Gotta respect a place that keeps sheet film next to the register.
Gotta respect a place that keeps sheet film next to the register.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.
I'm jealous, G. Tell them to open a Freestyle East in DC, please.Like candy... Ahaha !!!
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 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.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 noticed as well.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.Amusing that two posters who say the Foma films have the advertised speed both show pictures with blocked up shadows.
Amusing that two posters who say the Foma films have the advertised speed both show pictures with blocked up shadows.
ADOX CHS 100 II is another excellent film, at a price point in the middle between Foma and Ilford.
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.
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.
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).
But spending more on the higher quality brands can be worth it if you don't want issues with the quality.
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)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?