Fomapan 200 questions

[B&Wpositive]

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.

 

[Derek Lofgreen]

It's a pretty good film for the money. I have never bulk rolled it so I don't know about the frame numbers. I would guess it does not have frame numbers but not sure about edge markings. It does not have the latitude of plus-x or tri-x. It blocks up in the shadows pretty easily and is more contrasty than the kodak stock. I develop in Xtol 1:1. The base is thin and the emulsion is pretty sensitive to scratching. I have some shots that I am really happy with from the Foma films. My suggestion is to get a couple of rolls and shoot it to see if you like it. That's really the only way you will know if you like it.

Happy shooting.
D.

 

[cmacd123]

MY uderstanding is that Foma /Arista.edu Ultra bulk film does not have any edge markings. I only used one bulk roll of the foma 400 and it was blank on the edges.

I have not used the 200, but the other Foma films (100 and 400) are on a grey Acetate base.

depending on where your live, you may be able to get some factory loads under the foma or arista name to try it out. the factory loads do have typical edge markings.

 

[HeikoW]

Foma 200 is a decent film with a different characteristic compared to e.g. Foma 100. According to the Fomapan 200 Creative datasheet : "FOMAPAN 200 Creative emulsion contains T-crystals providing high resolution and very low granularity of the film. "

But IMHO compared to other (ISO 100 incl. Foma 100) films it's a rather grainy film especially in 35 mm, depending on the developer. And if there were no backpaper issues with Foma 200 it would be a great 120 format film, I do like the tones the Foma 200 produces, the grain is visible but not annoying to me in MF.

 

[Arcadia4]

The tech data sheet is a google away which answers some of the Qs

https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-200

Ive only used it in 35mm catridges. Its on acetate in 35mm. Polyester for 120.
No issues with quality.
Note its only 200 iso in cetain developers refer to charts

 

[koraks]

Note its only 200 iso in cetain developers

None, as far as I know. The best is 160 or so which you could round up to 200; that's apparently what Foma does.

As to the emulsion question: it's apparently a mixed emulsion of T-grain and cubic grain crystals, which I interpret is "a partly successful attempt at creating a T-grain film, but not with the kind of process control in emulsion ripening that yields as good a consistency as Ilford and Kodak manage."

 

[Paul Howell]

Foma offered a 800 speed Tgain for a bit, as I recall Kodak was not happy when they called it T800. I think it was sold by Ultrafine as T grain 400, I quite liked it. The 200 is ok, as noted by others it does not push that well, in my testing it tested at 200.

 

[Arcadia4]

None, as far as I know. The best is 160 or so which you could round up to 200; that's apparently what Foma does.

As to the emulsion question: it's apparently a mixed emulsion of T-grain and cubic grain crystals, which I interpret is "a partly successful attempt at creating a T-grain film, but not with the kind of process control in emulsion ripening that yields as good a consistency as Ilford and Kodak manage."

Microphen at 30c is stated as 200 iso, but its hardly normal development and at the standard 20c/contrast , I agree its typically a 160 film at best and many people rate it at 125.

 

[koraks]

Ah thanks, I misremembered

 

[DREW WILEY]

There have been plenty of past threads on this film. It does have an exceptionally long straight line characteristic curve, so is capable of handling high contrast scenes well. BUT it's nowhere near the rated 200 speed, the long exposure reciprocity characteristics are awful, and the quality control is dicey. I tried it a couple of boxes of 8x10 film. Never again. Had to shoot three sheets of film at a time gambling that at least one of those wasn't flawed with coating zits and scratches. That's no way to save money. An interesting film, but not even remotely in the quality league of Kodak and Ilford. I've heard similar complaints about the roll film version too; but at least in that case you're not spending anywhere near as much per wasted shot.

 

[pentaxuser]

Microphen at 30c is stated as 200 iso, but its hardly normal development and at the standard 20c/contrast , I agree its typically a 160 film at best and many people rate it at 125.

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

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I've used a lot of it in sheet film. I have not had Drew's experience with bad quality control. My best experience has been with shooting it at 100, developed in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 for 7 minutes at 75F/23.8C. This is for 5x7 and 8x10 sheet film, so YMMV. As mentioned, it develops contrast FAST, thus the relatively short development times. Makes it great for alternative process printing. Don't know if this would be an issue with it for roll film, but the bags the sheet film comes in are not the greatest for long-term storage - if you have to keep it for more than say a year, take an empty 11x14 enlarging paper bag and put the film box inside that, and then tape it shut and label it so you know what it is down the road.

 

[gone]

As mentioned, it develops contrast FAST, thus the relatively short development times.

It sure did that to me on the one roll I shot using 35mm. And it looked very different than my other negatives. I decided from that experience that it wasn't a good film for me personally, as I like films w/ conventional grain structure like Tri-X and the like. If I want something very different, then I use Delta 100 at EI 50. The Tri-x is usually shot anywhere from EI 200 on up, it's really a hard film to screw up. Even at EI 100 you can get good, printable negatives.

 

[Tim Stapp]

I have personally shot it in the past at box speed, developed in pre SINO PROMISE XTOL. Developed in JOBO rotary with a 5 minute presoak followed by six minutes developer. Normal stop and fix rotary.

I like it enough that I've just received another 50 sheet box to begin shooting to replace the negatives lost in our flood this past spring.

BTW, one of my best negatives was shot on ARISTA EDU Ultra 100 (same development procedure). Thankfully, this one survived the flood (was in the enlarger at the time of the flood).

 

[DREW WILEY]

Flying C. - Close to my results with PMK pyro around 6 min dev time - it certainly develops fast! I had the best results shooting at half of box speed (at 100). And incidentally, don't use those Foma sheet film boxes for fresh or undeveloped film storage once it is taken out of the inner package - the corners leak light! One more quality idiosyncrasy.

 

[redbandit]

Its not bad, but the 400 kicks its butt.

 

[koraks]

but the 400 kicks its butt

Lol. Right.

 

[Agulliver]

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.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Flying C. - Close to my results with PMK pyro around 6 min dev time - it certainly develops fast! I had the best results shooting at half of box speed (at 100). And incidentally, don't use those Foma sheet film boxes for fresh or undeveloped film storage once it is taken out of the inner package - the corners leak light! One more quality idiosyncrasy.

I wouldn't trust those boxes with sensitized daguerreotypes for more than a couple minutes. They are the really weak link. Maybe a hold-over from the Soviet days?

 

[pentaxuser]

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

Well Arcadia4 hasn't replied yet. 30 degrees C might have been a simple typo but it would seem not from the context in which it was written. So anyone else like to comment on my questions above?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

30C is likely to melt or reticulate some film emulsions. That doesn't make sense at all. Perhaps a typo for the routine 20C. Dunno. I sure wouldn't risk it.

 

[Arcadia4]

Well Arcadia4 hasn't replied yet. 30 degrees C might have been a simple typo but it would seem not from the context in which it was written. So anyone else like to comment on my questions above?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Refer to fomapan 200 datasheet link above. Times are given for both 20c and 30c for most common developers. Only at 30c for 2min in microphen is the full speed achieved according to the curve data.

I agree its rather high temp so not a recommendation - ilford for example gives a temp range of upto 24c for microphen. However the short times indicate the temp to be probably not a typo, looking at ilford adjustment chart would need to be ca.6c difference to halve the processing time, and the times are less than half.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I take anything Foma says on a tech sheet with a grain of salt. Certainly a different definition of a tech sheet than the Kodak, Ilford, or Fuji variety. Always test for yourself, regardless.

 

[pentaxuser]

Refer to fomapan 200 datasheet link above. Times are given for both 20c and 30c for most common developers. Only at 30c for 2min in microphen is the full speed achieved according to the curve data.

I agree its rather high temp so not a recommendation - ilford for example gives a temp range of upto 24c for microphen. However the short times indicate the temp to be probably not a typo, looking at ilford adjustment chart would need to be ca.6c difference to halve the processing time, and a lot of the times are less than half.

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

 

[Brad Deputy]

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.