Foma 4x5 film

[Neil Purling]

I have the Foma 100 in 4x5 size (from Retro Photographic in the UK).
Does Foma produce the 200 or 400 ASA emulsion in 4x5 as well?
I have one box of Forte 400, and then i'll have to buy Ilford if there's nothing else.

[captainslack]

Yes, Foma does produce a 200 & 400. I use the rebranded Foma 200 from Freestyle and it's good stuff.

[jmcd]

Foma does not regularly supply Foma 400 in sheet film, but apparently they could do so by special arrangement. It is a beautiful film.

Of course, 100 and 200 are available in 4x5.

[Stephanie Brim]

Hrm.

So how about a group order? I could shoot some Foma 400...I can actually afford that film.

[IanG]

Just beware that Fomapan 100 & 200 need much less development compared to most other films, typically about 2/3rds the times.

Another excellent supplier in Europe is Fomafoto great service and quick delivery to the UK.

Ian

[Jiri Vasina]

As per my direct question to Foma, they do not produce Fomapan 400 in sheets. I was told that not even by special arrangement. Only rolls and SF.

Fomapan 100 and 200 are produced in sheets regularly. (But when I asked about availability of non-standard sizes - 5x12" and 5x8" specifically - I was told that again they would not cut it. They did not even offer cutting it with a minimum volume.).

(Btw. Fomapan 400 is a horrible film. All the films have way different characteristics, so if you have not tried Fomapan 400 in rolls, don't assume anything about it. And I'm not against Foma, I love Fomapan 100, it's my main film.)

[Neil Purling]

Foma 100 seems to be right with 8 min @20C in R09 dil 1:50.
Ilford FP4 wants 15 min for the same dilution & temp.
It is an amazingly short development time for Foma 100.

I just wanted to know if the Foma 400 cut in 4x5 was perhaps made but not imported into the UK.
What is it that is bad about Foma 400 in other formats? Is it the grain or contrast?

[jmcd]

My information on Foma 400 must be out of date, from the Fomapan 400 Action data sheet, "Other sizes are subject of an agreement with the manufacturer."

[Jiri Vasina]

Fomapan 400 is bad because it's a bit inconsistent in sensitivity (even among different rolls in the same batch). It's very contrasty with very prominent grain and low shadow details (even when I tried highly diluted R09 and stand development). It might work acceptably (and usually works) at EI 250-320, but if you try to push it just a little bit, it starts to fall apart - in that regard it's much worse than any other 400 film I have tried (Delta 400, HP5+, Rollei Retro 400, Neopan 400, Kodak TMax 400). Even Delta 3200 @ EI 6400 (in R09) is better than Fomapan 400 @ EI 800.

And yes, in the data sheet, there is that sentence, but I think they might think different roll sizes (70?). Sheet film is coated on a different base than roll films and they do not coat the 400 emulsion on the sheet film base - at least that's what info I was given by the Foma clerk I contacted.

Maybe you would have better luck with persuading them to cut a different size [of 100 and 200], maybe my order was just too small. Maybe you only have to wave enough money in their face ...

[Vlad Soare]

I had heard that Foma 400 is unpushable, which also results from Foma's technical data sheets (which, by the way, I find excellent), but I wanted to see it with my own eyes. I exposed half a 35mm roll at EI 800 and the other half at EI 1600, then developed it in R09 1+20, 20 minutes at 20 degrees Centigrade.

You may say that R09 is not exactly the right developer for the job, because of the tendency of Rodinal-type developers to lose some speed. However, I made this choice because these developers are very good for pushing. At EI 800 and above (and even at 400, according to the data sheet), details in the shadows would be lost no matter what, so there would be little, if any, difference between R09 and a speed-enhancing developer.

Here's one exposed at EI 800:

and a 100% crop at 1200 ppi:


Here's one exposed at EI 1600:

and a 100% crop at 1200 ppi:


The images exposed at EI 800 turned out pretty fine. Somewhat increased grain and contrast, but nothing outrageous.
At EI 1600 it's much worse: black shadows, blown out highlights, grains the size of golf balls, a negative which is difficult to print (I managed to print it with a no. 5 filter just to prove myself that I can do it, but it was no fun). However, if you happen to have Foma 400 loaded, and you must react at a split second's notice or else lose the picture of your life, it gets the job done.