Fomapan film vs Kentmere: you experience?

[Xmas]

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.

In Xtol or Microphen it is about 100 unlike the other Foma films.

http://www.foma.cz/en/catalogue-fomapan-100-classic-detail-406

It drys flat for me in 135 but I got high relative humidity so drying takes 12 hours if you just hang it up.

 

[37th Exposure]

I've used a lot of Foma over the last ten years and loved the rich old school tonality I got right out of the box in whatever developer I souped it in. But frequent QC problems made me switch back to Ilford or Kentmere ( an Ilford product ). But I still buy Foma from time to time and it does look like they are taking customer complaints seriously. I've not had any more issues with the last few batches (primarily Fomapan 100 in 35 mm and 120, my favorite of the line) and even the fit and finish of the packaging has improved. Prices for Foma in the USA are sometimes more than for Ilford film but if they truly are committed to quality I'll switch back. I just wish they still dx coded the 35mm rolls (for my little point and shoots).

 

[37th Exposure]

And yes it now dries perfectly flat. I wish Kodak film would do that if they expect me to buy any more.

 

[Peter Schrager]

baachitraka you are still not going to shoot at box speed...I've used the 200 at 150 (with pyro) but I'm out here in California with great sun...I've gotten 100 speed out of the 100 in bright sun; that's with pyro but soft lighting and the speed goes to 60
good luck to you!
peter

 

[baachitraka]

Yeah that is bit dissapointing regarding the speed in Staining developers. May be I try either D-23 or FX-39 on them. D-23 may not give full-speed but the contrast build-up may be interesting.

 

[Peter Schrager]

I would try XTOL !+@ which is one of my favorites for TMY400. I do semi stand; every 3 minutes. you have to watch because these films build contrast mighty fast. Good Luck to you!!
peter

 

[sagai]

I have zero benefit of saying contrary with the experience I had.
For 120 it curls mad, never seen such. I need three arms to fix it in the enlarger mount.
Also, there is ALWAYS some scratch longer or shorter on the negs whereas for HP5+, Rollei400, FOMA 100, I have never experienced such.
I cannot speak of the 135, I have never had that for Foma400.

 

[pdeeh]

Something else goes on with curl, I think, as people's experience seems to vary so wildly.

All the Fomapan I've ever used whether 135 or 120 has dried flat, and no problems with soft emulsion or whatever.

 

[Neil Purling]

Fomapan is known not to make the box speed. In D76 F100 is 90 ASA F200 is 160 ASA and F400 is only 200.
I have no idea if the Kentmere 100 and 400 have full box speed in D76.
How does Fomapan 100 vs Kentmere 100 fare for sharpness?
Fomapan seems to be very soft. It scratches easily. I might try Kentmere 100 if it is more robust.
I have no idea how Foma 100, Kentmere 100 do for sharpness up against FP4. I would expect the Kentmere and the Foma to have more grain.
Foma 100 and Kentmere 100 look to be around the same price for a 30m roll and look to be around 1/3 cheaper than FP4.
Or maybe it is better to fork out the extra for the FP4 if the FP4 is far sharper & had less grain.

 

[removedacct3]

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

I have conducted a Kodak exposure test on FP200 in Hypercat using my RH Zonemaster as densitometer. Doing so I got a speed of 125 ASA.

 

[baachitraka]

I have switched to PC-TEA.

6'00" for FP200@160. This stuff is amazing for holding highlights.

If any one interested 7'30" for APX 100@80 and 9'00" for HP5+ 400@320

 

[Agulliver]

I've used Fomapan 100, 200 an 400...and Kentmere 400. All processed in ID-11 stock.

The Foma 100 and 200 are lovely. Utterly gorgeou old school films (cubic grain) and I can make beautiful negatives which both print and scan well. Foma 400 is a bit more difficult. As I understand it, this is a mix of cubic and tabular grain. I have found that outside in bright light the grain of Foma 400 in 35mm is intrusive. However it's a nice film for use indoors or under harsh concert lighting. I found it worked well under those circumstances exposed at 320. It might be worth noting that Foma 400 does not come in DX coded canisters.

IN medium format I've only tried Fomapan 400 and the grain is not an issue there...it's a nice film. Also worth mentioning that all the Foma films are a joy to handle in terms of processing.

Kentmere 400 is fine at box speed and not much over or under exposed. It produces nicer images than Fomapan 400 in 35mm for relatively bright outdoor shots. As a general use film, it's perfectly fine. I've tried pushing it to 800 and get very dense negatives, moreso than when I push Tri-X or HP5+. When I accidentally over-exposed a few frames by about one stop the same happened. So this film, in ID-11 stock at any rate, doesn't seem to react well to over-exposure or pushing.

For me, personally I think the extra for HP5+ is worth it over the offerings from Kentmere or Foma at 400ISO. But it depends on your planned usage. Fomapan 400 is fine if you are shooting under low light, inside, or under harsh gig/theatre lights. Kentmere 400 is fine outdoors in fair to good lighting shot at box speed. HP5 can do anything you might reasonably ask of it.

 

[Neil Purling]

The Fomapan 100 looks like really good film for the economically minded photographer. It does actually get the box speed, or as close as you wouldn't notice.
I really would have to develope a roll of Fomapan 100 in D76 as well as I did with the only roll of Kentmere 100 I have shot to date.
The problem with the Fomapan is that they do not make the box speed. With the 100 you wouldn't really notice the difference.
With the 200 it is no better than 160 ASA and the 400 is at best only 250 ASA. I was using Fomapan 200 rated 125 in Rodinal in place of a proper 100 speed film.

The Fomapan seems to exhibit excessive grain clumping in areas of over-exposure. I guess all films do this, but the grain of the Fomapan is greater and so more visible. I assume that is because it is very old technology & has not been updated.
I have never compared the Foma 400 against anything but some Agfapan APX 400S I had in bulk, back in 2009.
The Agfapan may not have been well kept. All I know is that the Fomapan 400 was better in respect of grain.
Both were only just over 200 ASA in Rodinal 1:50. Fomapan 400 looks better in D76 & perhaps slightly finer if the D76 is diluted 1+1. I cannot say anything of the Retropan 320 before I see results from the use of D76, rather than the dedicated Retro Special developer.

I really would have to shoot a reasonably scientific test of Kentmere 100 and Foma 100 to be sure, but they seem rather similar.
The Fomapan does seem to be prone to dust and surface defects. That could be a big turn-off for some. Again an issue from the old-technology. The Foma maybe isn't hardened. There was a big hiccup with Foma 200 in the past.

I have got a roll of Kentmere 400 in a camera. If that does make 400 when normally developed I would use it rather than Fomapan 400, for situations where I do need the extra two stops shutter speed.
It has been several years since I used any HP5 or Tri-X. The price of Ilford or Kodak films would cause me to restrict my shooting if that were all I could buy, no matter how good they are.