Low cost sheet film, which is best?

FOMA

I ahve used FOMA 200/EDU Ultra 200 in the past in 5X7 as it was less than half the price of Tri-x and half the price of any inlford products. It was excellent and I never had any issues with the QC. However I just tried some EDU ULtra 400?foma 400 and was disappointed as it was impossible to get sufficient contrast for salt printing. I tested it with a 21 step wedge and it get flat at what would normally be Z8 for silver and is flat all the way from there, this was with rodinal,microphen and ansco 47. I am currently trying to decide on whether to go with the foma 100 which I here is much like the 200 in its contrast characteristics in that it builds contrast in the upper zones very quickly and needs reeduced developement compared to other films, or EFKE/ADOX or just bite the bullet and go back to the HP5+ I was using. I have to admit that the Ilford product seems to have little or no shoulder but my old FOMA 200/EDU ultra 200 negatives were beautiful in there tonality and the prints I made were fabulous.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

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
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...

Click to expand...

As I said, Tom, with everything weighed in the balance it's easier and ultimately cheaper to just pay the extra money for TMY or HP5+. I don't know why, but I've never been able to extract a decent print from FP4+. But I only contact print large format negatives so HP5 is fine. And, it has the advantage of allowing me to develop by inspection, which I can't do with TMY.

Why can't you develop TMY by inspection?

BetterSense said:

Why can't you develop TMY by inspection?

Click to expand...

The film is structured such that you can't see very well how the film is developing. If I remember correctly it's a sensitizing dye in the film that is somewhat opaque until the film is fixed.
In a normal film, like HP5 or FP4, you can clearly see how the highlights develop, by just turning on a very weak light bulb for a few seconds.

BetterSense said:

Why can't you develop TMY by inspection?

Click to expand...

Because the magenta sensitization dye is exactly complementary to the green safelight and I therefore cannot see the highlights. No matter how much I develop I see only pitch black. Other people have reported that they can do it with either a red safelight or infrared goggles, but I figure it's easier to just go to time & temperature development.

I'm about to go back to ABC pyro to develop all my negatives and HP5+ gives me terrific negatives in that stuff. Can't wait. TMY will still have to be t&t, though.

Annoying. I use IR goggles sometimes but I have been considering transitioning to green safelight. I guess I'd have to switch films. Nothing wrong with HP5, though.