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

[Terrence Brennan]

I am considering trying Foma/Arista films, in 35mm and 120, and I would like to ask any APUGgers who have tried them for their opinions of same. The two developers I use are D-23 (mostly) and a modification of Ansco 17M, which is a D-76 type developer.

Are they (more or less) true to box speed? How is the grain in these films, compared to the grain in films of similar speed, like Tri-X or HP5, or FP4? How is the sharpness, comparing films of similar speed?

Has anyone any observations or comments about these films, in general?

Thank you all in advance! In 2010 I posted a question about which Leica I should buy and received 50+ replies! I settled on an M4-P and have loved shooting with it ever since!

 

[Dusty Negative]

Well, there’s the ISO 100, 200, and 400, all of which seem to be rather different from one-another. I only have experience with the 200 in 120. And, while I really like how the film looks, there’s a mildly vigorous debate on why it is so prone to scratching. It’s also usually shot at below 200 ISO. I shoot it at 100.

Here’s what I’ve been doing with the 200:

 

[Wallendo]

D-76 works well with Foma films, I usually used D76 1+1. I currently use XTOL 1+1, but have had good results with Rodinal 1+50.

The grain for Fomapan 100 and 400 is a classic grain pattern. Fomapan 200 is a more modern film with modern grain. I have read that Foma grain is much more apparent in scans than wet prints (but have no personal experience there).

Foma 100 has a unique spectral response which gives it a nostalgic or old-fashioned look. I like that look, but others don't, it comes down to personal preferences. This is one of my personal favorite classic grain B&W films.

 

[Paul Howell]

I've use all three, my mainstay is 200 as I can get 35mm, 120, and 4X5, my current developer is Clayton 76+ I think Ansco/GAF 17 would work really well. 200 is thought to be a hybrid with a mix of traditional and T grain, I shoot it at near box speed ISO 160, I shoot 100 and 400 at half box speed when I use Clayton, in the past I got near box speed when I used MCM 100 or Edwal 12. With D23 your might need to reduce speed by another stop. 400 action pan can be grainy, although someone posted that he did the grain he was expecting.

 

[relistan]

I have shot hundreds of feet of Fomapan 100/Arista.EDU Ultra 100 in 135 and it's just fine. Anywhere from EI50 - EI100 seems good. Grain is traditional. In 135 I like it better in solvent developers. In 120, Rodinal is nice at 1+50. This was my standard 120 film/dev for years. I have shot almost 100 ft of Fomapan 400 in 135 and it's meh in my opinion. I have taken some great photos on it, but not my favorite film. IMO it's best in solvent developers, although if you want grain it will deliver in sharper developers. One thing I will say for 400 is that when you nail it, the tonality is really nice. It's just not that easy to nail it. I have not shot 200.

This is probably my favorite Fomapan 400 shot in 135 (PC-Glycol 1+50 w/carbonate)

A favorite on Fomapan 100 (Diafine) - wet print on ADOX MCC

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Here's what I've seen when I've used Foma films:
They're all slower than box speed, because they were not designed for normal contrast at box speed in MQ developers, as it's stated by their manufacturer.
From this point of view, Foma films are not the best films in the world, to say it politely.
In my case, the only Foma film that's more or less usable is Foma100, because even if it's slow, when we use tripod with MF or LF, real speed (losing a stop) is not as relevant as when we do fast handheld photography with ISO400 films.
If I'm doing that -detailed tripod images- I have no reason to use Foma200: Foma100 is better.
The worst one in my opinion is Foma400: not even close to Kodak's and Ilford's ISO400 films... It's slow, grainy, and reaching 400 is a push already, so when we try to get EI800 or EI1600, it becomes the worst ISO400 black and white film I've used... If I want grain I prefer Tri-X, and in that case even Kentmere400 and Ilford Pan400 are much better films than Foma400.
Are Foma films cheap? Not at all: after we pay for them, we have inferior tools in our hands, compared to other films.
And then quality/manufacturing control is world known low. And apart from that, Foma films have native scratches and other emulsion defects often, not to mention they get scratched easily too.
ISO400 films are called fast films for a reason: their ability to offer good results after pushing 1-2 stops in MQ/Speed enhancing developers: Foma400 doesn't belong to that group: it's just for EI200 photography: I don't do that: if I focus and/or use tripod, I prefer best ISO100 films at EI50, and if I do fast photography, I prefer best ISO400 films at EI640.
In my opinion Foma400 is aimed at people who don't print in the darkroom but scan, so they don't need best tone in negative because they adjust that after digitally photographing the film with a scanner, defining new digital tone from then on, and it's aimed mostly at students, third world, and other people who prefer lowest prices as their priority,
Again in my opinion: best ISO400 films are TMY, TX, HP5+ and Delta400, all of them sharing the first place. In a second place, IlfordPan400. Third place: Kentmere400. Foma400 is in the fourth place, but it can't do what the other six do.
My recommendation: if you'll use tripod or wide aperture focusing, you can use Foma100 at EI50, though TMX, Delta100 and FP4+ are nicer films, and if you want to work at EI200, you can buy Foma400, though all ISO400 films are better. And if you want to do fast photography, forget Foma400 and get Ilford and Kodak ISO400 films.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Are they (more or less) true to box speed? How is the grain in these films, compared to the grain in films of similar speed, like Tri-X or HP5, or FP4? How is the sharpness, comparing films of similar speed?

Foma's films aren't as sharp, fine grained, free from halation etc as the films you list. You may find that their effective speed and tone curves/ latitude of Fomapan 200 and 400 differ from what you have become used to with today's films. They nevertheless have a distinct look that you may find pleasing. Use them for what they are, and not as cut price replacements.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

My experience is mostly with Foma 400 and Foma 100, shot at box speed. I know they are technically inferior to all other films on the market in grain, speed and resolving power but either by chance or by some ethereal quality of the film, many of my favorite portraits I've taken were shot with Foma 400. Well lit and exposed to EI 200-400 I think it looks great. Don't try to push it. I mostly shoot 6x6, and I think I like the look of some noticeable grain in my image.

 

[LimeyKeith]

Foma film is so cheap why don't you buy a couple of cassettes/rolls and try it for yourself. Duplicate each shot, one at box speed and the same shot at half box speed and develop them. Examination of the dry negatives will tell you all you need to know regarding film speed and it's response to your chemisrty and developing methodology.
I've never shot Foma in 35mm format but have used all the other two and I especially like Foma 200 in 4x5 format having shot hundreds of sheets. The 120 size I have found to be the springiest film I've ever used and even after being laid flat in a binder, some for 4 years +, they are still springy. The emulsion does appear to be a bit soft but I make a habit of treating film carefully so I have no concerns in that respect.
Go on, give it a try, there's nothing like first hand experience to tell you what you want to know.

 

[radiant]

It's slow, grainy, and reaching 400 is a push already, so when we try to get EI800 or EI1600, it becomes the worst ISO400 black and white film I've used...

Take a look here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/my-fomapan-400-is-broken.184658/page-3#post-2430568

Pushed two stops (ISO 640). Shooting at 400 is actually not bad, you just get a bit more contrast. Foma 400 doesn't seem to have any steeper toe than others ..

And grainy.. well. It depends what you mean with grainy. I was dissapointed with my Foma 400 because it wasn't particularly grainy at all.

Foma 400 has quite a much compression at highlights but for 7 stops it is really usable. So that is good taken into account if photographing really high SBR scenes.

 

[foc]

Here are a few shots using Foma 400, see what you think, at box speed, then -2 stops, + 2 stops (see bottom right corner of each photo).
Processing was Ilfosol 3, 1+14 for 12 mins @ 20C. Negs were photographed digitally and no corrections applied.

 

[radiant]

Here are a few shots using Foma 400, see what you think, at box speed, then -2 stops, + 2 stops (see bottom right corner of each photo).
Processing was Ilfosol 3, 1+14 for 12 mins @ 20C. Negs were photographed digitally and no corrections applied.

Why +2 has so deep shadows?

The problem with this test is that your scene dynamic range is probably 2-3 stops which is no problem to any film. Your highlights are fine in +2 because of this. Also "no corrections applied"; your camera is probably doing all kind of corrections ..

 

[Jonno85uk]

IME with mostly XTOL only Foma 100 I found to have true box speed. 200+ 400 required me +2/3 pull. Could probably just be fine with +1/2 with Foma 200. I found Foma 400 at box speed gave an obvious "pushed film" look to the negative. Some people like the contrast that gives. I don't.
With HC it was more like a full stop for 200 + 400.

In terms of what Foma film's I prefer: 200 > 100 > 400.
As for reference of what I also currently use as comparisons: Acros II, Delta 400/3200.
Films I used in the past: FP4+, Neopan 400, Tri-X, HP5+

 

[Jonno85uk]

Here are a few shots using Foma 400, see what you think, at box speed, then -2 stops, + 2 stops (see bottom right corner of each photo).
Processing was Ilfosol 3, 1+14 for 12 mins @ 20C. Negs were photographed digitally and no corrections applied.

View attachment 278237

That 3rd image makes no sense. Lock off the exposure and rescan.
Something has been applied afterwards. Same for the 2nd.

 

[Agulliver]

I am quite a fan of Fomapan 100 in 135 and 120, Fomapan 400 in medium format. Both are traditional grain films so a slightly "old fashioned" look. I tend to shoot at box speed and develop in ID-11 stock. I don't often use Fomapan 400 in 135 as I do find the grain intrusive, though oddly enough the first time I shot the 400 I took all the advice here and shot at 320ASA....and everything was over exposed. I found shots where I'd taken a risk inside a museum and snot at 400 were much better and actually exhibited less intrusive grain.

Fomapa 200 I am less experienced with and started experimenting with it in late 2019. It's a more modern film with cubic and tabular grains, and as such can look very pleasant for landscapes. I have not shot sufficient 120 to say anything about scratches, except that I haven't found any on my films but I have only shot a handful.

I do not find that I have to dial down the ASA on any of these and I shoot at box speed. I've tried both scanning and wet prints, both with what I consider to be excellent results. Fomapan 400 in 135 does need a decent scanning resolution due to the grain.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I've shot a LOT of Fomapan 200 in large format sheet film. I consistently rate it at 100, and get beautiful results from it. As a general rule, the Fomapan films are best used at one speed below box, and as others have said, the 400 is the least well-liked of the trio.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I have, in the past, processed .EDU Ultra 100 and 400 in replenished D-23, homebrew Rodinal equivalent, HC-110, and most recently in Xtol replenished. I've even used Dektol 1+9. I like it in all of them. Unlike many, I shoot at box speed and I'm happy with the results.

 

[Alan9940]

I've only shot a few rolls of Foam 100 in 120 size, but it's my primary film for 8x10. You have to watch its development because it builds contrast quickly, but I love the more "old school" tonality of this film. I develop it in ABC Pyro, Pyrocat-HD, and HC-110 and sharpness has never been an issue.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

I've shot a LOT of Fomapan 200 in large format sheet film. I consistently rate it at 100, and get beautiful results from it. As a general rule, the Fomapan films are best used at one speed below box, and as others have said, the 400 is the least well-liked of the trio.

This is good advice. Some people are happy with less shadow detail, but Foma has detailed charts on their website which show the actual speeds to be quite a bit below the named speed on the box.

I've used Xtol for very fine grain on 200, plus good results with HC110, Acufine, and Microdol X. I personally don't like the tonality in R09 as well as in other developers, but that works fine too. As others have said, these have an old fashioned look, even the technically more modern 200. The 200 reminds me very much of old films like Verichrome Pan and Plus X. I'm trying to get a few rolls of Plus X just to compare to satisfy my own curiosity. I do have plenty of Verichrome Pan in 120 so if I happen into a roll or two of 200 in 120 size I'll make that comparison to, but 35mm is much cheaper/easier to do comparisons.

One thing I'm not certain has been mentioned, and really has to be considered is that these are much more delicate films than the modern durable emulsions on Ilford and Kodak films. I bulk load 35mm and do get occasional marks at the beginning or end of loads. 120 is either fine or not; I think it will depend mostly on your camera, processing and handling. If it gives you trouble, then it is probably best to just move on to something else in that size. The quality control seems pretty good these days, just don't expect the perfect and bulletproof product you get from Ilford and Kodak. If you want that on a budget, then get Kentmere.

 

[AZD]

Just for fun last year I put a couple 120 rolls of 400 through a TLR and metered at 250 on the advice of The Internet. Nothing serious, just seeing what I could do with it. My development in D76 1+1 was too short but the negatives had adequate shadow detail. They printed fine with a 4 1/2 contrast filter. A little more time in the developer will fix that in the future.

Still, on roll #1, I got one of my best low light pictures ever, dad working at the lathe in the garage. Between shooting wide open with a slow shutter speed and focusing in dim light (and the other dozen ways I almost screwed it up), Foma 400 delivered an acceptably sharp, detailed, and atmospheric image. Even coming back to it a year later I think the image stands out, and that part of it is the atmosphere imparted by the particular film. I like how it handles shadows and highlights - more interpretive than literal, even with the abstraction of being B&W to start with. Admittedly I'm one of those people who believes a poor antihalation layer is actually a useful feature. Foma, please don't ever "improve" it!

 

[flavio81]

oddly enough the first time I shot the 400 I took all the advice here and shot at 320ASA....and everything was over exposed.

Which developer, dilution, time and temperature did you use?

 

[flavio81]

Just for fun last year I put a couple 120 rolls of 400 through a TLR and metered at 250 on the advice of The Internet. Nothing serious, just seeing what I could do with it. My development in D76 1+1 was too short but the negatives had adequate shadow detail.ailed

Same question as above, which time did you use? temperature? agitation?

The recommendation for using EI 250 or 320 is due to Fomapan's own datasheet, which is unusually detailed. It shows real speed is aprox. 250 using a classic developer like D76, or 320 on a speed-enhancing developer Microphen. This, of course, is relative to shadow detail.

Moreover, the film has an unusual spectral sensitivity and thus the real "speed" will depend on the kind of light that is used.

 

[BradS]

I've used Foma 100 and 200 in D23, D76 and HC-110 (1+39). Here are my observations.

• Quality is highly variable. Sometimes good good sometimes really lousy. When it's good, these are pretty good films for the money but, if you buy ten rolls from the same bad lot...you'll wish you'd spent another 50 cents per roll for something good.
  
• As the Official Foma data sheets clearly show, neither of these is true to box speed in these developers.
• Foma 200 is...different but not necessarily in a bad way. I just couldn't make it work for me.

I decided that given the poor quality, the price differential between Foma 100 and FP4+ was not worth it...
If looking for a lower cost film, Kentmere 100 is a much better choice than Foma 100.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If looking for a lower cost film, Kentmere 100 is a much better choice than Foma 100.

Sadly, Kentmere is available only in 35 mm, not 120 or 4x5. Fomapan (and rebranded .EDU Ultra) is available in all of those formats, 5x7, 8x10, and is the only available choice in a number of "obsolete" formats.

 

[BradS]

Sadly, Kentmere is available only in 35 mm, not 120 or 4x5. Fomapan (and rebranded .EDU Ultra) is available in all of those formats, 5x7, 8x10, and is the only available choice in a number of "obsolete" formats.

Good Point. In that case, My money would be better spent on Ilford FP4+ or Delta 100