never shot foma200, but foma100 has a nice green dye when developed and halations are well present
Base
The following bases are used for manufacturing the particular sorts of the film:
- 120 rollfilm - a clear polyester base 0.1 mm thick, furnished with an antihalo colour backing which will decolourize during processing.
- 35 mm film - a gray or gray-blue cellulose triacetate base 0.125 mm thick,
- sheet film - a clear polyester base 0.175 mm thick furnished with an antihalo colour backing which will decolourize during processing.
new film has a standard panchromatic response
official spec sheet for both Foma 100 and Foma 200 confirms the presence of a anti halation layer for their 120 and LF product, but not for the 35mm
It would make no sense to use anything other than a standard panchro dye like the rest of the Kentmere range - I think people are indulging in pie-in-the-sky thinking at the price it is if they wanted otherwise. Harman are not going to undercut Ortho+ or SFX. Same with those demanding Kentmere in sheets.
The emulsions aren't thick enough/ complex enough to suffer from major internal reflections - and the layer/ dyed base will deal with any back reflection/ light piping sufficiently. Foma 200 is '200' only under quite limited circumstances, so whether its a fair point of comparison is a difficult question.
The other area that needs to be considered is that if Kentmere 200 has epitaxial characteristics or similar highly controlled grain growth techniques incorporated into the emulsion(s), it may (like Delta) exhibit significantly more visible granularity with even quite slight overexposure.
There is a video of one of the youtubers that tried with a R72, and no near IR capability found.Just ordered 10 rolls in 120 and looking forward to trying them out. Were you able to locate spectral sensitivity? I'm wondering how far it sees into the red.
I noticed some halation in the leaked Kosmofoto shots, even in a small size, but also that might depend on the camera and lens used. Of course, some characteristics and charm must come from it being a Kentmere and not Ilford branded product; otherwise there is FP/HP and the Deltas as higher tier performance.Too early to say, but purely based on the youtubers' samples, I'm seeing extremely strong halation in 120 for this product. Much worse than Kentmere 100 and 200, which don't have a clear base.
The images posted by losmophoto looks good. I do like Rollei superpan 200, they're better in quality than both Kentmere 100 and 400. so this will be interesting.
There is a video of one of the youtubers that tried with a R72, and no near IR capability found.
I noticed some halation in the leaked Kosmofoto shots, even in a small size, but also that might depend on the camera and lens used. Of course, some characteristics and charm must come from it being a Kentmere and not Ilford branded product; otherwise there is FP/HP and the Deltas as higher tier performance.
The Spanish channel Dispara film has some interesting comparisonsFor reference, some interesting screenshots (1440p monitor)
Grain:
View attachment 398201
"Sharpness", this is an interesting one as, K200 appears less resolving vs K400 and HP5.
View attachment 398202
This sharpness test makes no sense. Everyone is in the exact same position. Would not have been possible to take that picture on three separate films at the exact same moment. It must be simulated.
Foma 200 is '200' only under quite limited circumstances, so whether its a fair point of comparison is a difficult question.
I thought the same thing, but then noticed they're shots of a still photo. Could be a focus issue...or maybe it is just a soft film. There's a place for that!
The grain is looking more like a 400 speed film to me in the shots I am seeing.
Although Foma uses the ISO designation, it is not clear whether or not they use the ISO speed criteria. If they do, their charts can be interpreted to show the 200 and 400 films do not achieve those nominal speeds (unless they have a special purpose high speed / low gamma developer for use in-house specifically for speed determination). The best case scenarios for the 200 film appear to be slightly higher than 160 (that’s pretty close to 200), closer to 125 in ID-11.
but one has to wonder whether this film might have been slightly uprated wrt its true sensitivity to give more 'deep blacks'
Having tried both Foma 200 & 400, I think the following is what's going on:
Foma 400, if exposed under flare free conditions to a step wedge, will deliver what the data sheet says (ie 160-200+), but it has sufficient internal halation/ turbidity that real-world usage demands a bit of underexposure & a higher aim contrast in processing;
Foma 200 uses a form of high aspect ratio crystal structures which, if my understanding is reasonably correct, in their less highly evolved forms will only deliver more optimal grain/ sharpness characteristics if slightly underexposed & developed to a higher contrast index. I think Foma 200 owes some background DNA to investment/ knowledge sharing in the Foma X-ray range in the 1990s.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?