• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

What's the difference? Foma 100, 200, 320 and 400 compared.

What developer did you use? I dont have a densitometry, I use a ringaround to determine my E.I or personal ISO, you seem to get more speed from 400 action than I do and I've used a lot of developers, best I get is 320 with MCM 100, with D76 or HC110 I get 200.
 
Quite different curves from the official ones. All look underdeveloped. And advertised Foma film box speeds are especially unrealistic.
 
Informal comparison of Foma films: Foma 100, 200, 320 and 400 compared

Great article. I, too, informally compared a few films, namely TMAX 100, Provia 400, XP2+ and Colorplus. Just like you, I came to the conclusion that, apart from having vastly different exposure density curves, grain structure, spectral response, response to colour or lack thereof, and favourite football team, there isn't really much of a difference!
 
Thanks for sharing. The 100 and 400 curves look essentially identical. If developed to same density they would be very close. The 320 looks pretty under developed here so hard to conclude much. The 200 is the clearly different film, which makes sense given that it is a totally different formula from the other two.
 
I've shot a roll or 10 of: 100, R100, 200 and 400, and found 200 to be the best/interesting.

R100 is intended for reversal, clear base - have to bend it to my liking with Ilford Reversal
 
I've shot a roll or 10 of: 100, R100, 200 and 400, and found 200 to be the best/interesting.

Try the 400 in medium or large format exposed as per manufacturer's curves in Excel 1+1. Pretty unique spectral response, really interesting film, quite different from pretty much anything else currently in production.
 
Do you have some examples? I'm 135 slide shooter, so have to ask for examples.