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.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

About a decade or so ago I thought I'd try Foma 200 (Arista version) since I'd never shot it. When I developed the first roll the edge marking was 100. I was using it in a pinhole camera so I really didn't care, but it sounds like they might make a mistake every now and then...

Did the edge markings say 400? How was the grain?

 

[John Wiegerink]

About a decade or so ago I thought I'd try Foma 200 (Arista version) since I'd never shot it. When I developed the first roll the edge marking was 100. I was using it in a pinhole camera so I really didn't care, but it sounds like they might make a mistake every now and then...

Did the edge markings say 400? How was the grain?

I am curious about the edge marking also???

 

[Paul Howell]

Edge marking are for 400, and yes, I do have a few rolls of 400 and 100 in 120, these are likely a year old, I plan on shooting a roll 120 some this week. I emailed Foma waiting for reply.

 

[Kino]

Kentmere REALLY needs to make sheet film!

However, Just developed 2 sheets of 5x7 Arista EDU 100 and absolutely fine. It's a couple of years old and was frozen since purchase.

I really, really hope this doesn't become a trend with Arista/Foma!

 

[John Wiegerink]

Edge marking are for 400, and yes, I do have a few rolls of 400 and 100 in 120, these are likely a year old, I plan on shooting a roll 120 some this week. I emailed Foma waiting for reply.

It's probably near impossible to tell grain pattern and size with negatives so underexposed. I'll be sticking to Foma 100 myself when shooting 4X5 or 120. I will shoot Foma 200 in 35mm from a bulk roll on occasion. I won't touch Foma 200 in 120 since I've not found a roll that didn't have flaws. Still one of the cheapest films for testing cameras or just plan fun. I have had one or two sheets of 4X5 with QC problems and even those weren't too serious.

 

[Paul Howell]

Thinking about, with Foma history of issues with Q.C it is likely an issue with manufacture. On the other hand as the lot would been large enough to make it Freestyle it was an issue with the film I would not be the only only seeing the loss of speed. So back to process. I have another roll of Kentmere that I shoot and process in F76+. It should shoot at 320 without loss of speed or shadow details.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Thinking about, with Foma history of issues with Q.C it is likely an issue with manufacture. On the other hand as the lot would been large enough to make it Freestyle it was an issue with the film I would not be the only only seeing the loss of speed. So back to process. I have another roll of Kentmere that I shoot and process in F76+. It should shoot at 320 without loss of speed or shadow details.

Paul,
Maybe I missed something, but have you developed another different film in F76+ yet? I know you say you're going to do some Kentmere 400 in it, but not yet. I'm starting to think that your F76+ might have went south, as they say. I agree with you that if it was Foma at fault you wouldn't be one of the few complaining about very low emulsion speed.

 

[Paul Howell]

No just the last test roll of Foma, but I had the same issue with MCM 100, I did test a roll of Kentmere in MCM and it came out as expected at 200, with MCM 100 I tend to shoot a full stop below box speed. I have another roll of Kentmere which I will test, I generally keep a few rolls of Kentmere on hand for my DX only point and shoots. And the F76+ was a fresh bottle.