Sheet film - FOMA vs Ilford

[eddie]

But when I go to Freestyle and I'm ready to check out, most of the time I pick up a box of Arista 400 in 4x5.
Because it's right there next to the cashier and because it's cheap.

Gotta respect a place that keeps sheet film next to the register.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

Gotta respect a place that keeps sheet film next to the register.

Like candy... Ahaha !!!

 

[eddie]

Like candy... Ahaha !!!

I'm jealous, G. Tell them to open a Freestyle East in DC, please.

 

[DonW]

I just wonder if the films AA and Weston used were even as good as present day FOMA?

Their stuff turned out pretty good.

 

[radiant]

I just wonder if the films AA and Weston used were even as good as present day FOMA?

Their stuff turned out pretty good.

I would assume worse than Foma.

It is not about the tools, it is how you use them. You can make great photographs even on Foma films

 

[Paul Howell]

They shot for the most part in large format, 8X10, 5X7, in his later years AA 4X5 was more typical. Weston contract printed so side by side comparisons are hard to make. Both worked for decades and used many films. Saying that in general compared to modern films including Foma, films, older films of similar speed will show more gain, modern films have increased resolution, the old double X and Ansco films had nice contrast and look that is somewhat different from modern films.

 

[DonW]

The point I was making is incredible stuff was made with old crappy film so I wouldn't get all wound up on whether FOMA is good enough. It's more a matter of whether it has a look you like or not.

 

[Paul Howell]

Your right, it all comes down to preference, I use Foma as my shoot around film, when I travel I shoot Tmax.

 

[grain elevator]

Amusing that two posters who say the Foma films have the advertised speed both show pictures with blocked up shadows.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Arguing "what would Ansel do" is meaningless. Do you also want to go back to the time antibiotics didn't even exist? Ever seen prints from his 8x10's enlarged over 20X24 inches? I sure have seen a lot of them. Pure grit and mush - that's why he had his "mural prints" (actually just 40 X60 inch or so) deliberately soft and warm, instead of his usual contrasty style.
Contact printers can get away with all kinds of things. But the moment better more predictable films became available to these same people, they switched and didn't look back. And it wasn't long until films way way better than Forma in terms of exposure range and development flexibility like Super XX began their long reign. Extremely fine grain just wasn't as big a priority as it is today. There was a time when all three 200's were on the market at the same time - good ole Super-XX, Bergger (Lotus) 200, and Forma (Classic) 200. Among long time users, expletives were reserved for the last case. It wasn't remotely in the same league.

I tried 400 speed too. OK, just OK, but nothing special, not to my taste, anyway.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Good question. Maybe 15 years ago since I last used Foma 200 in 8X10. But susceptibility to scratching wasn't the issue. There were fine cracks parallel to the perimeter of the sheets, which told me it was something related to roller transport or cutting in the factory. Likewise, the "zit" flaws were not development related little craters, but inherent. In a few cases I was able to crop into the scene past the perimeter defects and get a printable image, but not exactly what I had originally hoped for.

One hypothesis is that the lion's share of the cut was made for Freestyle under their Arista label first. This would allow Foma to break even on the batch run, and then they'd slowly later cut down more for sake of their own label at higher profit margin. The suspicion was, if cut too early, it was more fracture prone. I dunno. Humidity could have something to do with it too. Private labeling of this particular film has been around a long time. I first saw it under Classic 200 label. Nearly everyone was disappointed who had used Super XX prior; and it's nowhere near as good as Bergger 200 either; but it is the last man standing in terms of a "straight line" film.

I always keep on hand FP4 and TMX100 for masking use in the lab, so tend to also shoot those two films. Or I'll sometimes thaw out a box of TMY400; that stockpile was purchased at about a third of the asking price today, but hard to say how long it will last. In the meantime, I'll keep my ears open about any alleged improvements with Foma. But its horrible reciprocity characteristics and rather slow native speed to begin with don't make for a happy marriage with the small f-stops routine to 8X10 shooting.

i did get "zits" on some of my 200 (the stuff packaged for Freestyle) that I bought prior to 2010. The zits didn't appear until after the film had been sitting on a shelf for several years, so I don't know if it was an aging problem or if it was a problem inherent in the film that I would have experienced even if I shot it completely fresh. As a result, I switched over to FP4+ for quite a while. I more recently bought some in 8x10 since it helped keep shooting 8x10 affordable, and have had no problems with the fresh 8x10 film. Now that I also do digital negatives for alt process prints, should I get the zits again, I can compensate for it, but I'd much rather not have to. Fingers crossed, the issue has been resolved and banished.

 

[DREW WILEY]

One can get little black dots in the print from very tiny emulsion voids common to super-fine-grained films like Tech Pan, when these get highly enlarged. But the case is the opposite with Foma and Efke issues when there were mite-sized inclusions in the emulsion blocking light and leading to bigger conspicuous white spots in the print.

 

[lecarp]

Amusing that two posters who say the Foma films have the advertised speed both show pictures with blocked up shadows.

I noticed as well.
It is always better to try it yourself and make an informed decision if it is appropriate for your work.
Talk is cheaper than film but rarely as accurate.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I often cut the starting point of a speed test to half of the advertised box speed. But with numerous Pan films like FP4 or Delta 100, I routinely cut the speed down to 50 in high contrast scenes to improve deep shadow gradation. But with Foma films, I had to cut it in half to to get ANYTHING down there. TMax films are among the few that work best at true box speed for me.
Dealing with a bit of toe and boosting tonality more onto the straight line with a bit of extra exposure is one thing, sending your spacecraft into the middle of a black hole is another.

 

[btaylor]

Amusing that two posters who say the Foma films have the advertised speed both show pictures with blocked up shadows.

I had good results from the 200, but I had to rate it at 40 to get good results. This is across multiple cameras, formats, light meters and developers.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

Amusing that two posters who say the Foma films have the advertised speed both show pictures with blocked up shadows.

Amusing ?
What matters is to get information in the shadows. Then while printing you can do whatever you want. You represent them. Or not.
In theses two examples there is no need to show information in these shadows and make a muddy grey print without any punch.
Max black makes the print.
So please amuse me and show me some prints of yours.

 

[halfaman]

I have no problem to admit that Kodak or Ilford films are better than Foma's but thanks to those Czechs I can shoot large format. Ilford and specially Kodak prices are prohihitive for many people (more than 4€ for one Tmax 400 4x5" sheet!). For the same reason I don't shoot color in sheets, only in roll film.

Saying this, I find Foma sheet film quite pleasing and I don't see any issue to work with them while the factory QC is doing the job. I have never experienced a quality problem since I start using Foma sheet film around 2013.

 

[JPD]

ADOX CHS 100 II is another excellent film, at a price point in the middle between Foma and Ilford.

 

[radiant]

For me Foma sheet film is "too good". I'm still struggling with large format photography (composition, exposure, focusing) and developing & handling the film so it suits me more than I need it. 100% of time it is me ruining the shot, not the film.

When my skills are far far more better I can consider other films. But that is a far stretch.

 

[radiant]

ADOX CHS 100 II is another excellent film, at a price point in the middle between Foma and Ilford.

In 5x7":

HP5 86 euros / 25 sheets
CHS 100 69 euros / 25 sheets
Foma 100 62 euros / 50 (!!) sheets

I would say CHS 100 is about the same price as HP5 since with a bit lower price you get double the amount in Foma.

 

[grain elevator]

Your prints look great, they're just not great illustrations of that statement. I've happily used Fomapan 200 btw, but it didn't seem to reach 200 in Fomadon Excel (Xtol clone).

Amusing ?
What matters is to get information in the shadows. Then while printing you can do whatever you want. You represent them. Or not.
In theses two examples there is no need to show information in these shadows and make a muddy grey print without any punch.
Max black makes the print.
So please amuse me and show me some prints of yours.

 

[JPD]

In 5x7":

HP5 86 euros / 25 sheets
CHS 100 69 euros / 25 sheets
Foma 100 62 euros / 50 (!!) sheets

I would say CHS 100 is about the same price as HP5 since with a bit lower price you get double the amount in Foma.

In 4x5":

Foma 100 31,50 Euros (50 sheets) 0,63 per sheet
Adox 100 39 Euros (25 sheets) 1,56 per sheet
Fp4 51,20 Euros (25 sheets) 2,04 per sheet

Foma should be very good for the price, and excellent for learning and experimenting and if you shoot a lot and don't want to spend more money. And, of course, if you like the look of the Foma films. But spending more on the higher quality brands can be worth it if you don't want issues with the quality.

I still have a couple of 127-rolls of Efke 100, and when I use them I need to make sure I take at least two shots of important subjects in case there are emulsion problems. I remember taking a full body portrait of my father, and after developing the roll I wasn't happy when I saw that a piece of emulsion had flaked off in the middle of his face. Taking extra shots because you can't trust the emulsion makes it more expensive in the long run. There weren't any alternatives to Efke 100 at the time in 127.

 

[radiant]

Your prints look great, they're just not great illustrations of that statement. I've happily used Fomapan 200 btw, but it didn't seem to reach 200 in Fomadon Excel (Xtol clone).

According to datasheet Foma 200 is ISO 160 film at 0.6 gamma developed in Excel.

(Foma 400 is ISO 240 with Excel and 0.6 gamma)

 

[radiant]

But spending more on the higher quality brands can be worth it if you don't want issues with the quality.

Can you describe what issues with the quality are you referring to?

 

[Lachlan Young]

According to datasheet Foma 200 is ISO 160 film at 0.6 gamma developed in Excel.

(Foma 400 is ISO 240 with Excel and 0.6 gamma)

Not that it makes a significant difference, but ISO CI/ G-Bar usually equates to about a 0.65 gamma. Higher flare situations (uncoated lenses, cold cathode heads etc) could lead to recommended/ design gamma being in the 0.75-0.8 range on some older emulsions.

And you've successfully avoided the apparent error on the Foma 200 data sheet - the D-76 gammas have seemingly been transposed up by 0.2...