Low cost sheet film, which is best?

[mikebarger]

We've seen how well their QA system works on other posts, don't know that I'd brag about. You buy second tier and it "may" be good, may not. There are plenty of threads about QA issues, I ran into faulty film myself before deciding to stick with Kodak for 120 and Ilford for 4x5.

To be honest, when the second tier guys aren't having QA issues they have a good product. Guessing which roll or sheet was not going to be up to standard wasn't worth the hassle for me.

But, if those kind of issues don't bother you, the price is attractive.

Mike

 

[2F/2F]

If you have a good processing system it doesn't matter if you have a softer emulsion or not.

What you never have to do with soft emulsions:

Squeegee
Touch wet film
High temperature film development

Foma, Efke etc. will do fine in a Jobo Expert system for sheet film and
35mm, 120 roll film also in a reel development.

You CAN harden the film in the developing process with Formaline or use a hardener fixer (or regular fix with additional hardener) but with no mechanical contact this is not necessary.

Prevent a too wide pH exchange so limit the Stop to 1,5% and prevent temperature changes during the whole process up from development to the wash cycle.

Foma has been iso 9000/9001 certified. So they have a Q.C. system. Which doesn't mean there can not be any quality issues. Further they prefer any communications via their int. distributors. So if there is any issue you have to contact your local Foma distributor.

Just for clarification, I am speaking of Efke/Adox, not Foma. I don't know anything about Foma film, except that I have not heard any complaints like those about Efke/Adox. My comments about sensitivity to damage were not directed toward it. I just suggested it as a cheap alternative to Efke/Adox to try.

Indeed, soft emulsion films can be worked with, and excellent results obtained by doing things like you mentioned. My point was only that things like all this stuff you mentioned amount to a special-purpose process. Develop the stuff with the level of care and variance that makes up most people's general-purpose process, and the film has problems IME. Thus, I do not consider it a general-purpose film, because it is finicky in a general-purpose process. My "throw it in some D-76" comment was a shorthand way of saying "your standard film developing process that most people use:" Any general-purpose b/w white developer at a controlled temperature. Acid Stop at ambient temperature. Rapid fixer at ambient temperature. Wash in tap water at whatever temperature it comes out at. Zero attention paid to pH.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

I have been of the opinion that there are two things you never skimp on. Film and paper. Done both. Regretted both. Never again.

 

[Vaughn]

I have been of the opinion that there are two things you never skimp on. Film and paper. Done both. Regretted both. Never again.

You can add matboard to that list, IMO.

From my early days, I have too many 16x20 prints dry-mounted onto 20x24 board -- just not big enough.

I would use lower cost film for local work -- to give it a good test. I am doing that now with x-ray film (7x17). But I certainly would not take it out on the road where the time and travel costs get added to every sheet of film. Road trips deserve to have the photographer and film be as one, so to speak...

But then, I have taken expired second-hand film on road trips. A particular box of Tri-X (8x10) had an even elevated base fog, but fortunately I can live with and print through that. On the couple times I have left the country, I have stuck with the tried-and-true -- a couple fresh boxes of TMax100 4x5/50 shts (back before it blocked UV).

 

[23mjm]

I have been of the opinion that there are two things you never skimp on. Film and paper. Done both. Regretted both. Never again.

Let me add developer to that list.

 

[Smudger]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned chinese made ERA film.
You can find it on Ebay..

 

[michaelbsc]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned chinese made ERA film.
You can find it on Ebay..

I thought ERA stopped slitting the larger sizes.

 

[brianmquinn]

Here is some made in china stuff. Never tried it.
http://www.ultrafineonline.com/ulbwiso100fi.html

 

[patrickjames]

One of the problems I have using cheap film is I can't totally trust it. If I was only going to scan it I wouldn't care, but I still print in the darkroom so many of the problems mentioned above are fatal ones. That means if I use a cheap film I need to shoot twice as much to be safe, which of course negates the economy factor. It may look like it is less expensive but in fact to me it is more expensive. I do like Foma 400 and EFKE 100 though. Otherwise I prefer HP5. Never had a problem with it.

 

[StigHagen]

What about the quality of Fomapan 400, would I gain anything using HP5, FP4 or Trix instead of Foma when doing contact printing? My thought is since doing contact printing, there will be hard to notice differences between these films as long I find the right developer for each?

 

[M. Lointain]

I have been tapping the film (Foma 400) on the box inside the dark bag before I load it. It seems to cut down on the problems. I would say if you are only contact printing you could easily use Foma films. Personally I think the tonality of Fomapan 400 is one of the best.

 

[c6h6o3]

Film is a very small part of the full cost of producing a negative. When you consider the cost of amortizing your equipment, development, maybe studio space, travel costs, what you might pay a model, and above all your precious time it's penny wise and pound foolish to use film produced under any but the most stringent quality control. To me that means Kodak. Always. When they stop manufacturing film I will use Ilford films because they are the next best quality. I'll pay whatever they charge. I've had bad experiences with both Efke and Foma films. We don't get fooled again.

 

[StigHagen]

Film is a very small part of the full cost of producing a negative. When you consider the cost of amortizing your equipment, development, maybe studio space, travel costs, what you might pay a model, and above all your precious time it's penny wise and pound foolish to use film produced under any but the most stringent quality control. To me that means Kodak. Always. When they stop manufacturing film I will use Ilford films because they are the next best quality. I'll pay whatever they charge. I've had bad experiences with both Efke and Foma films. We don't get fooled again.

What problems have you experienced with Foma sheet film?

I consider Foma of several reason: easy availability, fast film, nice tonality (havent seen myself), cost and a supplier live close to my place. Cost is cut in half, and since I will start working with 8x10, that sure makes a difference.

Foma packages comes in 50. When opening a new package I could take 2 test exposures and develop to check if there is any issues. Would that nail down any problems before doing serious work, or could I find problem with sheet e.g. Nr 33 which are not found in the first 2?

 

[Athiril]

Shanghai.

 

[Athiril]

What about the quality of Fomapan 400, would I gain anything using HP5, FP4 or Trix instead of Foma when doing contact printing? My thought is since doing contact printing, there will be hard to notice differences between these films as long I find the right developer for each?

HP5+, FP4+, Tri-X 320 are all faster than Fomapan 400.

 

[StigHagen]

HP5+, FP4+, Tri-X 320 are all faster than Fomapan 400.

FP4+ faster than Fomapan 400? Pls explain

 

[wogster]

What problems have you experienced with Foma sheet film?

I consider Foma of several reason: easy availability, fast film, nice tonality (havent seen myself), cost and a supplier live close to my place. Cost is cut in half, and since I will start working with 8x10, that sure makes a difference.

Foma packages comes in 50. When opening a new package I could take 2 test exposures and develop to check if there is any issues. Would that nail down any problems before doing serious work, or could I find problem with sheet e.g. Nr 33 which are not found in the first 2?

Film is made using huge rolls that are then inspected for blemishes which are marked, then they remove those marked bits during slitting. Kodak and Ilford are quite adept at this, Foma not so much, the general rule of photography, the one image that you really, really, really need to be perfect will be the one on the one bad sheet in the batch.

 

[StigHagen]

Film is made using huge rolls that are then inspected for blemishes which are marked, then they remove those marked bits during slitting. Kodak and Ilford are quite adept at this, Foma not so much, the general rule of photography, the one image that you really, really, really need to be perfect will be the one on the one bad sheet in the batch.

I thought Foma had some strict standards, they say so. Are you sure they have not upgraded their standards recently (last year or two?). Quality is nr issue for me, ine of the reason I go large format.

 

[jp498]

I've used TMY2, FP4+, Fomapan/Arista 100, Efke pl50 sheet film. The Kodak and Ilford is always perfect; I use mostly tmy2 for it's good speed and detail and quality and don't mind paying a little extra for it. I also have the fomapan 100 which I like too. I have not observed qc problem with it in 8x10 and 4x5. I have in 120 format more than a year ago and haven't bought that size since. The foma has a different tonality/spectral response than tmy2 and is thus another option for me. I like it being a slower film, I shoot it at 64 and I can then do more wide open shooting outdoors with lenses that don't have super fast shutters. Not using the zone system, it doesn't seem to capture massive dynamic ranges with PMK (deep shadows on a sunny day) with quite the finesse of tmax for me but in most cases it's a very suitable film. I can shoot tmax and develop normally in PMK and get every range of brightness. The foma seems to like a less dilute PMK which may increase processing costs, the 1:2:100 seems a little weak for that film, though that normal dilution works well with TMY2. Foma also works well with caffenol-C and xtol and whatever else you want.

The Efke, maybe I had a bad batch or something but I got tons of pinholes regardless of how careful I handled it and developed it, and without regard to the choices of developers, stop baths, or fixers. I've had good results with their other film in 120 format, but couldn't get the quality in 4x5 pl50. It had good tones in caffenol-C, but was mega grainy. Probably their other films were better or I got a bad batch, but I'm happy with Kodak and Foma.

The FP4+ was film supplied by someone else and processed by someone else, so I am happy with the results, but wasn't involved in the process.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Wogster,

You are correct, for surface imperfections ( not product performance, thats an entirely different set of QC procedures ) it is inspected, but not by the Human eye....every coating of Film or Paper is scanned 'real time / in process', you have to do it like that as you are coating in the dark, the level of imperfections that can be found are registered in microns, this produces a digital ( yes indeed ! ) map of the coating, at HARMAN its called the 'roll ticket' . This then follows the parent roll to finishing where ALL of the mapped imperfections are cut out of the roll during finishing into the final product, the waste is then sent for silver recovery.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[BetterSense]

I only shot maybe a hundred sheets or so of Foma, and I found one sheet with a ~2mm air bubble in the emulsion, which of course was in the sky portion of the image.

I only shoot TMAX sheet film at the moment.

 

[pgomena]

Film is the cheapest component in the process of making a photograph. I refuse to skimp on film when it costs more in gas and time to get to the location (and back) where the film will be exposed. Kodak, Ilford, Fuji. Period. I have never found a flaw in any of their products in 30+ years of photographing.

Peter Gomena

 

[heespharm]

Xray film is the cheapest.... I say why mess with Foma (although a good film) when u can have ilford for a little more... Never to for cheap film unless you are going for a cheap look... In that case , buy a holga or go pinhole

 

[c6h6o3]

What problems have you experienced with Foma sheet film?

I consider Foma of several reason: easy availability, fast film, nice tonality (havent seen myself), cost and a supplier live close to my place. Cost is cut in half, and since I will start working with 8x10, that sure makes a difference.

Foma packages comes in 50. When opening a new package I could take 2 test exposures and develop to check if there is any issues. Would that nail down any problems before doing serious work, or could I find problem with sheet e.g. Nr 33 which are not found in the first 2?

I think it was Foma. It was sold to me as Classic 200 by J&C. I had a box of 8x10 where some of the sheets had uneven coating and which gave me lots of pinholes no matter what I did. As I understand it the J&C films were repackaged Foma. I could be wrong about this.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think it was Foma. It was sold to me as Classic 200 by J&C. I had a box of 8x10 where some of the sheets had uneven coating and which gave me lots of pinholes no matter what I did. As I understand it the J&C films were repackaged Foma. I could be wrong about this.

Those were Forte films, Jim.

But I have used Foma 100 and 200 sheet films in the past, 4x5 format, and I had problems with pinholes in the emulsion too. Then I started using FP4+ and Tri-X and no more problems.

The thing about Foma films is that they can yield such beautiful prints. Their emulsions have some fabulous print making properties. But... they are not reliable enough for me. If you scan film it may not be an issue, a pinhole is easy to clone out. But in darkroom printing it's a pain.
If you can re-touch the negatives to make the pinholes darker than the surrounding area, then you can create a blemish in the print that is lighter than the surrounding area. This gives the ability to then spot the print. But it's not fun to do. I've only done it once, and I decided that I'm a photographer, not a painter...