What should I develop my 1st roll of Foma 400 in?

[relistan]

I think it's called poured emulsion or something like that, and it doesn't refer to the moment emulsion is placed on the base, but to the moment emulsion is made: once I read it's the only film made the old way these days.

I missed this earlier. This is not true. Mirko from ADOX has been to their factory and has specifically refuted this claim that was made in another thread. https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...emulsion-film-35mm.179831/page-2#post-2350005

He said: "About the poured emulsions we can state that Foma is not using this kind of technique since many decades. They are the most modern film manufacturer from all eastern manufacturers. In 1991 they introduced tabular grain films (Fomapan T200 and T800) made acording to the Kodak patents using double Jet precipitation directly into the impeller (similar to Kodak). This is state of the art."

 

[sterioma]

That's an older technical sheet. The current one shows a full drop off before 700nm..

It's possible that my chart was not the most recent.
However, Foma 400 is certainly not less red sensitive than Tri-X or HP5 (just to pick two very common 400 films), which both seem to drop off much closer to 650nm.

Tri-X

HP5

 

[gone]

I've developed 2 rolls of the 400 in D76 stock so far, and don't see much reason to try anything else. It works great. So far it's been 7.5 minutes at 68 degrees, w/ a little less frequent inversions than w/ my usual Tri-X. Love this film. Can't wait to try the 100 and 200 films, although if this stuff is Arista, I've tried the 100 and liked it in Mic-X. The grain in the 400 is just beautiful. It likes Y. and R. filters too, although the R. one really lightens skin tones.

 

[relistan]

I've developed 2 rolls of the 400 in D76 stock so far, and don't see much reason to try anything else. It works great. So far it's been 7.5 minutes at 68 degrees, w/ a little less frequent inversions than w/ my usual Tri-X. Love this film. Can't wait to try the 100 and 200 films, although if this stuff is Arista, I've tried the 100 and liked it in Mic-X. The grain in the 400 is just beautiful. It likes Y. and R. filters too, although the R. one really lightens skin tones.

Nice! Yes D-76 stock is very good on this film. Arista EDU Ultra is Fomapan 100 and 400 so if you have shot 100 then that's Fomapan 100. Nice film for good prices. I have shot a lot of Arista branded Fomapan over the years.

 

[Donald Qualls]

It likes Y. and R. filters too, although the R. one really lightens skin tones.

This is because of the extended red sensitivity as noted above -- Foma/.EDU Ultra doens't require as much filter factor as, say, Tri-X with a red; instead of 3 stops, 2 is probably about right.

 

[R.Gould]

With Fomapan I often use a orange filter, but never red, the extended red sensitivety maks using red a bit over the top, and in real8ty you can get great results from landscaspes/seascapes with no filter

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I think it is the worst combo to photograph caucasian ski:. Foma 400 + red filter. The subject looks like a ghost.. Even without red filter it just doesn't work at all because what I believe lack of red sensitivity in the film.

It's got more sensitivity to red than most films, terminating at 700nm.

 

[juan]

FX-2 EMA

 

[relistan]

FX-2 EMA

Do you have any examples? I searched Flickr and found none there.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

If F400 is not a poured emulsion film, that has no relevance: maybe just another internet myth we should delete, but what really matters is, yet it's the same film.
It's not an ISO400 film in MQ developers.
It has to be pushed to reach ISO400, with increased contrast.
That's why we can't get decent tone for normal contrast scenes at 800-1600: because we can't push it from a clean ISO400 as we can push other films like HP5+ and Tri-X.
And it's grainier than Tri-X. And less sharp. State of the art? Anyone can use those words: but yet it's the same film.
To OP: what should you develop it in? It depends on your taste, your developers, and on your daily use of other films... I got easily bored about F400 while I tried to make it work like the best ISO400 films... After some months (or years?) as I remembered how flat and grainy it was, I did some testing and made it my film for increased grain, with sodium carbonate added to Microphen: that's what Foma400 is best at, in my case. To get a grainy look.
It's one extreme of my 35mm ISO400 range of looks, TMY in Perceptol being the other extreme. I do both at EI320.
My mistake was considering it a normal ISO400 film. If we talk about cheap films, Kentmere 400 and Ilford Pan400 are much, much better films.
But yet I buy and use F400 for it's grainy look in diluted microphen with Na2CO3. It looks beautiful.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Just finished my first roll, and have: Adox Rodinal, R09 One Shot, D76 (always use it at stock dilution), and Arista Premium liquid film developer. I usually shoot Tri-X at 200-250 and develop in stock D76, so deep blacks and manageable grain are the hoped for look. Most of the film was metered at 400, but a few at 200 just to see what that looks like.

Trouble is, I have no idea what this film is supposed to look like, other than online scans, and they're all over the place. So any suggestions would help. Thanks.

D76 1+1 to keep the grain down and max tonality.

 

[Lachlan Young]

He said: "About the poured emulsions we can state that Foma is not using this kind of technique since many decades. They are the most modern film manufacturer from all eastern manufacturers. In 1991 they introduced tabular grain films (Fomapan T200 and T800) made acording to the Kodak patents using double Jet precipitation directly into the impeller (similar to Kodak). This is state of the art."

If F400 is not a poured emulsion film, that has no relevance: maybe just another internet myth we should delete, but what really matters is, yet it's the same film.

'Kippemulsion' = 'Single Run' emulsion type - ie polydisperse. It relates to silver nitrate being tipped ('gekippt') into the salts and gelatin in the emulsion kettle. Foma are able to produce specific grain characteristics with the double jet system (presumably with pAg or vAg control implemented) - what is not as clear are their coating capacities, aka whether they are limited to single layer + supercoat, or can routinely do multilayer coatings. This has an impact on how easily you can make a good high speed emulsion in terms of turbidity, internal reflection etc. None of their emulsions seem to deliver the very high (100%+) MTF performance at low frequencies that Kodak/ Agfa/ Fuji/ Ilford have utilised for many decades now. The independently generated characteristic curves of Foma 400 I've seen indicate that you don't have a lot of exposure leeway - at the 0.6 CI range you essentially have 7 stops of straight line only - a little over and you'll be on the shoulder, a little under and you'll drop into the toe.

 

[grat]

Foma 400 seems to be something of a chimera-- Partly because I think most people assume it hasn't changed in the past 80 years. The most recent datasheet on Foma's site is from 2017, and does not show the same spectral curve as the 2012 datasheet on Freestyle's page. This suggests to my inexperienced brain, that perhaps Foma has updated the film, and "Foma Action 400" is not the same film people used "years ago".

Personally, I'm in an odd category-- I shoot at (Arista EDU Ultra) at box speed, develop in Ilfosol 3 (which apparently is somewhat brutal on highlights), and scan, rather than print. As a result, I find shooting at box speed delivers a better final image than shooting at 200, which tends to produce blown out highlights for high range (> 7 stop) scenes.

Anecdotally, Rodinal exaggerates grain in Foma 400, and not in a good way. Since the OP is used to stock D76, I'd start there, and see how it turns out. But what do I know? I have yet to use D76 to develop anything.

 

[laingsoft]

I dunno why you guys are complaining about Foma 400 in Rodinal. I think it looks nice. (in 120, at least)

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Maybe some of us don't complain: we see the film clearly, and we use it happily after knowing what it is.
And maybe the film's niche is what Foma want: the cheapest film market, and a lot of people who scan, so real speed and tone issues (those when we print in the darkroom) go out of the equation for most buyers, as they manipulate the image digitally.
Of course some people wet print Foma films (I do), but IMO, Foma100 is a better film for tripod work and larger formats, than Foma400 is for handheld and action photography, or for low light and pushing.
That's all. Foma400 is the worst 35mm ISO400 film I've used. But I found a good use for it.
It isn't a fast film: it doesn't belong to that group because it can't do what HP5+ and Tri-X do. But it can be used at EI200: that's fine, although that puts it far from a lot of photographic activities.
No hate for Foma at all: I also use their fomatone papers. I'm glad they have some unique products.

 

[russell_w_b]

Not Rodinal!

Oh, I don't know. I generally use ID-11 for Foma 400 Action but have used Rodinal 1+25 to good effect - well, I like them!

 

[Donald Qualls]

what is not as clear are their coating capacities, aka whether they are limited to single layer + supercoat, or can routinely do multilayer coatings.

At the very least, Foma is capable of putting a colloidal silver antihalation layer under the emulsion for their R100 film (intended for reversal to a positive, for cine or B&W slides). That means they have, at a minimum, a subbing layer, AH, probably a guard layer, actual emulsion, and supercoat. Possibly an anti-curl on the base side (or possibly not, I haven't used R100, and they certainly don't seem to have anti-curl on the 120 Fomapan 100 and 400 offerings).

 

[laingsoft]

At the very least, Foma is capable of putting a colloidal silver antihalation layer under the emulsion for their R100 film (intended for reversal to a positive, for cine or B&W slides). That means they have, at a minimum, a subbing layer, AH, probably a guard layer, actual emulsion, and supercoat. Possibly an anti-curl on the base side (or possibly not, I haven't used R100, and they certainly don't seem to have anti-curl on the 120 Fomapan 100 and 400 offerings).

I don't know if they use an anti-curl or not, but whatever substrate they use for 35mm 100iso is dead flat, and doesn't really curl up like the estar bases.

 

[Lachlan Young]

At the very least, Foma is capable of putting a colloidal silver antihalation layer under the emulsion for their R100 film (intended for reversal to a positive, for cine or B&W slides). That means they have, at a minimum, a subbing layer, AH, probably a guard layer, actual emulsion, and supercoat. Possibly an anti-curl on the base side (or possibly not, I haven't used R100, and they certainly don't seem to have anti-curl on the 120 Fomapan 100 and 400 offerings).

Subbing tends to get applied at point of manufacture on TAC base as I understand it - it's whether the film has to make 2+ trips through the machine (which will cost more - and R100 is considerably more expensive, even if you allow for the differences in silver content, anti-halation and clear TAC base - though apparently polyester base is potentially available) to apply anti-halation/ emulsion/ supercoat - or if it can be done in a single pass. Anti-curl is almost always a separate trip through a coater - and it's not unknown for the anti-halation layer to be done separately too. My own suspicion is that R100 probably makes two trips through the machine and that Fomapan 400 is a single layer coating (it can suffer from contrast edge halation - ie turbidity/ internal reflections - although a multilayer can as well - the problem is solved by acutance dyes, but they cost speed etc...). I also notice that the spectral sensitivity of R100 (as published) is the same as the claimed older Foma 400 chart - not the newer one - which could mean there's a J-aggregation going on, dependent on the mol% iodide in the emulsions.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Has anyone shot and compared between the Arista branded and Foma branded versions of this film? I always used to buy Arista but I recently bought Foma branded for 10 cents additional per roll and found that for my dime, I get a little peel and stick label at the end of the 120 roll instead of the lick-it-like-an-envelope glue flap. Well worth it. An earlier post in this thread suggested that the film may have been reformulated in the last few years. I doubt Foma keeps machines around that do both lick-strips and label-type on their confectioning line (speaking of that....how come Foma has modern Fuji confectioning, better than Kodak and Ilford!?). But anyways that makes me think that Arista must be selling the slightly older stock, if there really was a change at some point. Has anyone shot them side-to-side and compared sensitivities?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Difference in end of roll label is due to difference in confection. I've long believed that Freestyle can outprice Foma on their own film because they bought one or more master rolls some time ago and had it contract confectioned. Their backing paper changed some time in the past fifteen years (I was away from photography for twelve of those), but only from white with black print to black with white print.

Foma might well have their film toll confectioned by Fuji, or at least buy their backing from Fuji -- we've been told there are only one or two sources of backing paper left, though there might well be a couple cost options from a single source.

 

[Paul Howell]

I've shot both Foma and Arista 200 and 400, at this point I'm ordering Foma, cost a little more but not enough to made a difference and is a lot cheaper in 4X5 when I order 50 sheets. I don't have a densitometry so I have tested each for a characteristic curve, by eye ball, don't see any difference.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Foma might well have their film toll confectioned by Fuji, or at least buy their backing from Fuji

Very definitely not. They have however seemingly acquired a source of self adhesive sticker material for the end band.