Kentmere Pan 200 VS Fomapan 200 Creative
-
A
- Thread starter Andrew O'Neill
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Pentax 67: Accessories Now Individually Priced
- Started by RitchieLB
-
For Sale Pentax 67: Five Lenses Now Individually Priced
- Started by RitchieLB
-
For Sale Pentax 67: Two Bodies Now Individually Priced
- Started by RitchieLB
-
For Sale Rodenstock sironar n 360mm prontor with remote eu
- Started by Ales'
-
For Sale Five 8x10 Toyo film holders EU
- Started by Ales'
Forum statistics
Just started watching it. It's interesting because that tape is different from the fomapan 100/200 I have. Wonder if they changed it recently (iirc all my stuff expired in April)
OP
OP
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
What is the tape like in yours? My rolls of Fomapan 200 are fresh. They expire in 2027. Tape aside, I hope they solve the black spots on negative highlights. I've got a box of 4x5, that I want to use...
Pretty similar to the tape on Ilford films. I'll see if I've got a bit around. I usually just fold it over the end of the film when I load it.
The emulsion defects are present on every roll of fomapan 200 I've shot, but I've never seen it on the 100.
I notice you've run into the problem with the high-density spots on Fomapan; interesting. I've not had to contend with that issue. I pretty much only use the sheet film product and virtually only for contact printing, but I've not seen it yet. Did you notice any minus density anomalies (tiny zits, stripes, dots etc.)? This is something many of us have run into with this film specifically in 120 format.
As to the halation behavior of the Fomapan film: it's indeed quite good here and also on the sheet film version, but it's far less desirable on the 135 version, which shows pretty strong halation just like the 100 and 400 films.
Like you, I found that exposures in the range of 1-10 seconds generally need little or no compensation on the Fomapan, but it helps probably that I generally rate the film a little slower (around 100-125) to begin with.
I have to make a critical remark about your conclusions w.r.t. acutance, since the scanner plays a major role here. A flatbed will just give soft/fuzzy results, no matter what. I don't think you can say all that much about grain structure or acutance on the basis of just flatbed scans.
As to the halation behavior of the Fomapan film: it's indeed quite good here and also on the sheet film version, but it's far less desirable on the 135 version, which shows pretty strong halation just like the 100 and 400 films.
Like you, I found that exposures in the range of 1-10 seconds generally need little or no compensation on the Fomapan, but it helps probably that I generally rate the film a little slower (around 100-125) to begin with.
I use this all the time, mostly for alt. process and in particular carbon transfer. It has always served me well! I'm not thrilled about the 135 and 120 versions.
I have to make a critical remark about your conclusions w.r.t. acutance, since the scanner plays a major role here. A flatbed will just give soft/fuzzy results, no matter what. I don't think you can say all that much about grain structure or acutance on the basis of just flatbed scans.
OP
OP
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
This is the problem I've seen in my Foma 200 120 film negatives. My bulk roll of Foma 200 in 35mm doesn't have it. I haven't tried Foma 200 in sheet size so can't comment, but I haven't heard of problems with their sheet sizes.
Those black bears are mostly a nuisance, but don't trust them cuz they are unpredictable at times. Especially young males with an ego problem. They also don't have to be big to be dangerous. I saw what happened to a 200 lb. man when he tangled with a 175 lb. black bear. Not nice!
It's really frustrating because I love the way foma looks but I can't trust it and the curl makes it something of a nightmare to work with
Uh, Andy, you have bears!
Good video, watch our for the wildlife!
Good video, watch our for the wildlife!
even if the flatbed gives soft/fuzzy results, Kentmere 200 still showed more of an edge (pun intended).
Yes, I see what you mean, but it makes me wonder what the results would look like if you fed those negatives into a scanner that inherently resolves more detail. It seems like the brickwork details you're trying to scan are right at the limit of what the Epson will resolve, making them appear fuzzy even if they don't necessarily are.
Yeah, that's the issue I asked about. I also got that on 120, many other people have had the same experience. This defect does not occur on the sheet film or 135 formats.
I've found the best way (for me) to tame the curl is to let it hang weighted for a few days before doing anything else like scanning or printing. I don't cut my negatives any more, I just look at them at the light table and decide which to print.
As to the ISO 200 Foma sheet film, no issues other than I don't care for it compared to 100 or 400, it's a different film and after 100 sheets of 5x7 I'm still not completely satisfied with my results. YMMV.
BTW, Andrew, bears in the yard is common where i live, just yell at them and act menacing, they'll run away. I've had more than a few run-ins with some particularly large ones in the woods.
As to the ISO 200 Foma sheet film, no issues other than I don't care for it compared to 100 or 400, it's a different film and after 100 sheets of 5x7 I'm still not completely satisfied with my results. YMMV.
BTW, Andrew, bears in the yard is common where i live, just yell at them and act menacing, they'll run away. I've had more than a few run-ins with some particularly large ones in the woods.
Oh ya, I won't even get into the curl problem. I probably could live with the nasty curl, but emulsion defects rules this film OUT for me.
I could live with one or the other I think given the very reasonable pricing. But both is a lot to ask
K200 is being more widely available and moderately priced in some European outlets so I might grab a few rolls, even ahead of my trip.
Locally it was at about $10 and sold out, like hey, it's admittedly a budget film, not Delta!
Fomapan's PET base IMO is great on the dimensional and archival stability. Feels thin but never had curling problems in my latitudes. IIRC as PE explained around here, temperature and humidity as well as some coating characteristics make or break the curl.
I have some stray 120 rolls of Foma 100 that I had bought last year but have the magenta dotting from persistent AH. Practically halted Foma shooting but I really liked the 100. Admittedly a bath of isopropyl would solve the AH, but I never got to that...
Locally it was at about $10 and sold out, like hey, it's admittedly a budget film, not Delta!
Fomapan's PET base IMO is great on the dimensional and archival stability. Feels thin but never had curling problems in my latitudes. IIRC as PE explained around here, temperature and humidity as well as some coating characteristics make or break the curl.
I have some stray 120 rolls of Foma 100 that I had bought last year but have the magenta dotting from persistent AH. Practically halted Foma shooting but I really liked the 100. Admittedly a bath of isopropyl would solve the AH, but I never got to that...
Interesting, I hadn't heard of that one. The antihalation coating always seems to wash out fine for me.
@koraks no, I didn't see any other defects to the emulsion... In regards to scanning, regardless, even if the flatbed gives soft/fuzzy results, Kentmere 200 still showed more of an edge (pun intended
That was precisely what I saw as well when I looked at the two scans, done of the same flatbed
I cannot get my head around walking out of my house, looking over the neighbour's garden and seeing 2 black bears
pentaxuser
It's not the Hulk green wash out itself, but I had noticed on scan/prints some tiny white specs which are magenta in the negative. Then this was some intermittent issue with a harder AH composition. Interestingly affected sheets some years ago:
Fomapan 100 4x5 sheet black/magenta spots on the negative
Hello, Last week I took my first 4x5 pictures, 4 to be more exact. :smile: I've started with Fomapan 100. After developing, I looked at the negatives on my light table and found that all 4 negatives are full of dark spots. I've attached some photos, taken with my cell phone through my loupe...
www.photrio.com
If you look real close you see there are three black bears in Andy's video. One would be enough, but threes a crowd. I bet Andy's wife loves having those new neighbors next door. I know my wife would be thrilled. Looks like Andy has been sneaking them donuts by the looks of their body fat.That was precisely what I saw as well when I looked at the two scans, done of the same flatbed
I cannot get my head around walking out of my house, looking over the neighbour's garden and seeing 2 black bears
pentaxuser
Fomapan 200 in 120 format (only in 120 format) has been reported to have very strange streaks/marks on the developed films. It seems the emulsion "breaks off" or crumbles when it passes through the strong bends most medium format cameras have. I have never used Foma 200 as a consequence. Which is a bit sad since IMO it appears it is the best looking Foma film.
Fomapan 200 in 135 format, as far as I've read, has no issues.
Fomapan 100 is a different film and works fine in 120 format, i never had problems with it nor with Foma 400.
Now, for Kentmere 200, i wonder how it compares with the 100 and 400 speeds, or with Pan 100 and Pan 400 .
Last edited:
If you are scanning on a flatbed, you can't really draw any conclusions regarding grain or acutance. The optics of your flatbed are not sharp, clear and resolving enough for this task.
Other than that, I think this is a very good video.
One quick comment. I don't know why PET should have anymore curl than acetate base. The curl is quite possibly present in the base before it's coated.
I really think Andy's work here show Kentmere to be a clear winner. And that's discounting the white specs.
I have no experience with the Foma film (love their papers). I have shot a few rolls of the new Kentmere 200. Reminds me of the older Kodak films from the 70's Tri-X.
I wonder what K-200 developed in Microdol-X 1:3 with figure 8 agitation would look like??
I bet it would be awesome!
I really think Andy's work here show Kentmere to be a clear winner. And that's discounting the white specs.
I have no experience with the Foma film (love their papers). I have shot a few rolls of the new Kentmere 200. Reminds me of the older Kodak films from the 70's Tri-X.
I wonder what K-200 developed in Microdol-X 1:3 with figure 8 agitation would look like??
I bet it would be awesome!
The "trash" on the Foma film has to be an outlier, doesn't it??? Maybe someone forgot to change the air filters?
Yes, a flatbed for medium format will never be a Nikon CoolScan LS 9000, Here, in his video, Andy is comparing two films at the same time so the differences he sees is still vary valid. If he scanned each film separately then there is room for error, but scanned tougher at the same time the differences you and I see are real.
I disagree here, because the film holders used cannot guarantee that each film will be focused at exactly the same point. So the differences could as well be attributed to focus error on the Foma 200 scan. In my view, the scan on F200 looks -to me-like focus error, not smoother grain.
Again i still think it is a good video, and useful too, just not on the grain&acutance part.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |