Fomapan 400/Arista.eduUltra 400 observations?

Mainecoonmaniac said:

But I find Arista EDU 400 processed in XTOL is very close if not at ASA 400.

Click to expand...

What do you use for developing times? The MDC numbers on this film are a little peculiar (e.g., for Xtol 1+1 it gives 9.5 minutes in 35mm but 12 minutes in MF and LF---clearly something wrong there).

-NT

Foma/Arista, ISO and developers

I've been mucking around with the Foma/Arista films for a few years, as much as anything because of the price. It makes for excellent film to shoot with cost impunity and run film through antiques with questionable exposure control. It's also great stuff for my students to learn with when trying their hand and smelly analog ways.

There's always been a lot of debate about the "real" ISO of these films with the general consensus that they are about a stop below box speed. But ISO is frankly a matter of intention.

When exposed at box speed and souped in common developers like D-76, Xtol, HC-110 etc., you will get nicely separated highlights and midtones with a fair loss of shadow detail. Lab workers who have densitometers will generally and correctly argue that ISO is determined by the shadow detail, therefore the Foma films are overrated on their box ISO. But that's also a matter of taste. I find the Foma films are perfect for achieving a very popular look (often reproduced in digital) where you hold that highlight and midtone detail and let the shadows go almost black. It can be a very beautiful look, hence the digital imitation. I rush for these films when I am visualizing this way, both the 100 and 400 (I haven't personally used much of the 200). If I am trying to hold shadow detail I'll use a different film or rate the Foma lower (or just meter for the shadows -- same thing).

Needless to say, this isn't low-light film. If you are looking for fast ISO or a good push, try a different film -- Tmax, Tri-X, Delta...

I've also found that the 100 and 400 tolerate highlight overexposure extremely well in the developers I use, so I can simply expose for the shadows when needed. Here I find the 100 great at ISO 50, and the 400 at ISO 100. Great shadows, held highlights.

That works particularly well with Rodinal(s) at 1:100, stand developing with minor agitation at 30 minutes. Very sharp, good grain and an individual tonality. But one of my favorite developers for them is Crawley's FX-15 (née Acutol S). It's a speed-increasing developer that injects a bit more shadow detail than D-76 etc., and also does a fine job with highlights. It's a solvent developer so the grain is a little softer than Rodinal, but still adequately acute for a sizable enlargement, particularly in large format. Does well in rotary too. Formula easily found online. Easily mixed. Good keeping.

Fomapan 100 @ 100 in FX-15 1:1 -- 11min @ 20C/68F (rate at 50 for shadows.)
Fomapan 400 @ 200 in FX-15 1:1 -- 13min @ 20C/68F (rate at 100 for shadows. Rate at 400 for highs and mids but dropped shadows photojournalism style.)

I'm getting ready to try some in Crawley's even-more-speed-increasing FX-11, just out of curiosity. If it looks interesting I'll update here.

Another developer I've found that it loves is Harald Leban's Beutler-Pyro. Here you get about as much compensation as the FX-15, with slightly more acutance, though with longer times on the 400 (try 14 min.). The image-specific stain does very well with the highlights.

Go out and play! Love your film for its unique characteristics -- it doesn't all have to fit in particular tone curves. That's why film is more interesting than digital!

The Perfesser

My only complaint is my film shop only have stocks intermittently and have been increasing prices.

I've used the 100 and 400 in 35mm about 800 x36 cassettes some from 30m cans.

People have looked at the grain and said 'what film is that?'

Not noticed speed problems in Rodinal or Microphen.

I like the Kentmere 400 better...

I mentioned above that I would try Crawley's most-speed-increasing FX-11 developer with these films. I have and I think it's a very valuable combination.

This developer has more solvent and has more physical (silver-plating) development, which through the highest-mag loupe shows less sharpness than the FX-15, but that isn't particularly evident in the 16X20 prints I've made. With it you get a full-stop speed increase but with very soft, printable grain. My medium format Foma/Arista.edu 100 experiments are grainless in a 16X20 enlargement. At that size the sharpness is quite acceptable even on a pretty close stare (but a 16X20 enlargement is rarely viewed from closer than a meter in distance).

The speed increase is there and is noticeable. It adds a third to a half stop to the shadows over the FX-15 and a stop over D-76 and, I think, comes fully into line with the film's box speed. It is very much worth a try.

The FX-15 has a more modern tonality, the FX-11 a more mid-century one with expanded midtones and more low- and high-end shoulder from the looks of things (though again I don't have a densitometer). I have yet to print a negative from the Foma/Arista.edu 400, though the negatives look good. They should have slightly more apparent grain, but it seems that with the FX-11 it will be quite tolerable. I think this developer is perfect for an older lens, as high acutance film and developer combinations often make the weaknesses of antique lenses more apparent.

Fomapan 100 @ 100 in FX-11 1:1 -- 7:30min @ 20C/68F
Fomapan 400 @ 400 in FX-11 1:1 -- 10:00 min@ 20C/68F

Presoak 2min with agitation. Agitate constantly for first 30 seconds, three inversions each 30 after.

Prints a perfect Ilford grade 2-1/2.

I gave Crawley's FX-11 a try using Arista EDU 400 Ultra 135. I started with Perfesser Kev's time and dilution above. Initial results are encouraging. I may need to tweek the time just a tad for my use but I like what I see thus far.

Alessandro Serrao said:

It's nonsense to have a rated 400 iso that behaves much like a 200 iso and at the same time a true 200 iso emulsion together...

Click to expand...

"ISO is frankly a matter of intention.", as the Perfesser said above. I agree fully with his post. Fomapan 400 can be used at ISO 400, no problem, been there, done that with good results.

A lot of folks think Fomapan 200 works best at 100 too. The question becomes, is the 400 actually faster than the 200? Or, even if it isn't, are there enough differences to justify choosing one over the other?

I don't have enough experience with the 200 to answer those questions, but the fact that they have a film labeled 200 and a 400 that works best for most people at 200 doesn't, in itself, mean that they are redundant.

Alessandro Serrao said:

Of course can be used at 400, but also can be used at 800 or even 1600. But what for? That's not my point. What if in my country the fx-11 isn't available?
Foma must diversify better his offer, imho, in that a 400 emulsion must be almost a true 400 emulsion and not a 200 in disguise.
If i want a 400 iso film I don't buy Fomapan 400 because isn't a true 400 iso film. Otoh if I want a true 200 iso film I'll buy a true 200 iso film and not Fomapan 400. That's my point.

See the graphs here http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/foma_tech/Fomapan_400.pdf. Fomapan 400 action ISN'T a 400 iso speed emulsion, period.

Click to expand...

1. You can use any common developer, no need for fx-11

2. Go tell the Ilford guys that Delta 3200 should be labeled Delta 1250. Or that you will not buy it because "it is not a true ISO 3200 film."

Also tell the people that expose Acros at 200,
the people that use hp5 at iso 800 or 1600
... that they are "WRONG", that they "should use a true iso 200 (or 1600) film instead."
Tell the same to the people that shoot Delta 3200 at 3200. Also, to all of them who shoot hp5 at iso 250, tell them how foolish they are!! (How funny, foma 400 being iso 250...)

The posts above explained perfectly why there is a difference between true ISO speed and commonly used speed. But it seems that you don't want to understand.

3. Yes I have seen those graphs many times since about 4 years ago. In fact i think I know the fomapan 100&400 datasheets by heart. Who is claiming that fomapan 400 is a "real speed" iso 400 film? not me.

Meanwhile i'll keep shooting Foma film at their BOX speeds and stay happy. The film is there to realize the vision of the photographer, not to be true to a certain sensitometric curve.

Roger Cole said:

A lot of folks think Fomapan 200 works best at 100 too. The question becomes, is the 400 actually faster than the 200? Or, even if it isn't, are there enough differences to justify choosing one over the other?

Click to expand...

Roger, I have used a lot of Foma 400, and just started using the 200. To answer your question, I think these films are as different as chalk and cheese, and complement each other perfectly. The 400 has a unique look, which I happen to find very attractive for some subjects (though I know it's not everyone's cup of tea) But I wouldn't want to use it for everything and in medium format like to be able to fall back on something more regular like FP4 when the need arises. But in sheet film formats (I use 5x4 and 5x7) FP4 is very expensive so I have been trying Foma 200 instead, and find it very nice, and not too different to FP4 in some ways. I find it best to rate it at 125. This doesn't bother me a bit. I rate Foma 400 at 200 and this doesn't bother me either. Foma could change the chemistry of Foma 400 so it had a true speed of 100, and call it Foma 800, but as long as it retained it's unique look, I wouldn't be put out in the least.

Alan

flavio81 said:

1. You can use any common developer, no need for fx-11

2. Go tell the Ilford guys that Delta 3200 should be labeled Delta 1250. Or that you will not buy it because "it is not a true ISO 3200 film."

Also tell the people that expose Acros at 200,
the people that use hp5 at iso 800 or 1600
... that they are "WRONG", that they "should use a true iso 200 (or 1600) film instead."
Tell the same to the people that shoot Delta 3200 at 3200. Also, to all of them who shoot hp5 at iso 250, tell them how foolish they are!! (How funny, foma 400 being iso 250...)

The posts above explained perfectly why there is a difference between true ISO speed and commonly used speed. But it seems that you don't want to understand.

3. Yes I have seen those graphs many times since about 4 years ago. In fact i think I know the fomapan 100&400 datasheets by heart. Who is claiming that fomapan 400 is a "real speed" iso 400 film? not me.

Meanwhile i'll keep shooting Foma film at their BOX speeds and stay happy. The film is there to realize the vision of the photographer, not to be true to a certain sensitometric curve.

Click to expand...

Amen! You tell em!

I actually love AEU/Foma 400. It is inexpensive and quite flexible. I have some cameras where I use it primarily at EI200. Most of the time I just use it at box speed and get really good results. I have even taken it up to EI1600 and down to EI100 when it was all I had. With the appropriate developing times it seemed to respond quite well. It also responds very similarly in 120 roll film and 4x5 sheet film, though of course the grain is less in the larger formats.

As for grain, so what? Just exactly what is wrong with a little grain? If you don't like grain then these types of film are certainly not for you anyway.

Pioneer said:

Amen! You tell em!

I actually love AEU/Foma 400. It is inexpensive and quite flexible. I have some cameras where I use it primarily at EI200. Most of the time I just use it at box speed and get really good results. I have even taken it up to EI1600 and down to EI100 when it was all I had. With the appropriate developing times it seemed to respond quite well. It also responds very similarly in 120 roll film and 4x5 sheet film, though of course the grain is less in the larger formats.

As for grain, so what? Just exactly what is wrong with a little grain? If you don't like grain then these types of film are certainly not for you anyway.

Click to expand...

I love the Foma 400 / Arista.EDU Ultra 400 too. It's a fine film. I especially love it in 35mm format where the antihalation properties are not up to Ilford/Kodak standard, where a lot of 'bloom' in adjacent bright/dark areas occurs, and I just love that for portraits.

Good point - any given film has one and ONLY one "ISO." You can expose it at different speeds, certainly, but if it is an "ISO 400" film and you expose at 200, or 800, you are exposing at EI 200 or EI 800 or whatever. ISO is a standard with rigidly defined testing terms. It's a semantic distinction but one that I admit I find a bit of a pet peeve, and I said the same thing when the standard was ASA.

Look at a film box of Delta 3200. Nowhere does it claim to be "ISO" 3200 (nor did TMZ.) The number is a suggested exposure index and D3200 works quite well at that speed, but it doesn't test at 3200 when subjected to the rigidly defined ISO testing standard.

Fomapan 400 is a decent film, rather different from the offerings from Kodak and Ilford. Shoot it at the speed that works for your subjects and working methods. (I shoot it at 200 and develop in D76 1+1 for about 15% less time than the data sheet calls for at 400. Works fine for me.)

Alessandro Serrao said:

As you can see, not every developer is best "suitable" to Fomapan 400. D-76 yields high b+f while Xtol doesn't. Every developer "changes" the speed, the look and the feel of the film.

Click to expand...

I use Fomapan 100 and 400 with D76 all the time with no problem. If any film produced after the 1960s doesn't work well with D76, it will be doomed to failure. All manufacturers engineer their film to work fine with D76 (or the manufacturer's equivalent of D76), and Fomapan is no exception. Beautiful negatives.

Alessandro, i'm not trying to offend you. You should really set aside the datasheets for a moment and buy some Foma 100 and 400 and develop it in D76 or D76 1:1 using the recommended times. It is really a good film. Foma 100 is sharp and I feel the grain is a bit finer than FP4+ (Need to do more tests in 35mm-. But then, FP4 was not the finest-grained of the conventional 100-speed films, anyways.)
Foma 400 has an extended red sensitivity that gives a peculiar look to the pics, like if you have put an orange filter on your lens. But without the speed loss that would be experienced if using such a filter.

Both are really useful films for what they do. Aside from this, I will never replace HP5+ with Foma 400; they are different and complimentary. HP5 for when I want to go to 1600 speed, or when i want extended shadow detail at 200-400; Foma 400 for the unique look it gives at 400.

I use D76 1+1 with Foma 400 too. Works great. Negatives look good and print easily. I certainly don't see any unusual base fog levels. I expose it at 200, use a Jobo, 5 minute water pre-soak, and develop for about 15% less time than the data sheet says.

I've become very fond of Foma 400 and have gotten to know it quite well in 35mm. (Still lots to learn, however! )

I use it with either Rodinal at 1:50 or Xtol stock for 6 minutes. I've tried it at 1:1 as well - pretty much the same look.

I like the graininess it gives with half-frame negatives - most of my 35mm is shot with half frame. Develop about 12 minutes at 68 degrees). This is with an Olympus Pen FT, Rodinal at 1:50, 100mm f3.5 Zuiko lens, 1/60th at f8, if I remember correctly. I'll be using this combo for hi-impact pictures under certain conditions. This is a scanned 5x7 Print on Arista Edu grade #3




In Xtol stock, it gives a much different, much smoother gradation. This is also a full frame negative, stock developer, 6 minutes, Pentax MX, 50mm f4 Pentax-M macro, 1/250th at f5.6. I've only exposed it at ASA 400, and I like the results. I think this film is a perfect foil to my old standby, HP5+ in Hc110, as Flavio81 pointed out above. This is also a scanned 5x7 print on Arista, and it's also been toned.

I like Foma 400:

2-1-2015_016 by ravilamir, on Flickr

Fomapan 400 is my official street photograph film and 200 official portrait film. I love both.

I love foma 100 and 200.
I really dislike 400.

Fomapan 400 at 1600 I shot:

Beautiful grain!

marciofs said:

Fomapan 400 at 1600 I shot:

Click to expand...