Fortepan or Fomapan: Any Thoughts?

Foto Ludens · Jan 31, 2006

you're right, I line up the arrow and the camera does the rest...
So, do you have more problems when the camera winds up automatically or when you rely on the frame numbering on the back?

Gibran · Jan 31, 2006

Andre R. de Avillez said:
you're right, I line up the arrow and the camera does the rest...
So, do you have more problems when the camera winds up automatically or when you rely on the frame numbering on the back?

On older cameras where you must look through a red window at the back of the 120 paper for the actual frame numbers, the position of the beginning arrow does not matter(your positioning the film manually). This is very cumbersome and one can run the risk of light leaks. With Automatic frame positioning which would be on most cameras since about the 50's(except most folders and early hassys), you line the starting arrow up(except on Rolleiflexes which has an auto film sensor), close the back and off you go. If that starting arrow is not either printed or positioned correctly in relation to the actual film attached to the paper, then you could run into issues. I have never run into a problem before but then again I was always shooting Kodak, Fuji, Ilford or Agfa. On a side note, one other thing you will notice on either Foma(EDU.ULTRA) or EFKE 120 films is that the Paper does not come off entirely when you open the roll AND that the tape holding the film onto the paper which you seperate in the darkroom will often not come off competely or easily. Compare this with Kodak or Fuji. Its a small thing but God can often lurk in those details. I do love the look of the Foma 100 though. Maybe even more than Agfa APX in fact.

Max Power · Jan 31, 2006

Gibran said:
Rodinal 1:25 would probably be way contrasty.

That's what I was thinking, too. What's interesting is that Freestyle only gives times for 1+25. I was only able to find times for 1+50 on the Digitaltruth's development chart.

Kent

Gibran · Jan 31, 2006

Just processed another roll of 120 EDU.ULTRA 100(Fomapan 100) and and this time I measured the length. This roll is 31.75 inches long(approximately 806mm long). That compares to a roll of Tri-x Pro which is close to 32.75 inches long. So the Foma 100 would appear to be about 1 inch shorter than standard which looks to be about 830mm long for 120 film. Just FYI for anyone interested as that extra inch makes handling much more safe and comfortable if your camera uses most of the length as mine does. So, I guess Foma is able to get an extra roll of film manufactured after about 32 rolls compared to Kodak or Fuji. Talk about cost cutting!

Gabe Racz · Feb 1, 2006

srs5694 said:
I've shot a bit of Fomapan 100 and more Fomapan 200 and 400, as well as a bit of Efke KB25 and KB100. The Foma films definitely have thinner bases than typical Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, or Fuji films. I don't know if the emulsions themselves are thinner, though. I've not noticed a greater propensity to scratch, but I can't say with certainty that they aren't more sensitive to scratches. I don't recall the Efke characteristics in this respect, offhand, although I've definitely heard that the Efke emulsions aren't hardened as well as those of Kodak, Ilford, etc.

Oh, and FWIW, I'm using Fomapan 400 as my standard ISO 400 film, and I've recently bought a bulk roll of Fomapan 200 to use as a standard ISO 200 film. I prefer T-Max 100 for an ISO 100 film, though.

I've noticed what appears to be some scratching of the emulsion on 35mm Arista.edu Ultra 100 (showing in prints as black lines across the image). Since this has now occurred when the film was run through a couple of different cameras I have to conclude that the scratching occurred when the film was packaged. Has anyone else noticed this?

It's too bad, since other than the scratches I like the results.

srs5694 · Feb 1, 2006

Gabe Racz said:
I've noticed what appears to be some scratching of the emulsion on 35mm Arista.edu Ultra 100 (showing in prints as black lines across the image). Since this has now occurred when the film was run through a couple of different cameras I have to conclude that the scratching occurred when the film was packaged. Has anyone else noticed this?

I've shot two rolls of 35mm Arista.EDU Ultra 100, delivered pre-loaded by Freestyle, and did not see this. It could be sample-to-sample variability or it could be that the problem is on your end, despite the fact that it occurred on two different cameras. (Do you use a squeegee? These sometimes cause problems.)

I did encounter scratches on a couple of rolls of Fomapan 200 I bulk loaded, but I traced that to my bulk loader, which stupidly runs the film across a plastic part, emulsion side to plastic. This is a "Telesar" brand loader, which looks like an earlier version of the loaders sold by Freestyle and Adorama under their house brands. I don't know if the newer models have the same design flaw. When I moved the Fomapan film into a Watson bulk loader, the scratches went away.

Gabe Racz · Feb 1, 2006

No squeegie, not even my fingers. I'm thinking that you're right about the sample I got (IIRC there were several rolls, but I received them all at the same time).

abeku · Feb 2, 2006

srs5694 said:
Oh, and FWIW, I'm using Fomapan 400 as my standard ISO 400 film.

I've been using the FPAN100 a lot and I like the results when developed in D-76. For the FPAN400 which developer do you use (EI?) and how is the grain when compared to HP5/Tri-X?

srs5694 · Feb 2, 2006

abeku said:
I've been using the FPAN100 a lot and I like the results when developed in D-76. For the FPAN400 which developer do you use (EI?) and how is the grain when compared to HP5/Tri-X?

I'm currently using PC-Glycol, which I've not used with HP5+ or Tri-X, so I can't do a direct comparison. I did some tests (as per this site) and found the true speed of Fomapan 400 in PC-Glycol to be either 320 or 400 (my camera's meter specified the same aperture and shutter speed at both EIs).

I can compare these films when developed in D-76, which I've used with all three films (exposed at box speed) in the past. In D-76, the Fomapan 400 produces grain that I'd describe as "crisper" than either the HP5+ or the Tri-X. Actually, I just checked some scans I made a while ago for grain comparison, and in this respect Fomapan 400 in D-76 resembles Tri-X in Rodinal. Some people claim that the Fomapan is grainier than HP5+ or Tri-X, but I just don't see that. The three films seem to be about equally grainy, in my subjective judgment. That is a subjective judgment, though; I've not actually attempted to quantify this in any way. To my eye, the biggest difference is that the grain is more clearly defined. There's also something about the grain pattern that I like, but I can't put my finger on it.

Edit: Actually, a picture's worth a thousand words, right? Here are four scans:

http://www.rodsbooks.com/hp5p-d76.jpg
http://www.rodsbooks.com/trix-d76.jpg
http://www.rodsbooks.com/trix-rodinal.jpg
http://www.rodsbooks.com/fomapan-d76.jpg

These are 600x600 cropped areas of 2700 dpi scans taken with a Minolta DiMAGE 5400 film scanner. They're of different scenes, which of course complicates comparisons, but they do illustrate the differences that I see. The scanner will also "see" grain a bit differently than will an enlarger and photo paper, but I do see the same sort of differences in enlargements.

ricksplace · Feb 2, 2006

With regard to the length of foma 100 in 120:
I have not measured any, but I still get 13 frames per roll with my Pentacon Six tl, and there seems to be quite a bit left over at the end or the roll when shot in my Rolleiflex.

Gibran · Feb 2, 2006

ricksplace said:
With regard to the length of foma 100 in 120:
I have not measured any, but I still get 13 frames per roll with my Pentacon Six tl, and there seems to be quite a bit left over at the end or the roll when shot in my Rolleiflex.

I'm shooting 8 frames of 6x9. It fits but just barely. The Frame spacing on the FujiGSW690111 is wider but consistant(more room between frames) than on my 6x6 cameras. No problems at all using this camera with other films.

ricksplace · Feb 2, 2006

See my post on the technical gallery regarding how foma captures skies.

Max Power · Feb 4, 2006

I just finished loading the first roll of Arista EDU Ultra into the 120 back in my M645 1000S...

Is it just my imagination, or is the 'leader' on the roll insanely short? If I line up the word 'START' on the backing with the mark on the film back, there's barely enough leader to reach the takeup reel.

Is this anyone else's experience?

Cheers,
Kent

Kobin · Feb 4, 2006

Kent,
beyond the word START there is a bar with arrowheads on either side. This is the starting point you line up with your camera's indicator.

K.

zenrhino · Feb 4, 2006

Gibran said:
On the first roll of the 100 I processed, the last frame went to the very edge of the roll(the actual film seems to have been cut short length wise!).

Same thing here. Not bad for $1.20/roll but I was hoping for better quality.

Max Power · Feb 4, 2006

First roll developed

Holy blue Batman!!!

I exposed my first roll at an EI of 100 and developed for 10mins in Rodinal 1+50 at 20C.

I'm really impressed with the latitude...I took a shot of my daughter out in the snow. She was wearing a jet black quilted parka and snowpants. There is enough latitude that I can see fine detail in her jacket as well as detail in the snow.

So far, not too bad, especially at $1.20USD a roll.

Kent

Fortepan or Fomapan: Any Thoughts?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency