PDA

View Full Version : Fomapan sheet films - which one to chose



Xipho
14-Mar-2016, 15:10
For 9x12 (only for tripod work) I could chose between the Fomapan 100,200,400

What do you think, and has anyone some experience with them.

From the data sheet, the 200 has the same resolving power than the 100 and much better as the 400 (110:90). but in Schwarzschild tolerance, the 400 ist the best (1.5x at 1 sec) and the 200 the worst (3x at 1 sec) Is this a problem, as with tripod work and small apertures, you easily get to longer exposure times. Is the resultion differnce on the other hand relvant for large format (unless you want to make very large prints)?

I want to take foma for the beginning, as for example ilford sheets films cost 4 times as much.
or maybe you know other alternatives in the Foma price range...

Thanks

MartinP
14-Mar-2016, 15:16
Don't forget to look at the Retropan 320 (http://foma-cz.cs4.cstech.cz/ew/ec816f17-da8b-49ce-bd89-1d75aa19fee6-en) also. It is also reasonably usable at an EI of double the base speed, which might be useful for you to avoid long exposure times. Unfortunately I haven't had a chance to try that myself yet.

Xipho
14-Mar-2016, 15:33
what makes the "Retropan" retro?

koraks
15-Mar-2016, 01:06
I used foma 100 for a while in 4x5 and it was alright, but I've never gotten very pleasing results from in in 35mm (coarse grain and rather unpleasant midtone separation - or lack thereof). Probably due to my ignorance, but other films work better for me. Can't comment about the other two but I see quite some people using foma 200 and exposing at 100 iso and getting very nice results from it.

IanG
15-Mar-2016, 01:46
I've been using both the 100 & 200 Fomapan in 120 and 5x4 and 200 for 9x12 for about 9 years now. Both are excellent films and I've been very pleased with the results, however you do need to do some testing to determine the optimum EI and development time that suits your way of working. They build up contrast very quickly and need less development than other films typically about 70% I shooot both at half the box speed.

Ian

Xipho
15-Mar-2016, 04:23
z
I've been using both the 100 & 200 Fomapan in 120 and 5x4 and 200 for 9x12 for about 9 years now. Both are excellent films and I've been very pleased with the results, however you do need to do some testing to determine the optimum EI and development time that suits your way of working. They build up contrast very quickly and need less development than other films typically about 70% I shooot both at half the box speed.

Ian

Thanks! Any experience with iD11/d76 for the Fomapans?

I want to use stock as i have no LF Tank, so I want short development times in the absolute darkness while open processing..

Maybe i try the 200 with 9x12, as I have the 100 for 10x15 anyway (the 200 is not availible in 10x15)

sure have to do some testing...

IanG
15-Mar-2016, 14:17
I've not used ID-11/D76 for 30 years, but try a time of 75% of the ones for FP4 and at half the Fomapan box speed, it'll be very close to what you need. It's what I found with Xtol..

The Fomapan 200 is a really nice film and over 120n is probably a better choice.

Ian

Shootar401
17-Mar-2016, 14:24
I tried Foma 100 and never really liked it, I could never really get the exposure down correctly. Foma 200 on the other hand is one of my Favorites next to HP5 and Tmax 100. I never tried 400 other than a roll of 120, and if I remember correctly it was so-so for my use.

Xipho
17-Mar-2016, 23:37
I bought 100 Sheets of Fomapan200 9x12 yesterday.

With 10x15 im am stuck to Foma100 anyway, but I fould a working pack of 50 HP4 (yes, four...) and hope to get another 50 Sheets of it..

With the reciprocity, what is pracically seen the longest exposure time that is usable without any Problems of underexposed shadows?

Xipho
18-Mar-2016, 00:10
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1537/25755505012_74cd48deca_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FeVGkf)Ilford HP4 old batch test (https://flic.kr/p/FeVGkf) by xipho68 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/xipho68/), auf Flickr

old Ilford HP4 test shot

Wayne
18-Mar-2016, 13:10
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1537/25755505012_74cd48deca_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FeVGkf)Ilford HP4 old batch test (https://flic.kr/p/FeVGkf) by xipho68 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/xipho68/), auf Flickr

old Ilford HP4 test shot

HP5 or FP4? Or Foma? :)

Xipho
18-Mar-2016, 13:25
No: Ilford HP4!!! Box opened yesterday!!! HP5 was released 1990

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1623/25769186742_f3946564b0_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Fg8Pr9)Ilford HP4 - just opened (https://flic.kr/p/Fg8Pr9) by xipho68 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/xipho68/), auf Flickr

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1719/25769183082_354efcbce7_n.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Fg8Nm3)Ilford HP4 - just opened (https://flic.kr/p/Fg8Nm3) by xipho68 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/xipho68/), auf Flickr

DeKlari
18-Mar-2016, 17:53
I used Fomapan 200 on 5x7" and 9x12cm format.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126027782@N03/25095238650/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126027782@N03/25364932546/in/dateposted-public/148477

Xipho
18-Mar-2016, 22:00
has anyone experience in pushing the Fomapan 200?

MartinP
19-Mar-2016, 07:14
what makes the "Retropan" retro?

The film was produced to fill the same soft contrast purpose as TX320. How successful it is at doing that I don't yet know.

There is also a (cheap) developer to match the film. In that purpose-made developer, the times are shorter than in D76/ID11 etc. and the film can be used at an EI of 640 with (supposedly) minimal excessive contrast, due to the softer initial contrast of the film when used at it's usual EI320. One could say that it builds up contrast more slowly than the Fomapan100, for example. Retropan320 is produced in 9x12cm, according to the datasheet.

Going from some usage of Fomapan200 in 135, I'd suggest that you use an it at EI125 or a little more, then at EI200 just with Microphen and the equivalent full-speed dev. Foma do make several developers themselves, including an xtol lookalike, that might be worth a look. Apart from Retropan320, expecting to over-develop the Foma films without an increase in contrast may be 'optimistic' but you could try a pack of the Retropan developer with Fomapan200 I suppose.

Xipho
19-Mar-2016, 14:33
Data sheet of Fomapan 200 says ISO 200 with ID11 5-6 min (stock)

Should I better exopse at 125 and the develop the same time?

Juat packed the magazines. Will do a test shot tomorrow sunday...

Daniel Unkefer
19-Mar-2016, 16:06
Foma 200 roll film 6x9 Microdol-X Plaubel Makiflex 180mm F2.8 Sonnar wide-open


https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1496/24225980099_50879a5c8a_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/CULtS4)Makiflex 180mm Sonnar Foma 200 (https://flic.kr/p/CULtS4) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr


Foma 200 Microdol-X Plaubel Makiflex 360mm Schneider Tele-Arton at f16

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5641/21073944691_9b3295aa19_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/y7etxZ)Makiflex Test #4 (https://flic.kr/p/y7etxZ) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr


Foma 200 Microdol-X Plaubel Makiflex 120mm f6.8 Schneider Angulon at f11

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/762/21072049485_406db3f045_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/y74Lb2)makiflex #6 (https://flic.kr/p/y74Lb2) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Donald Qualls
20-Mar-2016, 07:20
I've used Fomapan 100 (and Arista .EDU Ultra 100, same film relabeled) in 35 mm and 9x12, processed in HC-110 Dilution F, Parodinal, and Caffenol. I was very pleased with it, and felt it gave all the resolution my lens was good for (I was using a Patent Etui with a triplet at that time for 9x12), good tones, and it both scanned and printed well. I've also used the Fomapan 400 in 35 mm, and pushed the 35 mm 100 speed film to EI 400 in HC-110, with results barely distinguishable from shooting the 400 at box speed.

I personally recommend the 100 over the 400; if you develop it with data for 400, it looks and acts like 400, so you don't have to keep multiple films or load holders with both, just mark what EI they were shot at. I have no experience with the 200, though I understand it's a tabular grain rather than cubical grain like the 100 and 400. The Retro 320 has come out since I've been away from film (coming back as soon as I can get my darkroom up), so I can't say anything about it, but I've got a process that will push actual Tri-X 320 to EI 5000 and still maintain reasonable contrast, so it's probably worth trying the Retro 320 when I get my darkroom running.

greginpa
20-Mar-2016, 07:39
Thanks, I might have to give shooting it at 400 a try. I usually go the other way and shoot at 50 and develop in PMK 1:2:50. Also in 9 x 12 btw with an Bergheil.

Donald Qualls
21-Mar-2016, 16:18
What I did when I shot 35 mm a lot was, if I shot at 400, I developed with the time for the Foma 400. Contrast ran a little higher than shooting 400 at 400, but not much. You could (and I did) compensate by reducing agitation; I used to agitate 35 mm Foma 100 on filling, and halfway through development, use the time for 400, and get almost indistinguishable grain, contrast, and even shadow content. Sure made it easier to decide what film cans to pocket on the way out the door.

Neil Purling
23-Mar-2016, 04:37
I have only used two boxes of Fomapan 100 to date & I don't have much evidence to show.
I was exposing between 64 and 80 ASA, but I suspect I was metering at 64. I was developing in Rodinal 150 for 7 minutes.
Fomapan does not like long exposures, which is probably why I do not have many LF Foma 100 negatives.
I have never used any other speed.
For everyday stuff I was using Kodak 4125 or Maco GPF4, I still have a stash of both. Only drawback is the extreme slowness.