YES!! It's yet ANOTHER question (or four) about Foma/Arista films!

Donald Qualls · Oct 18, 2021

BradS said:
My money would be better spent on Ilford FP4+ or Delta 100

And if you want to shoot that 6.5x9 plate camera that's in such beautiful shape -- but you just can't seem to find a roll film holder to fit?

Or if you just inherited an 8x10 field camera -- fully functional, including tripod -- but it'll be nine months before the next Ilford custom cut event?

BradS · Oct 18, 2021

Donald Qualls said:
And if you want to shoot that 6.5x9 plate camera that's in such beautiful shape -- but you just can't seem to find a roll film holder to fit?

Or if you just inherited an 8x10 field camera -- fully functional, including tripod -- but it'll be nine months before the next Ilford custom cut event?

8x10 is a regular stock item...this took like 5 seconds to find.
https://www.badgergraphic.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=629

Agulliver · Oct 18, 2021

flavio81 said:
Which developer, dilution, time and temperature did you use?

It's a few years ago now and I don't keep notes but I am quite sure it would have been Ilford ID-11 according to Foma's recommended times or the "film developer" app, which seems to be based on the MDC

So most likely Id-11 stock, for 7:30 minutes....two inversions every minute.

faberryman · Oct 18, 2021

Does anyone do real film speed tests anymore, or are working densitometers too rare and too expensive? I remember sending my negatives and $10 to Fred Picker to tell me which frame had the right density so I knew what my personal exposure index was for my film and developer. That was back in my 35mm Tri-X and HC-110 days. The most important thing I learned from Fred Picker, and I am embarrassed to admit it took me a couple of years, was that it didn't matter what film, developer, or mystic incantation you used, prints from 35mm were never going to look like prints from large format.

Agulliver · Oct 18, 2021

faberryman said:
Does anyone do real film speed tests anymore, or are working densitometers too rare and too expensive? I remember sending my negatives and $10 to Fred Picker to tell me which frame had the right density so I knew what my personal exposure index was for my film and developer. That was back in my 35mm Tri-X and HC-110 days. The most important thing I learned from Fred Picker, and I am embarrassed to admit it took me a couple of years, was that it didn't matter what film, developer, or mystic incantation you used, prints from 35mm were never going to look like prints from large format.

I used to years ago when I thought the quest was for perfection. Then I realised that I am far better off just producing images that I like rather than technically perfect images. Probably technically proficient, however.

Donald Qualls · Oct 18, 2021

A spot meter and +10 diopter closeup lens make a serviceable densitomet, with a tablet screen or similar as a light source behind -- or so says Greg Davis, The Naked Photographer.

Dan McGuire · Oct 18, 2021

Agulliver said:
technically proficient

that is what I am shooting for
What is that old saying "Perfection is the enemy of the good"

Dan

flavio81 · Oct 18, 2021

Agulliver said:
It's a few years ago now and I don't keep notes but I am quite sure it would have been Ilford ID-11 according to Foma's recommended times or the "film developer" app, which seems to be based on the MDC

So most likely Id-11 stock, for 7:30 minutes....two inversions every minute.

Interesting... this time and dev should give Ok results, not overcooked...

markjwyatt · Oct 18, 2021

Here is a little test I have been running: 1 camera (Fujica ST 705w- kind oif inconsequential, but reduces variables), one lens (Carl Zeiss 50mm f1.8 Ultron), one film manufacturer (Foma), three emulsions (100, 200, 400), 2 developers(Rodinal for 100 and 200, HC110 for 400).

Not scientific, but gives you an idea. All were shot the last three months. More coming (mainly 400). Most w/medium Y filter: https://flic.kr/s/aHsmWWE95C

I also did a [poorly executed- not sure between Med G and Med R, and hard to see any differences] filter test for Foma 100. The spectral response of all three films are similar: https://flic.kr/s/aHsmWxU1ot

Agulliver · Oct 19, 2021

flavio81 said:
Interesting... this time and dev should give Ok results, not overcooked...

I would have shot and developed that roll in February 2016 so it certainly wasn't hot weather. The outdoor shots were a bit too dense and exhibit lots of grain. Indoor shot at 400 were much better, some very nice photos.

Donald Qualls · Oct 19, 2021

Agulliver said:
The outdoor shots were a bit too dense and exhibit lots of grain.

That's a marker for overexposure. Did you have a camera with limitations on smallest aperture and/or highest shutter speed? Sunny16 and didn't account for snow cover?

gone · Oct 19, 2021

I only shoot 35mm right now, so this is my Foma experience. No QC issues in this format. The 100 I shoot at 50, the 400 at 200 or 250, and the 200 I haven't figured out yet. All I know is that it builds contrast very quickly and hasn't liked my D76 developer very much. The 100 is the bomb in Rodinal at 1:50. Just beautiful stuff. The 400 works really well in F76 stock, but it didn't like my one experiment w/ Rodinal.

I prefer the 100 and 400 grain more than Tri-X grain, unless the Tri-X is developed in Rodinal. But, if you liked the look of the older Tri-X in D76 stock, you can get that sort of tonality w/ the 100 in Rodinal at 1:50. Sometimes I use a 1:25 dilution, and you get this all-over grain that is really cool!

Agulliver · Oct 20, 2021

Donald Qualls said:
That's a marker for overexposure. Did you have a camera with limitations on smallest aperture and/or highest shutter speed? Sunny16 and didn't account for snow cover?

I was using a NIkon F601M with an older Tamron 38-100mm lens. Conditions were light cloud with some sunlight, in the cities of Valetta and Mosta in Malta. I manually set the ISO to 320, and outdoors was probably shooting at f8 and f16 but I didn't make notes. Indoors, in a museum and a church I adjusted the ISO to 400 and shot at f4 I think.

tballphoto · Nov 2, 2021

i have used arista and foma, and arista seems to be the better product. but i think its all about the actual film developer used. Use eco pro, that seems to be the best with arista so far

keisisqrl · Nov 3, 2021

I find the grain and halation charming, but it’s not for every situation… I joke this film has astigmatism. This is 400, shot at box speed, developed D76 1+1 for I think 12 minutes? Whatever the massive dev chart told me.

In my experience 100 produces similar levels of halation but finer grain. I haven’t shot Foma 200.

Wallendo · Nov 3, 2021

Agulliver said:
I would have shot and developed that roll in February 2016 so it certainly wasn't hot weather. The outdoor shots were a bit too dense and exhibit lots of grain. Indoor shot at 400 were much better, some very nice photos.

I have noticed the same issue with my most recent 100 ft roll of Fomapan 100. It happens with multiple cameras and lenses. It also happens with both Rodinal 1+50 and XTOL 1+1. On my next free weekend, I may play around with different ISO settings and may need to shorten development.

I have not had this problem in the past.

YES!! It's yet ANOTHER question (or four) about Foma/Arista films!

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency