Kentmere Pan 200 VS Fomapan 200 Creative

[braxus]

I much like the Foma 200 samples more in your shots Andy then the Ilford. Someone said Foma 400 is a lot like old Tri-X. Maybe thats why I like Foma here? Im still baffled how you do all those motion graphics in your videos.

I have some Foma 100 and 400 I bought years ago I really should use. Maybe do a video on it too.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

@flavio81 I'll wet scan them and recheck.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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...

 

[John Wiegerink]

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.

Well, as they say, we can agree to disagree.

 

[koraks]

we can agree to disagree

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.

 

[loccdor]

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.

I've seen Shanghai GP3 with this same defect.

 

[John Wiegerink]

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.

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.

 

[chuckroast]

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.

Confirmed here with F200 as well. The 4x5 has no issues I have found. The 120 is a mess. 35mm is mostly OK, but now and again shows a defect - seen both with bulk and factory loaded cartridges.

 

[flavio81]

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...

Thanks and thanks for the re-test.

We all know Foma 200 is not really ISO 200 but a bit slower. K200 is probably true 200 speed, so OK if it's a bit grainier.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

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.

 

[mshchem]

My neighborhood

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

We have those very same squirrels here, too!

 

[dcy]

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? 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.

Personally I don't currently mind halation in B&W. My question stems purely out of curiosity.

 

[koraks]

How would you compare the halation of Foma vs Kentmere?

I've not used the Kentmere 200 product, so I cannot comment.
On the Kentmere 400 (which I've used in the past as Rollei RPX400), anti-halation behavior was quite well controlled, much better so than on Foma films, in the 135 version.

I don't have many suitable examples at hand; I'd have to hit some folders and scan some stuff. Here's two sort of relevant bits I could dig up from the NAS:

First is scanned from a print, second is a scan from the negative. You can see some halation in the top left corner of the second image, but it's much more subtle than what you'd get with Foma on 135.

 

[dcy]

I have shot a few rolls of the new Kentmere 200. Reminds me of the older Kodak films from the 70's Tri-X.

In which way? (just curious)

 

[albireo]

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 think we can draw many conclusions from that tree canopy shot. Especially given we lack a 'negative control' - same shot with 'industry standard' halation control. I suspect Tri-X and HP5+ would have rendered similarly here.

But I think in general the confusion stems from the fact that halation control on Foma film differs with format, exactly as @koraks summarised above. I mostly use (used) Foma products in 120 - antihalation control is extremely good for Foma 100, 200, 400. Not so good for Foma Retropan 320. Poor for Foma Ortho 400. I haven't used Kentmere 200.

Anyway thanks for the test @Andrew O'Neill . Seems like Foma 200 is still very problematic in 120 2 years after I abandoned it. I got exactly that mix of black and white spots last time I tried. Shame, seems like they're still unable or unwilling to sort it out. Pity because otherwise they'd have a really usable product there.

 

[Vetus]

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

 

[Rick A]

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.

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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

Thank you, Vetus. No, I haven't made a video about that... Maybe at some point I will.

 

[John Wiegerink]

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.

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?
Now back to film. Halation isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes I really like it for a dreamy looking scene. For certain subjects it really works, for others it does not.

 

[joho]

Hi Andrew, many thanks for this video.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

@joho You are very welcome!

 

[chuckroast]

When I first ran into the spots problem with F200 in 120 rollfilm, I contacted Foma directly. They told me the problem was that the emulsion is a combination of cubic and t-grain and they were having trouble getting the t-grain to adhere reliability on the rollfilm. They made good on the purchase, by sending me some 4x5 sheet film instead.

This was several years ago. Whether that is still the same problem or not, I do not know. Your video was the first I heard about it being an emulsion/backing paper interaction. That certainly sounds credible. Do you have a source for this info?

(The video is great as always!)

P.S. I grew up around great big grizzly bears. They never bothered anyone. But black bears are giant pests. Although "small" by comparison, a 350lb bear can wreak a lot of havoc. I echo the sentiments of others here DO NOT FEED WILD ANIMALS. Not saying you were doing so, BTW, it's just a general rule.

 

[mshchem]

In which way? (just curious)

Sharp, but more noticeable grain. Grain on modern Kodak films isn't very easy to see. Even Tri-X, the current version is so much tamer than the old stuff.
For some reason the Kentmere 200 is jogging a memory of 1970's Kodak cubic grain films.

It's probably false memory syndrome, I'm just connecting with the Kentmere offering right now

 

[mshchem]

I ordered another batch of K200 last night. Gonna do some non scientific testing. I might even crack open a can of Microdol-X