Fomapan sheet films - which one to chose

[Wayne]

Ilford HP4 old batch test by xipho68, auf Flickr

old Ilford HP4 test shot

HP5 or FP4? Or Foma?

[Xipho]

No: Ilford HP4!!! Box opened yesterday!!! HP5 was released 1990

Ilford HP4 - just opened by xipho68, auf Flickr

Ilford HP4 - just opened by xipho68, auf Flickr

[DeKlari]

I used Fomapan 200 on 5x7" and 9x12cm format.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126027...posted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126027...posted-public/

[Xipho]

has anyone experience in pushing the Fomapan 200?

[MartinP]

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]

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]

Foma 200 roll film 6x9 Microdol-X Plaubel Makiflex 180mm F2.8 Sonnar wide-open


Makiflex 180mm Sonnar Foma 200 by Nokton48, on Flickr


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

Makiflex Test #4 by Nokton48, on Flickr


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

makiflex #6 by Nokton48, on Flickr

[Donald Qualls]

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]

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]

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.