HP5+ or Fomapan 400

[Colin Corneau]

The recurring points here pretty much nail it: HP5+ is a more consistently quality film that pushes much better.

The question isn't "is HP5 $20 better than Foma", but rather "do I value my work to the tune of $20". Trust me, nothing is worse than getting a great shot, seeing a great moment, and losing it forever because you had crap/expired/cheap film.

Honestly, if money is that big an object or is the sole criteria, then just steal TMY2 or TriX.

 

[Ariston]

The recurring points here pretty much nail it: HP5+ is a more consistently quality film that pushes much better.

The question isn't "is HP5 $20 better than Foma", but rather "do I value my work to the tune of $20". Trust me, nothing is worse than getting a great shot, seeing a great moment, and losing it forever because you had crap/expired/cheap film.

Honestly, if money is that big an object or is the sole criteria, then just steal TMY2 or TriX.

I get where you are coming from. But for some, $20 is a big deal. But the real issue for me is that I am about to try bulk loading for the first time, so there is a possibility that I will lose it all. Also, I will not be doing anything I consider to be "my work." Most of my serious stuff I would not use 35mm for. In any case, most of my enjoyment comes from the process, not my crummy images. And believe me, they are crummy. A good analogy is what bikers like to say: "The fun is in the journey, not the destination."

So, I guess I am looking for a good guinea pig film that isn't too crappy, since I will hopefully be shooting 100 feet of it. I do shoot HP5 and am pretty happy with it. But I don't want to run the risk of ruining $70 worth of it. I am not afraid to admit my limited financial means. (Smiley Face)

 

[DREW WILEY]

Very different animals. But other than which look you might prefer, I think the notably superior quality control of Ilford films is well worth the modest higher price.

 

[MattKing]

Matt, I just checked, and luckily I did order the extreme version... although they left the E out of "Xtreme."

Should I take this to mean the other versions are inferior?

Also, has anyone here ever pushed this to 1600?

My sense, from simply reading posts here, is that people are happier with the recently offered Ultrafine Xtreme version than they are with some of the other versions of re-branded film that Ultrafine sells or has sold in the past.
But that wasn't why I posted what I did. My post was related to the fact that Wallendo recommended Ultrafine Xtreme, whereas you only referred to purchasing Ultrafine, which could have been anything they had available.

 

[Pioneer]

The recurring points here pretty much nail it: HP5+ is a more consistently quality film that pushes much better.

The question isn't "is HP5 $20 better than Foma", but rather "do I value my work to the tune of $20". Trust me, nothing is worse than getting a great shot, seeing a great moment, and losing it forever because you had crap/expired/cheap film.

Honestly, if money is that big an object or is the sole criteria, then just steal TMY2 or TriX.

Colin, what you say may seem true, and may be for you, but I find that I can randomly mess up my "great shots" far more frequently than any film or equipment purchase can. $20 one way or the other won't make any difference and certainly will not change my occasional ineptitude. If the quality of your film is the only deciding factor in the quality of your work I applaud you. You are a far better photographer than I will ever be.

I have found that once you learn how to work with a given film, be it an Ilford product or Foma product, you almost always manage to get what you expected to get. It is very rare for this not to be the case and if it is, it is almost always something I did. I work within the limitations of my film and I usually don't try to make the emulsions do things I have learned that it doesn't do very well. You like Ilford films and I get that, a lot of people do and Ilford makes a terrific product. I buy and use a fair amount of Ilford as well as other company's fil ms. But I also like Foma films and I have worked with some of them for so long now that I have found a system of exposure and development that works to give me the type of look I want in my work.

As for QC, I have run into a few Foma films that had some occasional problems but I have also found that Foma's warranty is pretty good. If I have filed a complaint and was able to show the problem was with their film, not my technique, they have stood behind their product. Nothing is ever perfect but if the company is willing to make things good then I have to give them credit. And I don't think you can say that Foma is the only company that has ever had quality problems with their products.

 

[koraks]

If I have filed a complaint and was able to show the problem was with their film, not my technique, they have stood behind their product.

Yes, I share that experience. However, sorting an issue out with them does take some time, and in the instance where I got sent replacement film (which I did appreciate), it turned out to have the same defect as the original product. For these reasons I refrained from contacting them when I experienced further issues with another one of their products and sought an alternative for that particular product from another manufacturer (it happened to be Foma400 35mm and I switched to Rollei RPX400).

 

[Agulliver]

I disagree that Fomapan 400 is garbage, but it is very different to HP5+. I only used three cassettes of Fomapan 400 in 135 because shot outside I found it quite grainy...however shots I made indoors under low light in a church and a museum looked really good. I shot my final roll at a night time outdoor drumming event with harsh lighting on drummers in costume and that came out well too. But in all instances I shot at ISO320. I've shot more Fomapan 400 in 6x6 medium format and it's a really nice film...where I shoot at 400 and develop in ID11. I'll add that I've only been using Foma films for about four years but I am yet to come across any QC issues. Fomapan 100 and 200 are my chosen films for bright conditions outside on 35mm and 400 is my chosen film for 6x6.It's just not great for 35mm nor is it very adaptable to different light conditions....in my experience. Maybe it likes really high contrast scenes to begin with....though in 120 it is a nice film as the grain just isn't so noticeable.

HP5+ I find can be used in just about any conceivable conditions....you can pull to 200 if you're shooting in bright sun....or push to 3200 in a jazz club. It's typically less grainy at box speed than Fomapan 400 and has a more pleasing grain structure. I can't imagine HP5+ ever letting me down.

Another film to consider if funds are tight is Kentmere 400. I shot just one 100 foot roll of this, when I was investigating it as a budget alternative to HP5+ and decided to stick with the latter....but the Kentmere isn't bad and can be pushed to 1600. I found when I pushed in ID11 that it became very contrasty but I have heard that Microphen is better ofr this purpose.

 

[Tor-Einar Jarnbjo]

Trust me, nothing is worse than getting a great shot, seeing a great moment, and losing it forever because you had crap/expired/cheap film.

I strongly disagree. It is much worse to see a great moment and losing it forever because you can't afford the film you need to take a picture of it.

I won't dispute that HP5+ is for any reasonable definition a technically superior film to Fomapan 400, but the price difference is significant, not for all of us negligible and the Foma films are by no mean crap. Where I live, I would pay €54 for a 50m roll of Fomapan 400, while a 30.5m roll of HP5+ sets me back €84.90. That is more than 2.5 times more expensive than the Foma film. If you can live with the limitations of coarser grain, less exposure latitude and poorer push/pull capabilities, there is no reason to cathegorically refuse to use Fomapan 400 or any of the other Foma films for that matter.

I am also not quite sure where the alleged quality control issues with Foma products really come from. The films are perhaps less robust than many other brands and tend to scratch more easily than films from many other brands, but when handled a bit more carefully, that is not really an issue. I use almost exclusively Foma papers and occasionally Foma films, but I can't remember ever having noticed any obvious manufacturing defects.

 

[KN4SMF]

I bought Arista edu 400 for it's infrared capability

 

[pentaxuser]

Ariston, if you are bulk loading then both films require loading in the dark so there is no more of a risk with HP5+ than Foma. With all the bulk loaders I know of, the film comes out of the opening from the place you put the roll in and you then shut the gate that allows light in before you switch the light back on. With some loaders there is no actual gate, just a labyrinth which prevents the light from entering more than an inch or so. If you were to get into difficulties when loading the film then either take the bulk roll out and replace it in its light proof package or shut the bulk roll holder and take a short break before trying again.

There really isn't any more of a risk with the more expensive film

pentaxuser

 

[alanrockwood]

I bought Arista edu 400 for it's infrared capability

And did it work OK for infrared, or at least far red? Was it 35mm film or some other format?

 

[alanrockwood]

...There really isn't any more of a risk with the more expensive film

pentaxuser

Except that if things go wrong then the monetary loss is greater with the more expensive film.

 

[koraks]

I bought Arista edu 400 for it's infrared capability

I always thought Arista 400 was fomapan 400, which does not have extended red or IR sensitivity. Or perhaps it was previously Rollei Retro 400S/Agfa Aviphot?

 

[KN4SMF]

All I know is I was researching cheap 100 rolls and came upon this link. I bought some and tried it and it worked.
https://emulsive.org/reviews/film-review-fomapan-400-arista-edu-ultra-400

 

[alanrockwood]

All I know is I was researching cheap 100 rolls and came upon this link. I bought some and tried it and it worked.
https://emulsive.org/reviews/film-review-fomapan-400-arista-edu-ultra-400

Just to be sure, are you saying that it worked for infrared (assuming we can lump far red together with infrared)?

I assume you had to put a far red or infrared filter on the lens for those experiments. Is that correct?

 

[KN4SMF]

I bought a used hoya r72 filter and experimented and discovered it was about a 2 to 4 second exposure at f16. May not be true full blown infrared like Kodak hie but is good enough for me, considering there isn't a whole lot of choice. I never did care for the halation and light piping of Kodak anyway. If I wanted that I'd use a softar filter

 

[37th Exposure]

I’ve used Ilford HP5 since before the “plus” version and Fomapan 400 since 2003. Both are unique and can not replace the other. If I could only have one it would be the Ilford for it’s bulletproof reliability. If Foma’s QC were that good, then I’d rather have the Foma. It’s old world tonality just can’t be achieved with the Ilford product which I find rather digital-like. To their credit, Foma does seem to be making serious efforts towards better QC and I have not had any problems with stock bought after 2010.

 

[pentaxuser]

Except that if things go wrong then the monetary loss is greater with the more expensive film.

I should have perhaps added the words "in complete darkness" If I ruin a film with light then I am not sure that I'd feel any better if the cheaper bulk film was $20 less.

pentaxuser

 

[Colin Corneau]

I get where you are coming from. But for some, $20 is a big deal. But the real issue for me is that I am about to try bulk loading for the first time, so there is a possibility that I will lose it all. Also, I will not be doing anything I consider to be "my work." Most of my serious stuff I would not use 35mm for. In any case, most of my enjoyment comes from the process, not my crummy images. And believe me, they are crummy. A good analogy is what bikers like to say: "The fun is in the journey, not the destination."

So, I guess I am looking for a good guinea pig film that isn't too crappy, since I will hopefully be shooting 100 feet of it. I do shoot HP5 and am pretty happy with it. But I don't want to run the risk of ruining $70 worth of it. I am not afraid to admit my limited financial means. (Smiley Face)

I totally get the price point. I'm not exactly flush, myself, but if it's pushing your film you're largely after then HP5 is a much better choice.

And don't sell yourself short You never know what you'll rise to once you make a commitment and get a little more skin (or 20 more bucks) in the game.

Ultimately only you can really know what you do or how you do it. I don't mean to slam Foma, but only say that, as others have here too, it's a very different film and 'look' to HP5.

 

[Ariston]

Except that if things go wrong then the monetary loss is greater with the more expensive film.

Yes, this is what I meant. ^^^

 

[NB23]

Foma 400 indeed has deep red sensitivity.

I shoot it a lot with a 092 filter.

Here are 4 shots, all on foma400 + 092+ summicron 35mm asph

 

[Ariston]

Foma 400 indeed has deep red sensitivity.

I shoot it a lot with a 092 filter.

Here are 4 shots, all on foma400 + 092+ summicron 35mm asph

View attachment 223578 View attachment 223580 View attachment 223581 View attachment 223579

Those are great photos. I actually like the look of that film a lot. I think I will get some for my next roll

 

[KN4SMF]

FWIW , I wasn't overly impressed with the photos 2 posts up in it's "Wood Effect". It seemed I was getting better results with my R72 filter. Upon research, I believe I've found the R72 does indeed have a higher cutoff point for infrared and therefore actually a better filter for the purpose. I'm open to any dispute.
I cite these 2 sources:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/7822-REG/B_W_65072240_39mm_Infrared_Dark_Red.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/23077-REG/Hoya_B55RM72_55mm_R72_Infrared_Glass.html

 

[NB23]

Indeed, r72 is stronger .
I prefer the 092 exactly for this reason; it still retains a natural look while being dramatic.

 

[KN4SMF]

While we're discussing the Foma/Arista 400, yes it does seem grainy. I've managed to tame it a bit with homemade Microdol 1:3 BTW Although development is slow, like 25-30 minutes at 75F with 30 second agitation. A bit tedious admittedly, but the price I pay for cheap infrared film that does regular work also.