My oh my what happened to Foma 400?

[Paul Howell]

I've used Foma 400 off and on for well over 20 years. I've D76, Acufine, DK 50, Clayton F76, MCM 100 and other developers. I have shot at 400, 320, last few years 200 or 250. Then a few months my negative came out thin, really thin. I thought it was camera, then developer. Today I shot a test roll using a Nikon F4, manual mode, Gossen SBC meter, from 25 to 400, developed in Clayton F76+, now it's a 100. I know that a lot of folks have shot Foma at 100, I do not understand why the ISO has dropped from 320 to 100. I may have return to Kentmyer as my walk around film, I see no reason to shoot Foma 400 at 100 when I can get close to 200 with Foma 200 and 320 with Kentmyer 400 and spot on 400 with Tmax 400.

 

[Kino]

Wow, that's bad! What expiration date on this film? I assume it's a fresh purchase, no?

 

[Paul Howell]

Fresh just bought it a few weeks ago from Freestyle, it is Foma branded not house branded Foma. Just ran a roll of Kentmyer though MCM 100, 18 mint, Unicolor film drum, as expected came at 200 which is typical of MCM 100, about a stop loss of film speed.

 

[Kino]

Well, I have a stockpile of the old Arista Edu 120 in the freezer, so I have to go through that first.

Just have to worry about backing paper issues after being frozen for so long.

 

[Paul Howell]

I stopped using Foma MF due to curling, still have few rolls of 400, I can test one roll to see if has the same ISO. Will use Clayton F76+ or maybe look for an old stock can of Acufine.

 

[mshchem]

If this was my situation, I would first try using sunny 16, fresh developer etc. Try to eliminate everything.

Also try the F4 on automatic, has a great meter.

I've been using the new Kentmere 200, I like it. Reminds me of the old Plus-X of the 1970's.

 

[Nopo]

My experience in 2022 was that the negative wouldn't print properly on photo paper unless I shot at ISO 100, regardless of the developer.
I used D76, Excel, and HC110. I still have about 70% of a 100-foot roll that's already expired, and I have no intention of wasting my time on it again.
Today, Kentemere 400 gets the job done.

 

[Paul Howell]

I've use both Kentmere and Foma off and go for a very long time. I stopped using Kentmere a couple of years ago as I live the desert southwest and preferred a a film with a anti-halogen layer. I just found a gallon can of old stock Acufine for MF and LF that I have on hand, but will too grainny for 35mm. so I will my last 10 rolls at 100 and develop in Clayton F76+.

Reviewed my day book, I last tested Foma 400 in 2017, my ring around found 320 at 7:30 at 68 degrees in D76 stock. I later used 200 or 250 same time in D76 and F76+ and 200 in MCM 100, 18 mints, 72 degrees. The Foma data sheet indicates 250 in D76. My Gossen matches my Minolta 9 and Nikon F4, spot on.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I just exposed a couple of sheets at EI 200. I'll report back after I develop them...

 

[John Wiegerink]

It seems hard to believe that much drop in speed, but I haven't shot Foma 400 in several years now so can't speak to the speed loss first hand. I sure seems hard to believe they, Foma, could have changed the emulsion that much. If they did, what was the reason for the change????

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

My sheets looked totally fine. Exposed at EI 200, developed in PC-512. Dmin is where it should be. The film expired in Feb, 2025. Was kept in the freezer.

 

[Paul Howell]

Normally I would it put it down to a metering error, but after same result with 3 different cameras thought it was my developer. It was only when I opened a fresh bottle of 76+ and did the ring around shoot that I found the drop in ISO. In the next couple of days I will email Foma and see what they have to say. I have three rolls of 400 in 120 but 2 box of 400 4X5 and one box of 2 1/4 X 3 1/4. I can use Aucfine which I hope will be here in a week or so. Tomorrow I will print the ring around to determine if I need to reduce development for Z VII highlights.

 

[FL at CC]

I sadly had a very similar instance in the past six months. I used to rely on Foma in 10x8 format which I happily would shoot much of - nice tone, I'd give it a good N+1 for more umph as standard. Six months ago I shot a whole project on a fresh, newly purchased box of 10x8 Foma 400 - exposed 20 sheets for a very interesting and exciting portrait session. I was perplexed enormously when I pulled terribly thin sheets from my Jobo 3005 tank which has otherwise for years offered amazing results. I rated at 320 ASA as well these negatives appeared to be 2-stops minimum underexposed. My assistant and I went crazy for the next three weeks trying to solve the issue, even getting the remaining negatives run through dip & dunk. Same results. I then did a test lighting and bracketing with the identical setup (a couple of sheets with Foma 400, another 2 sheets with TXP 320). Developed identically to the initial project negatives. The TXP was developed superbly, with the Foma 400 still with negatives at least 2-stops underdeveloped. I threw the remaining Foma film in the bin. Very sad and frustrated. It's QA gone really quite wrong somewhere - considering the capital one requires to use such a format in today's day and age.

 

[mshchem]

Sounds like Foma may have changed something? Could this be a simple error of 100 being boxed as 400? Crazy!

 

[Ajven]

Although OP mentions the Nikon F4 (so he's observing the issue on 35mm film), I’ll add some info regarding the 120 format: I bought 20 rolls of Fomapan 400 two weeks ago (exp: 09/2028, batch 0125556 3) and after developing 2 of them, everything is fine—no issues at all.