New ortho 120 film from Foma

[pentaxuser]

I’ve exposed it @ 200 combined with reduction of development time taking high contrast scenery into account

Thanks. Far be it from me to "speculate" that your picture demonstrates that 200 is the "real speed" but it suggests that ever in very contrasty light 200 produces very acceptable pictures

So at last we have some evidence that this film is faster than Ilford's Ortho 80

pentaxuser

 

[Dusty Negative]

The high red sensitivity just makes white people's complexion and lips look off for my taste.

It’s interesting, isn’t it? Sometimes it evens out flesh tones really well, and other times I’ve found myself thinking that my subject’s skin has the tonal quality of freshly dried cement.

 

[albireo]

It’s interesting, isn’t it? Sometimes it evens out flesh tones really well, and other times I’ve found myself thinking that my subject’s skin has the tonal quality of freshly dried cement.

Freshly dried cement describes it nicely. I personally don't like how extended red sensitivity film renders Caucasian portraits. I think the extra-pale lips don't suit people, at least for my taste. And the skin.. Yeah, freshly dried cement, or perhaps a moonlit corpse For portraits, I always put away Foma 400 and Rollei Retro 400 and load some Kentmere 400/HP5/Agfaphoto APX, which have a nicely balanced panchromatic response. I also like how ortho film renders freckles, lips and in general the skin texture, so I'm excited to try this new Foma Ortho.

I have just developed my first roll. Two observations

1. Unlike with Foma 400, with this Ortho there is no fluorescent green colour when pouring out the developer. In fact the spent developer is colourless.
2. The support is much more transparent than in other Foma products. It has the thickness and appearance of Rollei Retro 400 (PET?)

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Available at their online store, but not to anyone outside Europe, it seems... at least Canada and anywhere else aren't on their shipping destination list.

 

[markjwyatt]

...I personally don't like how extended red sensitivity film renders Caucasian portraits. I think the extra-pale lips don't suit people, at least for my taste. And the skin.. ...

I remember being told to use medG filter for portraits w/caucasian skin. Would bring out the lips also.

 

[albireo]

A photographer I really respect, Ondra Zeman, has posted some test shots on his facebook page. I think these nicely illustrate the point I was trying to make regarding the impact of ortho film on fair skin tones. I really like the effect.

I hope it's ok to share his work here

 

[pentaxuser]

A photographer I really respect, Ondra Zeman, has posted some test shots on his facebook page. I think these nicely illustrate the point I was trying to make regarding the impact of ortho film on fair skin tones. I really like the effect.

I hope it's ok to share his work here

Were these portraits taken on the new Foma Ortho 400. They could not be more different from the comparison portrait shots on the Foma website in terms skin and lips colour

Interesting note by Mark Wyatt in #80 above in which he refers to med G filter. As I recall it , in the early days of television i.e 1930s the female presenters/announcers had to use green lipstick to avoid that black lips look. It may have countered that white skin look as well. The Ortho picture on the Foma website gives the model that kind of look that the actress playing Morticia in the "Addams Family" had

I wonder if a green filter was used in Ondra Zeman pictures?

pentaxuser

 

[albireo]

Were these portraits taken on the new Foma Ortho 400. They could not be more different from the comparison portrait shots on the Foma website in terms skin and lips colour

Different lighting, different model, different clothing. Very harsh artificial lighting in the Foma samples. Different make up too, possibly.

Too difficult for me to judge whether any difference depends on presence/absence of a filter.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks they are certainly very different. In fact having seem panchro portraits I'd say that skin complexion and lips look indistinguishable

Once this film is used by enough of Photrio members with sample shots we may be in a better position to judge how it behaves in different situations

pentaxuser

 

[Mark J]

What do you feel is wrong with 120 Fomapan 200?

I've only shot a handful of rolls but had no issues.

I did once have a 50 foot bulk roll of Fomapan 200 which insisted on sticking in the bulk roller and not going easily into the cassettes which I never got to the bottom of though.

It was a slightly flippant comment, as I haven't used it yet. I have a couple of 120 rolls to try, mainly with an aim to evaluate for 5 x 7 ". It's just that there are plenty of other people reporting problems over a number of years. Let's see... I will report back on a more relevant thread when i've used it.

 

[TheYoungPretender]

I enjoy the few test shots I have seen, but then again I have always been partial to the ortho look.

What would you expect in regards to processing it under red light (adox supersafe in my case)? Foma says:
it is possible to handle the film of FOMA Ortho 400 for a short time under indirect safe lighting with the wavelength of 585 nm and higher.

Which is a bit vague. Would you expect it to handle being loaded into the reel using red light? That would surely save me some anxiety in my tiny dark bag.

 

[pentaxuser]

I wonder how long is Foma's "short time"

A presenter called ShootFilmLikeABoss has a video where under a Kodak Beehive red light I counted at least 2 minutes of exposed Ortho film but that was Ilford Ortho and not Foma Ortho. I suspect that Ilford Ortho might last quite a lot longer than 2 minutes but I don't know

If ortho is ortho no matter who makes it then the Ilford film should be a good indicator of how long you can expose it under a safelight without light damage

How long do you normally take to load the film onto a reel?

Until we have more users reporting on their experience of Foma under a red light we may not have a definite answer. If you can't wait until then you could always do an experiment covering a strip of unexposed film to a red light to longer intervals of say 1 minute at a time to see what your safe limit is under your red light

pentaxuser

 

[Arthurwg]

Too difficult for me to judge whether any difference depends on presence/absence of a filter.

Berenice Abbot says to use a yellow filter with Ortho.

 

[albireo]

This is proving to be a tough nut to crack. I'm at my 4th roll already and far from getting results I'm pleased with. Many (anecdotal) observations to report, and I will share some samples and document my journey once I get to a set of negatives I'm happy with. Couple of observations:

• I'm seeing strong haloing of the highlights. I had observed something similar when using Kentmere 400 with pointy light sources. Also Foma Retropan 320. The effect here is much stronger than in the Kentmere though. Much more similar to Retropan. For reference, Foma 100, 200 and 400 in 120 do NOT exhibit this effect in my workflow.
• Some of the leaflet indications seem to be completely off. I have just thrown away a roll exposed at 200 (Sekonic, incident) and developed in Adox XT-3 1+1 using Xtol stock +30% times. Result, almost chalk black negatives. Severe light bleed around the frame edges. I've now done another roll, again in XT-3. 6 minutes 30 seconds. 1+1! Much better.
• The negatives are free from defects/dirt of any kind so far.

Would be interested in other people's experiences.

 

[albireo]

I had missed this little bit of info from the official leaflet

https://www.foma.cz/en/fomaortho

(bottom right corner):

Base
The following base is used for manufacture the particular sort of film:
- 120 rollfilm - a bluish polyester base 0.1 mm thick without antihalo layer

I guess this explains a few things I'm seeing.

 

[petrk]

...I have just thrown away a roll exposed at 200 (Sekonic, incident) and developed in Adox XT-3 1+1 using the indicated Xtol stock times, to which I had added 30%....
Would be interested in other people's experiences.

Well, it is not first such report that overexposing and overdeveloping results in Foma Ortho negatives that are too dense...ISO 400 and shorter times should be fine.

 

[Helge]

Now Foma, add some IR sensitizer to the emulsion and you are golden.

An IR film with and nice big gab in green and red and no halation. That is almost… dare I say, slow HIE.

Foma has old enough equipment that IR is not used for night vision inspection or sensors in the machines.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

I guess this explains a few things I'm seeing.

I feel like Foma Ortho is almost certainly based on their fluorographic product. This means it is probably similar to x-ray sheet film (think Fuji HR-U, mammo films) but specifically confectioned for 120 (and single-sided!). Perhaps they even tweaked the emulsion to boost speed for in-camera use?

I use x-ray for most my large format photography so having a (faster?) roll film option is very welcome. The 120 emulsion is quite a bit tougher than x-ray sheets, I'd imagine.

Maybe it'll be available in the States some day

 

[markjwyatt]

Berenice Abbot says to use a yellow filter with Ortho.

For the sky maybe (K2)? More critical in ortho than pan film.

 

[albireo]

Well, it is not first such report that overexposing and overdeveloping results in Foma Ortho negatives that are too dense...ISO 400 and shorter times should be fine.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I tested 1+1. Times provided were for stock.

Stock Xtol: 7min
My 1+1 Xtol test: 9 min

 

[petrk]

Sorry I wasn't clear. I tested 1+1. Times provided were for stock.

Stock Xtol: 7min
My 1+1 Xtol test: 9 min

I was not clear too. I really meant times may be shorter, than those suggested by FOMA.

 

[Helge]

For the sky maybe (K2)? More critical in ortho than pan film.

Aren’t you just slowing the film down?
Wouldn’t a grad filter and a polarizer be the ticket?

 

[markjwyatt]

Aren’t you just slowing the film down?
Wouldn’t a grad filter and a polarizer be the ticket?

You are losing speed, yes, but it was pretty standard in the past when Ortho films were prominent.

In "The Photography of Colored Objects", Kodak, 1926, they have a section on "Orthochromatic Filters", and they really push the K filters (plus aero filter No1, which is Yellow), especially K3 and K2 for general contrast, but also K1 and K1 1/2. One line says "For orthochromatic work all filters which are not clear yellow should be disregarded". This does not rule out your more modern idea about using graduated filters and polarizers, but really shows what the practice was when orthochromatic film was more common than panchromatic. The K, and aero filters also remove UV light, which is important because ortho film (and pan films too) are sensitive to UV rays. He also talks about the Kodak "G" filter (gelb?). It is deep yellow and overcorrects, but is claimed useful in some cases such as landscapes (and also absorbs UV light). The section does talk about sky darkening, but it is not the emphasis (some filters can under or over darken the sky, etc.).

 

[Helge]

A UV or skylight filter rather sharply take out UV and upper blue. Even light blue like Y2 will take out the above and a lot of green.
Unless you are mainly shooting ortho for ease of handling in the dark room, then it kind of defies the purpose of a fast ortho film.
A green filter on normal film will look much the same.
When you want good skies with ortho, taking out UV is important, but generally controlling exposure of the much brighter sky is also important.
Pol filters and gradated filters seems more effective to me, while keeping the character of the film.

 

[markjwyatt]

A UV or skylight filter rather sharply take out UV and upper blue. Even light blue like Y2 will take out the above and a lot of green.
Unless you are mainly shooting ortho for ease of handling in the dark room, then it kind of defies the purpose of a fast ortho film.
A green filter on normal film will look much the same.
When you want good skies with ortho, taking out UV is important, but generally controlling exposure of the much brighter sky is also important.
Pol filters and gradated filters seems more effective to me, while keeping the character of the film.

For sky, your idea is probably very effective. But the point of the K filters was also general contrast, which photographers always have used at least a Med Y filter both for orthochromatic and panchromatic film. When I am shooting fast film, I will use Med Y until the light stops dropping a lot, at which point I just take it off, but that is me. I have gotten great shots without it, and others just don't use it. The effect in the end is subtle and does come at a price in speed, but I feel I prefer to have the medY filter if prevailing light and film speed support using it.

Good modern panchromatic films (such as Ilford and Kodak, as well as some others) have a pretty flat spectral response across colors. The eye does not, and you can end up with little distinguishing between colors. Of course it is also good to consider what the colors are, and in some cases pick a different filter color to exploit. Just a simple example- this picture had small yellow flowers in the grass. I used MedY, and it helped to distinguish them a bit. It was FP4+, so I suspect it would have been fine without the MedY, but with MedY it gave just that extra zing. The grass may have had some blue in it, because it looks dark. If I were using Hp5+ for instance (generally less contrasty than FP4+), and no filter, the flowers may have looked light, the grass lighter also, but the flowers may have blended in more to the grass, not sure.

Generally, I like the way various vegetation turns out with FP4+, which I always shoot with MedY. I must admit I have not done testing without MedY, but I strongly suspect the MedY does help.


Bucklin scene 2 by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr