Fomapan 200 questions

[albireo]

As noted from Foma's own datasheets earlier on the thread, this is not a 200 speed film in XTOL.

In my experience, it's easily a 160EI film as is shown by those graphs (gamma=.62) - so I'd say, for all intents and purposes, 200 ISO is not misleading. The compound effects of exposure errors and shutter imprecisions will likely mask that 1/3 stop for most users.

Gorgeous film by the way. I only use in 120, and it's stunning. For those of you who like the spectral response of Tri-X, Foma 200 has a very similar one (video below - left: Foma 200, right: TriX).



Also, current batches are mostly fine, though the emulsion remains softer than others, and softer than Foma 100 and Foma 400. I get tiny scratches only when I use Foma 200 with some of my (older) cameras, so it's at least partially dependent on film roller contact. Also, ditching the acidic stop bath and using water reduces any scratches to almost nothing, which to me suggests the issue is due at least by a mix of mechanical and chemical interaction.

A modern 120 film camera + water bath + Foma 200 exposed as per manufacturer's recommendations (so 160 EI in Excel and/or Fomadon LQN) = bliss.

 

[relistan]

In my experience, it's easily a 160EI film as is shown by those graphs (gamma=.62) - so I'd say, for all intents and purposes, 200 ISO is fine. The compound effects of exposure errors and shutter imprecisions will likely mask that 1/3 stop for most users.

Gorgeous film by the way. I only use in 120, and it's stunning. For those of you who like the spectral response of Tri-X, Foma 200 has a very similar one (video below - left: Foma 200, right: TriX).



Also, current batches are mostly fine, though the emulsion remains softer than others, and softer than Foma 100 and Foma 400. I get tiny scratches only when I use Foma 200 with some of my (older) cameras, so it's at least partially dependent on film roller contact. Also, ditching the acidic stop bath and using water reduces any scratches to almost nothing.

A modern 120 film camera + water bath + Foma 200 exposed as per manufacturer's recommendations (so 160 EI in Excel and/or Fomadon LQN) = bliss.

It’s not a 200 speed film in XTOL. Look at their own spec sheet that I linked. Great film, not 200 speed in XTOL.

 

[albireo]

It’s not a 200 speed film in XTOL. Look at their own spec sheet that I linked. Great film, not 200 speed in XTOL.

I use those specs daily. I expose and develop 10 rolls of Foma 200 in 120 per month. I develop in Fomadon Excel. For a target gamma = .62, it's a 160 EI film. My own results are in agreement with Foma's published graphs. Any difference is academic.

 

[relistan]

I use those specs daily. I expose and develop 10 rolls of Foma 200 in 120 per month. I develop in Fomadon Excel. For a target gamma = .62, it's a 160 EI film. My own results are in agreement with Foma's published graphs. Any difference is academic.

Feel free to enjoy the film at whatever you expose it at. It’s good film. There is no way to read that spec sheet to show it as a 200 speed film in XTOL/Excel.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, it would take me awhile to find and dig out any of my own densitometer plots of this particular film, but any true straight-line film launches off almost like a rocket from an exceptionally short toe section, not a long sweeping onramp like on these present posts, regardless of the length of the section beyond that. Yes, it is wise in ordinary cases to boost film exposure up onto that straight line by using a lower film speed if needed. But that still doesn't make up for what you sacrifice lower down in a very high contrast scene, or when you otherwise truly need a straight line nearly the whole distance of the characteristic film curve.

For example, with just normal 6 min development and real-world 100 speed for Foma 200, I've successfully gotten 8x10 shots at high altitude holding full-range discernible tonality in the print all the way from little pits in very dark volcanic rock all the way up to the distinctions of intricate sparkle in gleaming ice under full sunlight, a true 12-stop range, with no "minus development" or compensating tricks needed. Too bad I had to waste a bunch of time spotting out the effect of the little zits in the emulsion afterwards.

Even FP4 won't handle that kind of range without resorting to compression and its penalty to microtonality; TMax films only with very careful exposure and development, and often supplementary unsharp masking too. Good ole Super-XX and Bergger 200 made it easy.

 

[aparat]

For the sake of completeness, I need to point out that I used replenished XTOL in my test of Fomapan 200, which gives slightly less speed than stock XTOL. The difference is probably not significant enough for normal photography, but it does show up consistently in a film test under controlled conditions.

 

[koraks]

I only use in 120, and it's stunning.

Oohhh..you're going to regret that one day.
Well, I should be optimistic. Perhaps you'll never encounter a bad batch. Sadly, I've never encountered a good batch of this film in 120 format.

 

[albireo]

Oohhh..you're going to regret that one day.
Well, I should be optimistic. Perhaps you'll never encounter a bad batch. Sadly, I've never encountered a good batch of this film in 120 format.

I have regretted it in the past, Koraks. In 2019-20 I stumbled on two really messed up batches. I gave up on it for 2 years, using mainly the 100 and 400. I've returned to Foma 200 some months ago and it's been quite good honestly.

I would be lying though if I said they completely solved the issue. It's still a fragile emulsion. If I use my standard acidic stop bath (Fomacitro) and load the film in some of my old TLRs or folders, I will still experience some of those dreaded hairline scratches.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Same problem when Efke 25 was still around, another EU roll film. The acidic stop bath needed to be quite weak or there would be emulsion problems. I'd simply use regular Kodak Indicator Stop Bath, but so dilute that it was barely the color of yellow pee. That worked acceptably.

 

[Tomro]

Oohhh..you're going to regret that one day.
Well, I should be optimistic. Perhaps you'll never encounter a bad batch. Sadly, I've never encountered a good batch of this film in 120 format.

+1

 

[koraks]

I have regretted it in the past, Koraks. In 2019-20 I stumbled on two really messed up batches. I gave up on it for 2 years, using mainly the 100 and 400. I've returned to Foma 200 some months ago and it's been quite good honestly.

I would be lying though if I said they completely solved the issue. It's still a fragile emulsion. If I use my standard acidic stop bath (Fomacitro) and load the film in some of my old TLRs or folders, I will still experience some of those dreaded hairline scratches.

Well, as long as the inherent dust, debris and what seemed like minuscule twigs have disappeared, at least that's some improvement. I'm still surprised at the apparent fragility of the film. It's quite rugged in sheet film format; more so than Fomapan 100.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

I would be lying though if I said they completely solved the issue. It's still a fragile emulsion. If I use my standard acidic stop bath (Fomacitro) and load the film in some of my old TLRs or folders, I will still experience some of those dreaded hairline scratches.

I wonder in which camera it does perform well, I had the scratches with a Mamiya M645, Mamiya C330 and my Fujica GW690. In the RB67 the film travels the same path as in the M645 so I guess I don't need to try that. I recently got a Rolleiflex, maybe it works beter in that camera.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

FWIW I just purchased Fomapan 200 from Freestyle and shot rolls with a Rolleicord II and a Rolleiflex 3.5E and saw no scratches or imperfections in the negatives.

 

[John Wiegerink]

FWIW I just purchased Fomapan 200 from Freestyle and shot rolls with a Rolleicord II and a Rolleiflex 3.5E and saw no scratches or imperfections in the negatives.

I sure hope you're right, since I really do like the film for its different look. Did you look at the emulsion side with a loupe? The scratches I saw are very tiny and almost looked like small spots of emulsion wanting to flake off, but not really coming completely off. Kid of like the emulsion was bumped up against some sandpaper. It sure would be good news to have that problem solved.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

FWIW I just purchased Fomapan 200 from Freestyle and shot rolls with a Rolleicord II and a Rolleiflex 3.5E and saw no scratches or imperfections in the negatives.

I own a 3,5F, so I might give it a try

 

[DREW WILEY]

More like fine cracks than scratches per se. The are old threads discussing this, along with possible explanations. One theory is that certain batches we cut and spooled prematurely, before the emulsion was sufficiently cured, and this caused a degree of brittleness to the emulsion evidenced by this.

Testing a single roll is an affordable start, but certainly not any guarantee of lack of issues. It might just give you a false sense of confidence in a product which later ruins an entire trip. This is NOT a new topic. There have been multiple threads over the years discussing the problematic quality control of this particular film, on at least two distinct forums. There is a parallel thread over on the LF Forum right now.

 

[John Wiegerink]

More like fine cracks than scratches per se. The are old threads discussing this, along with possible explanations. One theory is that certain batches we cut and spooled prematurely, before the emulsion was sufficiently cured, and this caused a degree of brittleness to the emulsion evidenced by this.

Testing a single roll is an affordable start, but certainly not any guarantee of lack of issues. It might just give you a false sense of confidence in a product which later ruins an entire trip. This is NOT a new topic. There have been multiple threads over the years discussing the problematic quality control of this particular film, on at least two distinct forums. There is a parallel thread over on the LF Forum right now.

Drew,
Yes, I just didn't really know how to describe the flaws, but that's what I saw in the last roll I used. Of course, it's been some time since that last roll, so maybe it's changed.

 

[aparat]

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

This is a gorgeous photograph. The tonality looks perfect to me. It's got that classic B&W film look.

 

[Auer]

This is a gorgeous photograph. The tonality looks perfect to me. It's got that classic B&W film look.

Thanks, I was happy with the results and will keep using this cheap simple developer.

 

[Auer]

One more, Foma 200 in D96



1-8-2023 (14) by Eric Auer, on Flickr

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I sure hope you're right, since I really do like the film for its different look. Did you look at the emulsion side with a loupe? The scratches I saw are very tiny and almost looked like small spots of emulsion wanting to flake off, but not really coming completely off.

No. If I can’t see issues on the print or the scan, I don’t worry about microscopic flaws in the film. What would be the point?

 

[DREW WILEY]

There was nothing "microscopic" about the flaws in my 8X10 film which were annoying even at 2X enlargement. If it had been 120 film, with its significantly greater magnification for a similarly sized print, one of those "tiny" zits would have resembled the Goodyear Blimp in the sky. I had that very thing happen to 120 rolls of the last batch of R25 which Efke made, just before they shut down permanently.
The affected shots were useless.

But I am hoping that Foma fully clears that former hurdle, because it is a unique interesting film.

 

[John Wiegerink]

No. If I can’t see issues on the print or the scan, I don’t worry about microscopic flaws in the film. What would be the point?

Very true, but I think you would have seen it in the scan for sure. The only reason I ask about the loupe was then you could see just what type of defect was there. If you didn't notice it in the print or the scan it's not there then, or you are printing so small you may not notice it, but it would have to be a very small print for sure.

 

[Dusty Negative]

...

But I am hoping that Foma fully clears that former hurdle, because it is a unique interesting film.

Amen, Amen I say to you. It's my favorite film, and I now only use it in 135 because those Harry-Potter scratches have broken my heart on more than one occasion.

 

[removedacct3]

But I am hoping that Foma fully clears that former hurdle, because it is a unique interesting film.

I never ever read anything, not even the vaguest rumor, that Foma is doing anything to address the QA issues of Fomapan 200 in general and Fomapan 200 in 120 format in particular. Quite the opposite actually; Foma is aware of the problem and replaces rolls when critical customers complain. It has been reported more than once on this forum that the replacement rolls suffer from the same issue. Fomapan 200 in 120 is getting nowhere.

It would be my favorite film if they somehow solved the scratch issue, or issues, in 120 format.