Well, as they say, we can agree to disagree.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.
But @Andrew O'Neill's follow-up in #28 is in favor of @flavio81's reading. Then again, I already said the same thing flavio suggested, so it's no surprise I agree to agree with him...we can agree to disagree
This is the other type of emulsion defect I get with fomapan 200. Not sure if that's holes in the emulsion or what, but they're little white spots in the negative which show up completely black when scanned.
Yes, I can agree now...........My reply was typed in after my MAC had sat idle and the browser not refreshed so I didn't see the wet scanning part. Dummy me! So, the whole problem with Foma 200, other than emulsion defects, is in the curl itself when it comes to scanning? I'm so used to glass carriers for scanning and wet printing that I automatically think everyone uses them to hold negatives flat. My fault! As for Foma 200 film? I actually like it if it weren't for the defects in the 120 format sizes emulsion. Once you learn how to expose and then to develop for highlight detail it has a very nice tonal scale and wet prints very nicely too.But @Andrew O'Neill's follow-up in #28 is in favor of @flavio81's reading. Then again, I already said the same thing flavio suggested, so it's no surprise I agree to agree with him...
I still think that scanning this film on a higher-resolving setup, or enlarging these snippets onto B&W paper, may cast yet another light on the story.
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.
I wet scanned them. Kentmere still has better acutance, but they are so very close. Much closer than the scans using the holders, so @flavio81, you are on to something! For future comparisons, I'll be wet scanning. The Kentmere is still grainier...
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.
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.
How would you compare the halation of Foma vs Kentmere?
I have shot a few rolls of the new Kentmere 200. Reminds me of the older Kodak films from the 70's Tri-X.
How would you compare the halation of Foma vs Kentmere? One of the places where Harman cuts cost in Kentmere is by making the anti-halation not as good as Ilford-branded films. I thought that Fomapan films had anti-halation and that that was one reason someone might prefer them over Kentmere. But now I see you're saying that halation is an issue with Foma as well.
I don't share my doughnuts with no one, especially those bears!Yes, there was a cub in the background. Usually there are 5 of them.
Hi, Andrew love your videos and sound tracks especially the guitar solos. Have you made a video on how you plot your film curves from negatives using your densitometer, pen and graph paper? Look out for the bears especially if you are sneaking down the yard with a box of doughnuts
Bears are very smart critters and adapt very well to suburban living. The biggest problem with bears where I live is people. Folks think it's cool to throw some goodies out and watch the bears gobble it down. It won't be long and they won't wait for you to throw food out for them and they will be getting it out of the fridge for themselves. Have you ever tried stopping a bear from getting into your fridge when he's hungry?You should make life in your neighborhood uncomfortable for them, as in chase them away before they decide to move into your house (which they inevitably will). Yell at them, bang on large metal pots and toss rocks at them. The more comfortable they become around humans the more you run the risk of them getting into your car and/or house looking for food. Keep your garbage inside the closed garage. I live in the woods on the side of a mountain in SW Pa. and we have bears here all the time, and yes I throw rocks at them and yell.
In which way? (just curious)
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?