the grain is moderate, but it had long, thin scratches lengthwise and other short, small ones at random directions. Too bad that they have QC issues with it, I'm hesitant to buy more of it. Not all frames were affected, but quite a lot...

I don't disagree. My bulk roll has the occasional frame with a blemish on it, but you get what you pay for. If I wanted perfect, I wouldn't be shooting film, so I just take the various blemishes and such for what they are and view it as something that makes that frame unique, much like a hand made print. Very few of my prints done in the darkroom are exactly the same, even multiple copies of the same frame, I rarely get it exactly the same every single time, especially if dodging and burning.

 

[aparat]

I agree that the Fomapan 200 might have a little imperfection here and there, but, in my experience, those are pretty rare. I have found the film to respond very nicely to exposure and development, producing well-formed curves in replenished XTOL. I found its speed to be around ISO 125 in XTOL-R, which is not far from its claimed box speed. Stock XTOL would likely produce slightly more shadow detail.

Here is a summary of my results. I am working on a larger analysis, but it will take me some time before it's complete.

 

[koraks]

Welcome to Photrio, @Tsubasa!
While I haven't tried it with 200 and 400, I once experimented a bit reversing Foma 100 and like you I found it worked quite well.

 

[bernard_L]

I agree that the Fomapan 200 might have a little imperfection here and there, but, in my experience, those are pretty rare. I have found the film to respond very nicely to exposure and development, producing well-formed curves in replenished XTOL. I found its speed to be around ISO 125 in XTOL-R, which is not far from its claimed box speed. Stock XTOL would likely produce slightly more shadow detail.

Based on your experience, how does it compare with Ilford FP4, as concerns grain, resolution, anti-halo, and any other property that you care to mention?

 

[relistan]

Hi everybody, for the sake of completeness I tried to reverse the entire Foma lineup, the 100, 200 and 400.
Maybe it's not relevant to this particular thread but what I've found is to my surprise that all of the Foma emulsion are equally good when reversed, particularly the 100. It's almost on par with the Fomapan R 100 specifically designed for b&w slides.
I agree that the numbers Foma decided to put on the boxes are just E.I. and not ISO numbers but it must be said that they provide excellent data techsheet so it's easy to know what's it's happening.

Welcome to Photrio, @Tsubasa!
While I haven't tried it with 200 and 400, I once experimented a bit reversing Foma 100 and like you I found it worked quite well.

I used Fomapan 400 as my test dummy in reversal bleach testing when developing the peroxide/EDTA/Citric acid bleach I posted to the formulas on this site. Fomapan 400 reverses well. I can't speak for 200 or 100 but I believe @Tsubasa from what I've seen.

 

[redbandit]

I used Fomapan 400 as my test dummy in reversal bleach testing when developing the peroxide/EDTA/Citric acid bleach I posted to the formulas on this site. Fomapan 400 reverses well. I can't speak for 200 or 100 but I believe @Tsubasa from what I've seen.

View attachment 326131

if box speed arista/foma comes out like that in standard processing, should i be worried.

 

[Auer]

I dropped a roll of Foma 200 in some D96 (Cinestill) I mixed up for another project, works pretty ok I thought.



1-8-2023 (11) by Eric Auer, on Flickr

 

[aparat]

Based on your experience, how does it compare with Ilford FP4, as concerns grain, resolution, anti-halo, and any other property that you care to mention?

In my experience, the FP4 Plus is technically a superior film in all the areas you mentioned. Having said that, the Fomapan 200 can be used very effectively by a skilled photographer. It can look magical under the right circumstances. I used Foma films long before I ever tried Ilford or Kodak, and some of my early photographs are among my favorites. They may not be artistically or technically perfect, but they have that old-fashioned kind of look.

 

[bernard_L]

@Tsubasa, @aparat,
Thank you for your informative replies.
A print can be re-made, different or even better. But a negative taken outside home, sometimes in a distant location, is irreplaceable. So I'll accept the higher price of mainstream films, and continue to apply my criterion: before pressing the shutter, ask myself if I will have the motivation to print the image.

 

[Anon Ymous]

@Tsubasa Hello, would you mind telling us what first developer you used for the reversal and the development time?

 

[FotoD]

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.

Here is a summary of my results. I am working on a larger analysis, but it will take me some time before it's complete.

Does your testing support Drew's claim that this film won't build contrast with plus-development?

 

[Anon Ymous]

At that time I was using the Foma reversal kit. And I've used the time recommended by the kit, which is 12 minutes if I recall correctly.

Many thanks!

 

[aparat]

Does your testing support Drew's claim that this film won't build contrast with plus-development?

I don't mean to dispute anyone else's claims because I am not familiar with their process. If you look at the summary table, you can see that the Contrast Index can be easily manipulated with development, from around 0.45 all the way to 0.94, in XTOL-R, at least. I would guess that it would be similar with other general-purpose developers, such as D-76. So I would say that, yes, contrast will build up much like other pictorial films.

Here's a plot of N-development to CI (for a condenser enlarger), in which I am using the BTZS convention for establishing N-development, which should also be applicable to Zone System methodologies. Regardless of which convention we use, it's clear that contrast increases "normally" with increased development time with Fomapan 200. Click on the thumbnail for a larger view.

 

[FotoD]

I don't mean to dispute anyone else's claims because I am not familiar with their process. If you look at the summary table, you can see that the Contrast Index can be easily manipulated with development, from around 0.45 all the way to 0.94, in XTOL-R, at least. I would guess that it would be similar with other general-purpose developers, such as D-76. So I would say that, yes, contrast will build up much like other pictorial films.

Here's a plot of N-development to CI (for a condenser enlarger), in which I am using the BTZS convention for establishing N-development, which should also be applicable to Zone System methodologies. Regardless of which convention we use, it's clear that contrast increases "normally" with increased development time with Fomapan 200. Click on the thumbnail for a larger view.
View attachment 326232

Thanks, that matches my expectations with Fomapan 200 and Xtol, so I was surprised to see others having a very different experience.

Thanks again for sharing your results.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Unfortunately, what is quite evident in those Xtol curves is an atrociously long toe if one is indeed trying to compare Foma 200 to old Super XX or Bergger 200. You just reinforce what many noted long ago when it was marketed as Classic 200 : it doesn't have the same development flexibility at all. Push it too hard, and you don't get the same stratospheric straight-line at all. You merely prove my own point by ending up with quasi-ordinary pan film performance when doing so.

If that fact matches your own expectations from this film, and it works for you, fine. But since it was first marketed as a competitive product to Super-XX, and tried by many over the years as a budget substitute for the same applications, there have been many disappointments. With the right developer and basically "normal" development, it will indeed achieve a very long straight line. But what I'm seeing in those posted curves due to expanded development is more akin to an HP5 curve, even if this film differs in many other ways.

 

[relistan]

Unfortunately, what is quite evident in those Xtol curves is an atrociously long toe if one is indeed trying to compare Foma 200 to old Super XX or Bergger 200. You just reinforce what many noted long ago when it was marketed as Classic 200 : it doesn't have the same development flexibility at all. Push it too hard, and you don't get the same stratospheric straight-line at all. You merely prove my own point by ending up with quasi-ordinary pan film performance when doing so.

If that fact matches your own expectations from this film, and it works for you, fine. But since it was first marketed as a competitive product to Super-XX, and tried by many over the years as a budget substitute for the same applications, there have been many disappointments. With the right developer and basically "normal" development, it will indeed achieve a very long straight line. But what I'm seeing in those posted curves due to expanded development is more akin to an HP5 curve, even if this film differs in many other ways.

Maybe I'm missing something in the point you are making, so please correct me if I've missed it. As noted from Foma's own datasheets earlier on the thread, this is not a 200 speed film in XTOL. Looking at @aparat 's charts (@ EI125) and comparing to FP4 I don't see a longer toe here?