Has anyone used Foma 400 Ortho?

[Donald Qualls]

I have two main questions: is it really 400 speed (at least in midday daylight -- not forgetting that ortho films lose speed in yellower/redder light)? And is it really orthocromatic (I have some old Tri-X Ortho, but I've been warned it isn't really red-blind).

 

[DeletedAcct1]

I have two main questions: is it really 400 speed (at least in midday daylight -- not forgetting that ortho films lose speed in yellower/redder light)? And is it really orthocromatic (I have some old Tri-X Ortho, but I've been warned it isn't really red-blind).

I think it's impossible to answerthe first question if Foma doesn't publish sensitometric data.

https://www.foma.cz/en/fomaortho

 

[pentaxuser]

I could find no videos that gave me any info in the 3 videos I found. Videos vary in quality when it comes to presentation and ínformation but so far this film seems to be particularly badly served in those terms

Here's a quote from an earlier thread but while the answer covers the film qualities by comparing it to Orto 50 such that any examples of Orto 50 should be applicable to 400 the question of its actual speed remains unanswered. The only assumption that may be close is that Foam have overrated the speed in the same way that it has with Fomapan 400 such that it may be closer to 250 or 200 depending on developer

I take it this is a supplement to its recent Orto 50 film and this equally ortho in its spectral sensitivity? If so, Foma is moving forward in leaps and bounds Do you happen to know what its real speed is. I mean it might be 400 but on the other hand Foma 400 is generally rated as closer to 250 so I wonder if that's the more likely speed of this 400? Even if this 400 is closer to 250 that is a large increase in speed over Ilford's Ortho 80
Second question: Has Foma announced its prices for the 135 and 120 versions ?

Pentax, this seems to be just the 35mm version of 120 film we discussed a while ago https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/new-ortho-120-film-from-foma.199377/


Good news, nonetheless!

Multi quote Reply
Report

 

[Donald Qualls]

I think it's impossible to answerthe first question if Foma doesn't publish sensitometric data.

https://www.foma.cz/en/fomaortho

That's why I'm asking if anyone has used the film. Most of us here can tell from one negative strip if the film meets the rated speed... FWIW, I have no problem with shadows when I shoot Foma 400 at box speed.

 

[pentaxuser]

Here's a quote from the earlier thread covering speed That post has 2 pics worth looking at by Sanug He doesn't say how he established that it was box speed of 400 that was reached but you can judge for yourself if you go to the thread then post and pics by Sanug
My Foma Ortho 400-120 came out quite contrasty. The box speed was reached, no overexposure required. Fine grain, good sharpness, but no anti-halation layer. I developed in Adox XT-3, 1+3, 15 min.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Okay, I'd lost track of that thread. I'll have to give it a try in 4x5. Being able to develop in trays under safelight has some attraction, especially if I feel the need to DBI.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Most of us here can tell from one negative strip if the film meets the rated speed...

Sorry but it's impossible to assess film speed without a densitometer.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Sorry but it's impossible to assess film speed without a densitometer.

No it's not. It's just difficult to accurately measure film speed without one. I've seen methods for Zone System film speed testing that use nothing but print tests, and lots of photographers have produced very good work without any film testing at all -- other than looking at their negatives and and deciding "Those shadows have detail in them, I guess box speed is fine."

 

[DeletedAcct1]

other than looking at their negatives and and deciding "Those shadows have detail in them, I guess box speed is fine."

That's not equivalent of assessing box speed. It's merely a trial to see if the shadows are up to one's liking.

 

[Donald Qualls]

That's not equivalent of assessing box speed. It's merely a trial to see if the shadows are up to one's liking.

If I meter my usual way with the meter set for box speed, how is that not assessing box speed? It's not a quantitative measurement, like Zone testing, I agree -- but it's an assessment, against the criteria "Does this film act like the advertised speed with my methods?"

But anyway, unless someone else responds, I'll have to go with the results from the thread Pentax Pete linked, and presume that it'll work for me about the same way Fomapan 400 does (which is very well).

 

[pentaxuser]

That's not equivalent of assessing box speed. It's merely a trial to see if the shadows are up to one's liking.

Yes but if the shadows are to one's liking and one's liking is to see some texture in what was known to be a zone II and shadow detail in that part of the scene that was known to have shadow detail when the negative was exposed and the processed negatives shows those things then there is surely a good chance that the film meet the standard of achieving box speed?

In that case it's more than just one's liking and close enough to be able to say that the film achieves box speed

pentaxuser

P.S. Donald, while pentaxpete is not a bad name, it isn't the one I use. Pentaxpete is a different person

 

[DeletedAcct1]

If I meter my usual way with the meter set for box speed, how is that not assessing box speed? It's not a quantitative measurement,

Yes, box speed as per ISO system IS a quantitative measurement, very well defined too...

Film speed - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Film speed is found from a plot of optical density vs. log of exposure for the film, known as the D–log H curve or Hurter–Driffield curve. There typically are five regions in the curve: the base + fog, the toe, the linear region, the shoulder, and the overexposed region. For black-and-white negative film, the "speed point" m is the point on the curve where density exceeds the base + fog density by 0.1 when the negative is developed so that a point n where the log of exposure is 1.3 units greater than the exposure at point m has a density 0.8 greater than the density at point m. The exposure Hm, in lux-s, is that for point m when the specified contrast condition is satisfied. The ISO arithmetic speed is determined from:

S = 0.8 lx⋅s H m

This value is then rounded to the nearest standard speed in Table 1 of ISO 6:1993.
Without a densitometer the ISO speed calculation is IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Without a densitometer the ISO speed calculation is IMPOSSIBLE.

But an equally, if not more useful EI is easily obtained. And if my EI matches the film manufacturer's listed "box speed" it does what I need it to do. Remember, EI is film speed just as much as ISO is -- it's just obtained via a different method (often involving real world photographic experience rather than lab tests).

 

[DeletedAcct1]

But an equally, if not more useful EI is easily obtained. And if my EI matches the film manufacturer's listed "box speed" it does what I need it to do. Remember, EI is film speed just as much as ISO is -- it's just obtained via a different method (often involving real world photographic experience rather than lab tests).

But we were discussing about film speed, not EI.
However I agree, from a practical viewpoint, the EI is much more useful.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Okay, let me rephrase, then. Has anyone WHO HAS USED Foma 400 Ortho noted a good or bad EI vs. box speed? I get very good results shooting regular Foma 400 at EI 400, even though many folks prefer 200-250 -- but I don't develop the normal way, which likely contributes. And has anyone actually tested the red-blindness for what (if any) safelight is usable for DBI?

 

[Tomro]

because of the reports of high contrast I chose to slightly overexpose ortho 400 with regards to the box speed. I used E.I. 200. Worked out nicely. Not contrasty. Beautiful film.

 

[Agulliver]

I've shot the cine version in double 8mm and it is *gorgeous*. I exposed at 250 because that's the fastest the camera's meter can do, and reduced the development time by a minute to compensate. While this is a different film format and no laboratory equipment was used, I'd say that I got the negative as expected. Managed some truly gorgeous indoor shots in churches in the same locations where Tri-X super 8 struggled 12 months earlier.

It appears to be pretty ortho in that I made a couple of shots from on board a car at night and the tail lights of the car in front are almost black....whereas street lights and headlights of oncoming cars are very bright.

If this isn't actually 400 ISO, it's closer to 400 than it is to 250. And yes, you can say that from looking at the negative. Whether it's really 329.3467 ISO would need more stringent tests.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Whether it's really 329.3467 ISO would need more stringent tests.

Very funny uh...

 

[pentaxuser]

Donald if the only example is the one I referred to by Sanug and its looks OK to you at box speed which he says he used then it might be worth a PM to him to ask a few questions It appears that relatively few here have used Ortho 400 or if the have then there seems to be very few examples of scans of prints or even negatives on which to base an opinion

pentaxuser

 

[Donald Qualls]

I think I've seen enough to order a a couple rolls of 120 or a small box of 4x5 next time I can spare the money. I'll still need to do a safelight test, apparently (I have a genuine red darkroom safelight bulb), before attempting DBI, but that's an easy thing with 4x5.

 

[albireo]

@Donald Qualls have you stumbled on this thread already?

New ortho 120 film from Foma

I’ve exposed it @ 200 combined with reduction of development time taking high contrast scenery into account Thanks. Far be it from me to "speculate" that your picture demonstrates that 200 is the "real speed" but it suggests that ever in very contrasty light 200 produces very acceptable...

www.photrio.com

Post 81# onwards for discussions, post 125# for samples.

It's an interesting product and has nothing to do with Fomapan 400. It has no anti-halation layer, unlike other Foma products in 120. Think strong highlight halation which can be used for interesting creative effects. Blueish polyester base.

 

[Sanug]

My sample on 120:

The ship's body marked "Deutsche Bucht" was red.

I did not measure the film speed scientifically, but I can say it is higher than the speed of Fomapan 400. And the Ortho 400 is much more contrasty. The given development times by Foma will lead to quite overdeveloped negatives.

 

[abruzzi]

I've have a few rolls for a while, but I haven't figured out where to use them. It seems a waste to shoot scenes where anyone would be hard pressed to tell it was ortho (as opposed to panchromatic.) I'm leaving in a few weels on a motorcycle tour through Arizona and Utah. So I think I'll bring a roll or two for the Utah redrock formations (think Monument Valley, Arches, etc.) The rock is more orange (to my colorblind eyes) so I expect the ortho film won't turn them black, but definitely darken them. Has anyone tried something like that with any ortho film?

 

[Donald Qualls]

have you stumbled on this thread already?

I have now.

 

[qqphot]

My qualitative set of the pants feeling in response to your question is more-or-less, and yes. I have shot a couple of rolls of it in ordinary midday light rated at 320 and ended up with negatives that looked reasonable, with decent shadow detail. Red objects in them were rendered more or less black. I have no sensitometry or scientific measurements to back any of this up, so I won't get into any arguments about it, but this is my feeling.