Fomapan film vs Kentmere: you experience?

I have done an experiment, i have found that Fomapan film are good but for the 400 the grain of silver are big on rodinal.

Your experience compared to Kentmere?

Kentmere film is probably a technically better film with a better antihalation coating, but Fomapan (Arista EDU Ultra) has more character.

When looking at Kentmere images, I can't find any specific faults, but the film just doesn't pop out to me - I really can't explain why. Fomapan just has an antique feel to it that I enjoy. Fomapan in 35mm is not a film I use that much (because of halation), but is my go-to film in 120.

I by far prefer Fomapan either 200 or 400.in fact it is the only film I ever use, and yes, the 35mm 400 is grainy in Rodinal, but then, any 400 film will be grainy in 35mm, as compared to Kentmere, it's been a while since I used it, but IIRC there is not a lot to choose between the two, I These days have stopped using Rodinal for 35mm but use Rollei RHS and the grain under my Patterson focus finder is very fine indeed with the fomapan

If you want bigger grain try Foma400, but the difference is small.
Blind tests different subjects difficult to separate.
If you shoot a lotta film buy the cheaper.
Foma is not as prehardened you need to temper.

My whole 100 feet of Fomapan 400 was experiment. With 50% of failure, but the rest gave me interesting results.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kf095/tags/fomapan400/ Those are scans of negatives, but some of it I have printed and film grain on prints is nice.
I'm looking at it and thinking of trying it again, because I like grain and contrast.

Currently I'm at one of the two 100 feet of Kentmere 400. This is two days ago print from Kentmere 400 @400:


And this is overexposed Kentmere 400, on 2016 Easter. Also print scan:



Kentmere 400 is better than nothing 400 film and nice, nothing wrong, easy to print @200. Kentmere 100 is good 100 film. Sharp and good amount of the contrast. Kentmere is no drama film

Antigen,
I have no experience with that films in Rodinal, but Rodinal is generally thought to be not really suitable for high speed films, so your results are not surprising at all. If you do not like grain, use a different developer or slower film.
Fomapan 400 in Xtol (and Foma LQN) gives me reasonable grain. I did some enlargements the other day of 35mm Fomapan 400 negatives on 20x24" paper and yes, the grain is there, but contrary to what someone might expect the prints do not show any obstrusive graininess when seen from a normal viewing distance. Of course a lot depends on the subject matter and careful exposure and development. I also did some rolls in Fomadon LQN and IIRC the graininess is comparable (the look is different).

I have not done direct comparisons between Fomapan 400 and K400, but I would suspect that the latter is slightly finer grained and it also has a different tonality compared to Foma 400. I am not sure that K400 will give you finer grain compare to Foma400 when developed in Rodinal. The biggest difference however is speed. K400 is a real ISO 400 film, Foma 400 is only 250 or so even in developers that make good use of film speed (less in Rodinal). For night photography, I use K400 exposed at 1600 combined with extended development in Xtol 1+1. OF course this results in loss of shadow detail and higher contrast negatives, but the results are still printable and I like the look. I don't think that would be possible with Fomapan 400.

Wallendo said:

Kentmere film is probably a technically better film with a better antihalation coating, but Fomapan (Arista EDU Ultra) has more character.

When looking at Kentmere images, I can't find any specific faults, but the film just doesn't pop out to me - I really can't explain why. Fomapan just has an antique feel to it that I enjoy. Fomapan in 35mm is not a film I use that much (because of halation), but is my go-to film in 120.

Click to expand...

I've not used Formapan, so maybe ought not to be commenting. However, I'm a great Ilford/Harman fan and, having tried Kentmere, I found it a reliable film, but, like Wallendo, couldn't justify replacing my favourite HP5+....also without being able to explain quite why ! I appreciate it's a few pence cheaper, but, TBH, if funds are low, I'd rather manage by taking fewer pictures than compromise on materials.

Hmm but it's not "a few pence" is it? It's at least a pound difference from most UK sellers. That mounts up fast

pdeeh said:

Hmm but it's not "a few pence" is it? It's at least a pound difference from most UK sellers. That mounts up fast

Click to expand...

Fair enough, I was being a bit glib when I said a "few pence". Nevertheless, I would still rather take fewer shots than compromise on quality. At one time.I used to run through a hundred or more shots a day when I was on holiday and be satisfied with, maybe, four or five of the negs or slides. Now I'm on holiday in the UK at the moment, and have taken one film in four days so far....I don't kid myself that the pictures will be "masterpieces" but I'm sure that I'll be more content with the results than when I blasted through film, even if it were cheaper.

pdeeh said:

Hmm but it's not "a few pence" is it? It's at least a pound difference from most UK sellers. That mounts up fast

Click to expand...

In Spain it's almost 2 euros! Kentmere is 4 euros and HP5 5,70, so indeed not just a few pence, I still think the price difference is worth tho.

Fomapan is indeed very good film. If you worry about contrast try D-23.

If you like grain try Rodinal and/or FX-39.

baachitraka said:

Fomapan is indeed very good film. If you worry about contrast try D-23.

If you like grain try Rodinal and/or FX-39.

Click to expand...

How are you liking the FX-39? I am thinking of buying a bottle, saw it last week at the photo store, I would like to use it with Foma 100/200 and maybe Delta and TMAX

Antigen said:

I have done an experiment, i have found that Fomapan film are good but for the 400 the grain of silver are big on rodinal.

Your experience compared to Kentmere?

Click to expand...

You make an interesting point but just for clarification are you saying that for both films in Rodinal, Fomapan 400 has noticeably bigger grain than Kentmere 400?

Could you show us a scan of similar Foma and Kentmere negatives in say 2 5x7 inch (13x 18 cms) or is the grain difference only noticeable at 8x10 inches( 20x25 cms)

Thanks

pentaxuser

Echoes said:

How are you liking the FX-39? I am thinking of buying a bottle, saw it last week at the photo store, I would like to use it with Foma 100/200 and maybe Delta and TMAX

Click to expand...

Echoes said:

How are you liking the FX-39? I am thinking of buying a bottle, saw it last week at the photo store, I would like to use it with Foma 100/200 and maybe Delta and TMAX

Click to expand...

I did not develop any roll yet in FX-39.

But in Rodinal its a beauty if you control the contrast a bit.
Yes, Fomapan have a tendency to build the contrast little fast.

In conclusion, Fomapan have more personality, and Kentmere have more quality

Antigen said:

In conclusion, Fomapan have more personality, and Kentmere have more quality

Click to expand...

On this basis I will invite Fomapan to dinner but if need my camera repaired I will take it to Kentmere

pentaxuser

How old are the fomapan emulsions?

I tried Foma 100 and 400. Both films tend to halation and to blocked highlights. I don't use them anymore.

only use the foma 100 and if you can master it ; it is like old APX100...it's great film except for the speed!
best, peter

There is a potential for Fomapan 100 (whereas EI is actually below that I think), however I have decided not to have more of Fomapan 400.
That is really prone to nuances in development, super sensitive for scratches and dusts, far too fragile and I really do not have time and additional effort for dealing with it to handle properly if possible at all. Further, curles like hell, regardless of the pressure plates I use to fix that. The only good news is that it curles to the right direction, towards the emulsion side, however it horrendously curles, like all Foma films (except Retro320 that is not available for MF ... brrr ... ).
I cannot speak of Kentmer though.

I develop in Pyro and have zero to none scratches on the foma 100..the pyro acts a hardener. I'm talking tonality here..the film has great tonality

sagai said:

There is a potential for Fomapan 100 (whereas EI is actually below that I think), however I have decided not to have more of Fomapan 400.
That is really prone to nuances in development, super sensitive for scratches and dusts, far too fragile and I really do not have time and additional effort for dealing with it to handle properly if possible at all. Further, curles like hell, regardless of the pressure plates I use to fix that. The only good news is that it curles to the right direction, towards the emulsion side, however it horrendously curles, like all Foma films (except Retro320 that is not available for MF ... brrr ... ).
I cannot speak of Kentmer though.

Click to expand...

No, all Fomapan in 135 don't curl.
Kentmere is the same in that respect.

Kentmere is more reliable?

sagai said:

There is a potential for Fomapan 100 (whereas EI is actually below that I think), however I have decided not to have more of Fomapan 400.
That is really prone to nuances in development, super sensitive for scratches and dusts, far too fragile and I really do not have time and additional effort for dealing with it to handle properly if possible at all. Further, curles like hell, regardless of the pressure plates I use to fix that. The only good news is that it curles to the right direction, towards the emulsion side, however it horrendously curles, like all Foma films (except Retro320 that is not available for MF ... brrr ... ).
I cannot speak of Kentmer though.

Click to expand...

Having used Fomapan 400 and 200 as my main, go to film for at least 10 years I completely disagree with a lot of the above, I develop it in 2 developers, Rodinal 1/50 or Rollei RHS at 1/19 without any problems and no adjustments, it simply develops well whatever I do, I make no extra effort as regards scratches or dust, I have yet, in ten years, to have a problem and I handle it the same way as I would any other film, as far as curling, ten years ago it was the worst film for curling, I used to have to put the negative fille pages under weight for a day or so to straighten, but 7 years or so ago, Foma worked on the curl problem, and these days hang it to dry and it drys flat.that applies to 200 and 400, I can develop it tonight and it is flat, in fact it often dries flatter than Ilford and sometimes Kodak. so I can be printing it tomorrow, when I have problems then I would consider changing, but both 120 and 35 mm are fine films, lovely tonality, in fact unique tonality. and improved over the last years beyond regonation in handling

I am interested to see how FP200 in staining developers like Tanol or Pyrocat HD esp., the speed.