Sheet film - FOMA vs Ilford

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Howdy, I am planning a project shooting 4x5 portraits, and after looking at the cost of Ilford sheets, I am considering the FOMA sheet films.

I typically shoot HP5 and FP4 in medium format. How does the FOMA compare? Don't want to be a cheap skate but if it's half the cost that's a big savings. Are there any quality control issues with FOMA?

Also, is AristaEDU any good?

 

[Paul Howell]

AristaEDU is rebranded Foma, I've used HP5 and PF4 and now use Foma 200. Many shoot all Foma films at half the rated ISO, I've tested and found that for me Foma 200 shoot at 200 in D76, and Rodinal. Foma 400 tested out at 320 and 100 at 50. Tone are good, not sure about shooting under lights or with flash. The emulsion is soft I don't use stop bath and use a hardener fix. Saying that, when I shoot something that is important to me I use Tmax 400 and 100.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The Ilford materials are sharper, have finer visible granularity and overall slightly higher emulsion speeds (Foma seem to use a PQ developer to define their box speeds). The Ilford materials are very considerably more physically durable (this is where most of the supposed Foma 'QC' issues actually derive from) and easier to handle/ identify (Foma sheets can be quite sharp on the edges). No issues with stop bath, again I suspect any issues here relate to people using developers loaded with carbonate. The spectral sensitisations are somewhat different too. There's nothing wrong with the Foma aesthetics (and indeed they're quite beautiful), but if you are wanting to use LF and are choosing your materials on the basis of cost rather than visuals, unfortunately you're in the wrong game.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

The cheaper films do sometimes have issues like being easy to scratch, they more often need a pre wet, kind of old school issues that Kodak and Ilford mostly worked out years ago. OTOH they are perfectly fine films when well handled and exposed. I like Catlabs X80 (which is probably Shanghai GP3) a lot. I rate it at ISO 32. It's sharp, nice tones. But also easy to scratch so handle it carefully.

If you have a Foma budget, shoot it with confidence.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've used Foma (and the rebranded version, Arista .EDU Ultra) since I got my first plate camera back in 2003. Many think Fomapan (especially the 400) is a lot slower than box speed, but that doesn't match my experience -- perhaps it's a difference in metering technique or development. Here's one of my first large format images, on Fomapan 100:

Kawee Camera (aka Patent Etui), 13.5 cm Radionar f/4.5, Fomapan 100 in HC-110 E.

And here's one from the last time I had my Graphic View out:

Graphic View, Componon 150mm f/5.6, .EDU Ultra 400, Xtol replenished stock.

I've never seen much sense in paying double or more for ilford or Kodak products that just replicate the results I get from Foma (or the even slightly less expensive, at least in USA, .EDU Ultra). If Kodak or Ilford would give me something I couldn't get with Foma, that would be another story entirely -- but for the way I work and what I want from a negative, they don't.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I use to use Foma 4x5 all the time, but one day I realized that I was shooting two of everything to make sure one was good so I switched back to Ilford. Never have to worry about Ilford. Foma does have a different tonal response that makes it good for portraits though. More red sensitivity. That may factor into your decision. Personally I think life is too short, and you are already used to Ilford....

 

[Nitroplait]

I think there is a muddy quality to Foma 400 that I dislike, but Foma 100 seem OK, but I like FP4 better, and HP5 is great.
Given the effort implied in large format, I'd personally choose Ilford or Kodak (whichever is cheaper).

 

[Ian Grant]

My main films for LF are Delta 100 and HP5, I also use Fomapan 100 & particularly 200, more so for 120. I never planned to use Foma films but while living in Turkey aoroud 2007 I was running out of 120 film and went to the main camera store in Izmir, I was using Tmax 100 at the time they had none, a couple of rolls of FP4, and one roll of Fuji Acros but over 20 rolls of Fomapan 2 bricks of 10 and some loose boxes I can't remember if it was Fomapan 100 or 200 so I bought the lot.

I did some simple tests to determing optimum EI and development times, you need to do this to tame the contrast. I was taking a chance, maybe a risk, as I wouldn't be in my darkroom until my next visit home to the UK and when I statrted printing the negative were fine and printed normally around the same grade as my Tmax negatives. I switched to Ilford films because I couldn't get Tmax on a trip to South America or easily in Turkey.

In terms of quality you'd be hard pushed to see a difference between prints made from Delat 100 or Fomapan100 or 200 negatives (you might with 35mm). I shoot Foma films at half box speed, all my films are processed in Pyrocat HD

Like the poster above I found the Fomapan 400 muddy and lifeless, for LF work HP5 is superb and is faster by a stop.

Ian

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I've shot hundreds of sheets of Fomapan 200 in 5x7. I rate it at 100, process in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100, with a relatively short development time of seven minutes to seven minutes 30 seconds. This gives me all the contrast I need for printing palladium with it. It's actually not fully red sensitive - you throw a Red 25 in front of it and you've got to boost your exposure by at least an extra stop or even two above the regular filter factor to get something approaching a normally exposed negative. The only time I've had qc issues with it is when I had bought too much, then let a bunch of it sit in the box for a couple years before I shot it again. Then I got pinholes when I developed it. But I've not had the scratching issues or other softness with it that some claim. I develop in Pyrocat HD, water stop, TF4 fixer (or in olden days Kodak Rapid Fixer without the hardener added in). All film is processed in a Jobo Expert drum on a Jobo CPP2 processor.

 

[mrosenlof]

I used Foma 400, rated at 200 in 8x10 for a while. The only issue I had was that the reciprocity failure was pretty severe. Long exposures got very long. 8x10 tends towards long exposures. Other than that characteristic, I was happy.

 

[Donald Qualls]

FWIW, Foma appears to have switched to harder gelatin sometime before 2010. Their emulsion used to be soft enough to scratch very easily when wet; now it's about the same (at least on the roll stock, which is where I have a comparison) as Kodak.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I used Foma 400, rated at 200 in 8x10 for a while. The only issue I had was that the reciprocity failure was pretty severe.

Truth. Fomapan has about the worst reciprocity characteristics of any film on the current market. If you're trying to shoot night shots, using a heavy ND, or doing pinhole (or anything else that requires exposures much beyond a second) you'll be ahead with almost anything else -- Across II is faster than Fomapan 400 before exposure for the latter gets to two seconds, Delta 100 or T-Max 100 likewise.

That said, in my experience the contrast doesn't go nuts (the way Kodak warns about, suggesting you need N- development if you're having to add exposure for reciprocity) when I need to expose Fomapan for minutes in a pinhole camera -- it just takes a long time.

 

[halfaman]

I use Foma in 4x5'' only becasue it is the only film with the right price for me. The same reason why I use Rodinal only to develop sheets.

I have no problem with any Foma film in 4x5'' in terms of tones, shaprness or contrast, I found all being good stuff. My favourites are Foma 100 and 200 for regular use, Foma 100 on the medium-soft contrast and Foma 200 having more punch.

 

[vickersdc]

I only use Fomapan 100 in my 4x5, developed in Rodinal for 9-10 minutes. Reciprocity is a bit of a 'mare, especially when using filters, but overall, I like the film. This was shot on Foma 100 late last year...

 

[Alan9940]

I've shot a lot of FP4+ and Fomapan 100 in both 4x5 and 8x10 and find much to like regarding the tonal qualities of Fomapan 100. FP4+ is beautiful, too! I rate Foma 100 at EI 80 developed most of the time in Pyrocat-HD 1:1:100 and, occasionally, Rodinal or HC-110. I see from Donald's comment above that Foma changed the emulsion/gelatin to make it harder, but I still use a hardening fixer with it; kind of hard to break old habits. The main thing you need to be watchful of with Foma films--well, I can only really speak to the 100 speed--is that it builds contrast quickly. Therefore, you have to be a little more careful with your processing. If you can develop TMax films successfully, then you can handle Foma films. If Foma films reveal more grain than the Ilford films, I haven't seen it. But, then again, I'm shooting LF and contact print 8x10 and rarely enlarge 4x5 beyond 10x13.

 

[Ian Grant]

In terms of Reciprocity I did some practical tests some years ago and found it was nowhere as bad as Foma's chart. However there's to many variables and with any fim it's best to test for yourself.

Ian

 

[RoboRepublic]

I love shooting Foma, they have very responsive customer service, and I appreciate them as an underdog in the market. None of the emulsion(exclusively foma 100) I shot last year was soft or scratched easily. I think HP5 and FP4 have a more modern rendering, and foma has a classic, more gentle and subtle feel. I suggest looking at different foma photos and base your decision on whether you like the way the film renders, rather QC. One side note: foma is cheap and allows you to take a risk here and there, which gives you some flexibility to expand your horizons, sometimes cost hampers us from experimenting

 

[DREW WILEY]

In 4x5 I shoot mainly TMax films or else FP4, and used quite a bit of Fuji Acros too when it was available in Quickload sleeves. HP5 is nice in 8x10, but too grainy in my opinion for 4X5 usage. When wind is not an issue, I'll shoot FP4 or TMX100 in 8x10, but prefer the greater versatility and speed of TMY400, though it's getting expensive. Foma? - nope. Never again. It's cheap to buy for a reason. But it's not cheap to use because you might have to take repeat shots to increase the odds of one of them being unblemished in relation to quality control issues.

 

[Ian Grant]

In 4x5 I shoot mainly TMax films or else FP4, and used quite a bit of Fuji Acros too when it was available in Quickload sleeves. HP5 is nice in 8x10, but too grainy in my opinion for 4X5 usage. When wind is not an issue, I'll shoot FP4 or TMX100 in 8x10, but prefer the greater versatility and speed of TMY400, though it's getting expensive. Foma? - nope. Never again. It's cheap to buy for a reason. But it's not cheap to use because you might have to take repeat shots to increase the odds of one of them being unblemished in relation to quality control issues.

I was amazed at how fine grained HP5 is in 5x4, but taht maybe developer choice, I only use Pyrocat HD and it seems that can mask grain, it didn't behave as I'd expected.

Ironically if wind is an issue and I'm using a tripod then I love slower film as long as I can shelter the camera, then I may use multiple exposures, Goo look at John Blakemores work when he shot landscapes. He use fragmented exposures - that's multiple esposures maybe with a mix of shutter speeds, very interesting technique.

Ian

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

In 4x5 I shoot mainly TMax films or else FP4, and used quite a bit of Fuji Acros too when it was available in Quickload sleeves. HP5 is nice in 8x10, but too grainy in my opinion for 4X5 usage. When wind is not an issue, I'll shoot FP4 or TMX100 in 8x10, but prefer the greater versatility and speed of TMY400, though it's getting expensive. Foma? - nope. Never again. It's cheap to buy for a reason. But it's not cheap to use because you might have to take repeat shots to increase the odds of one of them being unblemished in relation to quality control issues.

Drew- how long ago did you last use Foma films? As someone else here noted, after 2010 they changed their base and/or coating and their films are much more durable now.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ian - I've printed mountains of HP5 film, both the old and current versions. I loved the "watercolor grain" effect in staining PMK pyro - superb edge acutance or Mackie line, but no grain grittiness. That look holds up to about 3X and then things start looking mushy. Sure I tried it in 4X5, but was disappointed. It's got quite a toe to it anyway, so it's not the greatest film for high contrast scenes. But I wanted to eat my cake and have it too, so I'd deliberately overexpose AND overdevelop it, in order to expand the midtones and highlights, yet at the same time improve deep shadow values. Then I'd make an unsharp mask in such cases, and print it using my special high-output V54 cold light head. Got many wonderful prints that way. But TMY400 makes the whole process way easier. I sometimes mask that too, but not for remedial reasons.

 

[btaylor]

I suggest you test thoroughly before a commitment for a project. I like the price of Arista.edu products and have gotten some excellent results. But I have had QC problems in 35mm and 120 films which really disappoint! I have not had issues with sheet film, but I am not really surprised that the poster above has had issues. Test test test, that would be my thought. When I am shooting something I care about I stick with TMax personally for B&W. It always behaves exactly how I expect it to.

 

[eddie]

... after 2010 they changed their base and/or coating and their films are much more durable now.

I've used the 5x7 100 without incident, and no hardening fix, but it was definitely post 2010.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

I'm a Kodak shooter, not Ilford sorry.
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.
After a while I had a lot of boxes so I tried it. To my surprise it's an excellent film and can hold speed.
Processed in Rodinal I never had any issue or complaint to make.
I have 2 SP445 tanks. So I shoot almost everyday 8 shots with my Graflex Super D.
You can't go wrong. Try and after it's only your taste that will decide.