Are Film Price Differences Worth The Money?

[drgoose]

I am a newbie in LF photography as the content of this post will soon make evident. While I was writing another post regarding BTSZ I was looking at film prices and was wondering if the price difference between films is worth the money. I have not shot most of these films in LF so I would love to know why someone might spend significantly more money on one film than the other. I understand that some of it depends on the volume of film consumed. If I shoot 5 sheets a month paying 4 times the price for the more expensive film doesn't really make any difference.

Attached is the spreadsheet I made using Freestyle prices as of today 4/28/14

114494

[jbenedict]

I think Adox makes Arista so it should be kind of like Agfa. Could be wrong.

The film is cheap. The time and effort you make to create the photo is expensive and irreplaceable. Pick a film you like and learn how to use it.

Buy a couple of boxes of Arista and a couple of boxes of Ilford (or Kodak or Fuji) and give them a try. You will get an idea of what you like. You might like the cheaper film. Or not.

[Shootar401]

I think Adox makes Arista so it should be kind of like Agfa. Could be wrong.

The film is cheap. The time and effort you make to create the photo is expensive and irreplaceable. Pick a film you like and learn how to use it.

Buy a couple of boxes of Arista and a couple of boxes of Ilford (or Kodak or Fuji) and give them a try. You will get an idea of what you like. You might like the cheaper film. Or not.

Foma Makes Arista.

I love Arista 200 (Fomapan 200) it's my favorite film. The only other 4x5 B/W I shoot regularly is Tmax 100. Although I've been shoting Arista Ortho Litho film and it has a look I kind of like

[Jon Shiu]

I don't know about all the present-day manufacturers, but in the past quality control (ie defects) have been a problem with the cheapest films. Therefore, I would stick with Ilford or Kodak.

Jon

[Brian C. Miller]

Value is in the eye of the beholder.

My recommendation is that if you are just starting out, buy lots of the cheap film and have a ball with it. Seriously, go nuts. Learn how the camera works, work out your developing routine, all that stuff. Try out the Zone System or other process, try out development by inspection, and on and on.

At some point, settle down. Some believe that Pyro is the holy grail of developers, some think it's Rodinal, some use HC-110, etc. Stick with one, maybe two, developers, and know how a couple of others generally behave. You want to create a repeatable process for yourself.

At this point, start using the more expensive films.

Now, this doesn't mean that the Arista films are trash. It's just that it's whatever Freestyle has purchased and packaged under their brand. The film may change manufacturers from lot to lot. At one time it was Efke, another time Kodak, another time Foma. You don't know, and they aren't telling.

Efke had problems with their coating process, and finally they couldn't exist in the current market. Foma is hanging in there. I haven't tried their film, so I don't know about their quality. Both Ilford and Kodak are top-notch for quality.

When I started LF in the late 90's, I started learning using Polaroid sheets, because I didn't have a darkroom. I didn't even start loading film holders until I moved into an apartment where I could make a light-tight seal around the bathroom window. I used Kodak ReadyLoad and Fujifilm QuickLoad films. All of that is gone, but since I have a light-tight space, I don't mind.

I also posted the same figures as you under the thread complaining about the price of Kodak TMax. Yes, the price of Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100 is high, but the film is unique for its reciprocity characteristics (low light). It's also the current king of fine grain, Kodak's marketing notwithstanding. Some people prefer Kodak, some prefer Ilford, both are good.

But if you want to see high price, look at the price of color film. That stuff is not cheap, but it's all we have. Fujifilm supplies E6, and Kodak supplies C41. That's the division, brought on by what the market decided to buy. And E6 really isn't selling that well.

So it all depends on what you want to do. If the cheap stuff works out for you, that's fine. If you need something cheaper, you can use x-ray film.

[Leigh]

Many buy specific films for the way they 'look' and how responsive they are to filtration and development.
You find a film that gives you what you want in your prints - why would you change?
Exactly.

I shoot Acros in 4x5, with Ilford FP4+ as a backup, and only FP4+ in 8x10 because Acros is not available in 8x10.

I love the way Acros looks. FP4+ is also very nice, but not as nice IM(-H)O. :p

- Leigh

[gevalia]

Value is in the eye of the beholder.

My recommendation is that if you are just starting out, buy lots of the cheap film and have a ball with it. Seriously, go nuts. Learn how the camera works, work out your developing routine, all that stuff. Try out the Zone System or other process, try out development by inspection, and on and on.

At some point, settle down. Some believe that Pyro is the holy grail of developers, some think it's Rodinal, some use HC-110, etc. Stick with one, maybe two, developers, and know how a couple of others generally behave. You want to create a repeatable process for yourself.

At this point, start using the more expensive films.

Now, this doesn't mean that the Arista films are trash. It's just that it's whatever Freestyle has purchased and packaged under their brand. The film may change manufacturers from lot to lot. At one time it was Efke, another time Kodak, another time Foma. You don't know, and they aren't telling.

Efke had problems with their coating process, and finally they couldn't exist in the current market. Foma is hanging in there. I haven't tried their film, so I don't know about their quality. Both Ilford and Kodak are top-notch for quality.

When I started LF in the late 90's, I started learning using Polaroid sheets, because I didn't have a darkroom. I didn't even start loading film holders until I moved into an apartment where I could make a light-tight seal around the bathroom window. I used Kodak ReadyLoad and Fujifilm QuickLoad films. All of that is gone, but since I have a light-tight space, I don't mind.

I also posted the same figures as you under the thread complaining about the price of Kodak TMax. Yes, the price of Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100 is high, but the film is unique for its reciprocity characteristics (low light). It's also the current king of fine grain, Kodak's marketing notwithstanding. Some people prefer Kodak, some prefer Ilford, both are good.

But if you want to see high price, look at the price of color film. That stuff is not cheap, but it's all we have. Fujifilm supplies E6, and Kodak supplies C41. That's the division, brought on by what the market decided to buy. And E6 really isn't selling that well.

So it all depends on what you want to do. If the cheap stuff works out for you, that's fine. If you need something cheaper, you can use x-ray film.

I think this is pretty much the natural progression I took to where I am now. And I agree with buying lots of cheap film and having fun and experimenting. With forums like this, the ramp up time is quicker than it was 20 years ago. Quicker doesn;t mean better, just quicker. He, he, he.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I pick a film because I like the look it gives me, not because it's cheap. If it's a cheap film and I like the look then great!

[Michael Graves]

For the most part I agree with those who say that price isn't the issue. However, there is also a case to be made for the fact that many of the cheap films are inconsistent in manufacturing quality. I had one good box of Shanghai and the next one was covered with tiny specks where the emulsion was flaking off. I usually have a WHOLE lot more tied up into getting there and back than I do in the film. I stick to Tri-X and HP5 now (with an occasional foray into FP4).

[Ken Lee]

Let's say we go on a photo shoot: we might drive a distance and spend considerable money on a tank of gas, or two. We might get a meal somewhere. We might stay overnight and pay for lodging.

If we add up those costs, the difference in the price of film may become less significant.

If we consider the effort we put into the process (especially with large Format), the time and attention we pay, then the difference in price may diminish even further in importance.

When making photos, every step is a link in the chain. From evaluating the subject to framing and displaying the print, all the steps matter.

[jp]

I am a newbie in LF photography as the content of this post will soon make evident. While I was writing another post regarding BTSZ I was looking at film prices and was wondering if the price difference between films is worth the money. I have not shot most of these films in LF so I would love to know why someone might spend significantly more money on one film than the other. I understand that some of it depends on the volume of film consumed. If I shoot 5 sheets a month paying 4 times the price for the more expensive film doesn't really make any difference.

Attached is the spreadsheet I made using Freestyle prices as of today 4/28/14

114494

It's worth it to me to use what I want (within reason). It has taken me quite a number of sheets and outings and chemicals to get in a groove and get the results I envision from particular films. I like FP4+ and Tmax400 and have put in the effort such that I make negatives that produce the "look" I had in mind with a particular developer. (People typically build that relationship with tri-x rather than tmax; you'll hear it a lot.)

If you're new to film, you might be happy to just have a sharp image that's adequately exposed and developed and variations in tone, grain, spectral response won't matter much. I've been using tmax400 since it first came out, so at this point, I'm after smaller differences and rather than the basics. I've managed to make FP4+ work equally (interchangably) well in some circumstances but not all circumstances. It's grainier, less expensive, less yellow filtered, more reciprocity failure, slower but still a nice film. I need options in case TMY does get too expensive or Kodak makes some boneheaded move to kill a film. In addition to LF, I do shoot MF and probably do more MF right now. Kodak tmax400 is a very affordable film for 120 format in pro-packs, and if it's a little more in LF, it kinda averages out but I like the consistency between formats.

I have had quality issues with the arista stuff. Other people like it and have not experienced that. It's not a risk I want to deal with. For student / learning, it's a valid option despite that.

[Doremus Scudder]

Buy good quality (expensive) film that does what you need it to. Then just shoot fewer and better pictures.

If you can find film cheaper that performs the same, buy it instead.

Use your phone for snapshots and save the film for "serious" work.

Spend a lot of time complaining about film prices instead of photographing; that should cut down on film costs...

Shoot paper positives so you don't need the intermediate (and superfluous) negative in the first place.

Move to a smaller format, use a roll-film back on your 5x7, or cut up a few dark slides to take half-sheet pictures.

Buy the cheapest film you can and go crazy shooting. When you cull the failures due to defects, you should about break even (or not...)

[sarcastic smiley]

Doremus

[alexn]

I've shot a great deal of Fuji Acros 100, quite a bit of T-Max 100, a good amount of FP4+ and now a handful of Fomapan 100..

Its a hard call for me, I love Acros for its low contrast negatives with no reciprocity out to 2 minutes, but I really feel fomapan matches how I shoot so much better... I feel I produce better images with fomapan than I have with any other B/W film I've shot.. and comparatively, I pay $90 AUD for 20 sheets of Acros 100, and I pay $47AUD for 50 sheets of Fomapan 100..

No brainer for me, but film choice is a very personal thing.. contrast, range, tones, filtration, development, end use (scan, contact print, enlarger prints etc) all work together to define the type of film that is going to suit you best...

[Tim Meisburger]

I started out shooting mostly Shanghai because it was available and cheap. After four years I was on a trip to the US and decided it was time to move up, so I bought a lot of FP4. Weirdly, I preferred the Shanghai, and have moved back to that. Only thing I regret is reciprocity. I like to shoot at night, and Shanghai is the worst for that.

Anyway, I recommend you learn with a cheap film if cost is an issue, and occasionally try others till you find one or several you love. I love Velvia 50, but unfortunately the last e6 processor in Thailand closed in January. With development I was paying more than five bucks a sheet for that, but it was worth it.

[Regular Rod]

Your opportunity costs are much higher than the cost of the film. This is why I use ILFORD films. I've never had a faulty film from ILFORD in any format since I started making photographs in 1958.

RR

[mdarnton]

To figure out if the difference is worth the money, buy some different films and see. Only you can tell what's acceptable to you. :-)

I've been shooting Tri-X since the stone age (from when it was ASA 200D, 160T), and when I've tried something else I've been not always disappointed. Recently I've been flirting with Ultrafine 400 in 35mm, and HP5 for 4x5 and found them OK for me. Arista edu Ultra 200 has gotten some rave reviews on its tonality, so that one is next. I like tonality, which I recently rediscovered when I went back and printed some negatives from the 1960s. Ask some people, and they'll say it's all been downhill since then, filmwise, and some people have said that the Ultra 200 slightly resembles that old film, so. . . :-)

[Mark Barendt]

Let's say we go on a photo shoot: we might drive a distance and spend considerable money on a tank of gas, or two. We might get a meal somewhere. We might stay overnight and pay for lodging.

If we add up those costs, the difference in the price of film may become less significant.

If we consider the effort we put into the process (especially with large Format), the time and attention we pay, then the difference in price may diminish even further in importance.

When making photos, every step is a link in the chain. From evaluating the subject to framing and displaying the print, all the steps matter.

I'm with Ken, considering everything else, in large format scrimping on film doesn't really save much.

The one time I might suggest being cheap with the film is for the first 50 or so shots. Get the dumb mistakes out of the way with something cheap (whether Arista or expired) then start buying fresh stuff from the big three.

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, more expensive films like Kodak are worth it in terms of quality control and versatility, if you know why, and if you actually need to work within the parameters of that specific "why". But it takes some experience to understand that relationship. And the learning curve with large format can be expensive. If that is not an issue, proceed in whatever manner seems best. But if you're on a tight budget, there's certainly nothing wrong with learning on discount films like the Arista label.
They're a bit different. I've gotten some exceptional prints from Arista 200. It's slower than officially rated, and a bit annoying at very long exposures, but will handle lighting extremes wonderfully.

[ROL]

I don't know about all the present-day manufacturers, but in the past quality control (ie defects) have been a problem with the cheapest films. Therefore, I would stick with Ilford or Kodak.

Jon

I never met a panchromatic film I didn't like, except for those with quality control issues, resolved precisely as Jon has related. I have in the past found Freestyle's Arista generics to be indistinguishable in quality and application from their brand name brethren (or sisthren). Any emulsion issues with FOMA/Arista? Speed may be the main consideration, although once you have determined individual film speeds, the differences may end up being largely, practically, inconsequential at that.

[Lenny Eiger]

I would say there are two categories. The cheap stuff and the expensive stuff. I have very little time to photograph these days, and I can't afford to have my film fail on me. That said, there isn't much difference between Delta 100 and TMax100. I choose the less expensive Delta. I like supporting Ilford's film-making and I actually like it just a little better. All the top films are dead-on consistent.

For scanning, I like a film that has tight grain. Delta, TMax and TMY2 are the best, unless you are willing to shoot at ISO25, and use the Efke. I wouldn't use HP5 for this purpose... for example. Darkroom printing is another matter, of course...

Have fun!

Lenny`

[Sal Santamaura]

...unless you are willing to shoot at ISO25, and use the Efke...If you use the Efke, these two things apply to you:


You're willing to shoot at the EI 16 - EI 20 real speed of that film
You have a substantial frozen stash of it.

Efke went out of business around December, 2012. Delta 100 it is!

[Drew Wiley]

Efke/Fotochemika had a lot of quality control issues toward the end. Their coating facility was so far behind in maintenance that they literally had the coating areas dustproofed with plastic sheeting, which didn't work very well. As the story goes, the original plant was a huge facility subsidized by the previous communist govt. But it became impossible to finance the upkeep when the mfg operation got scaled down. The film and paper per se were profitable, the huge old rickety plant wasn't. I personally gave up on Arista/Foma 200 for awhile due to film scratches and zits, which probably wouldn't be visible on a contact print, but sure as heck were on enlargement, and were miserable to spot out on the prints. But rumor has it that those bugs have been worked out, so I'd be willing to try again. Also rumor, though from a good source, is that the private label Arista is cut from the roll first, so if there are any batch idiosyncrasies, or if the emulsion isn't fully cured before cutting, that's where it goes. Then the more expensive Foma-labeled product is cut from the remaining part of the roll. The older Arista 125 was simply private-labeled FP4+ from England, and otherwise identical. I don't know if it's still the same thing or not. I found the 400 speed stuff unimpressive, but
otherwise plenty adequate for a beginner to make nice prints with.... just nothing special like TMY or HP5, which are my standard 8x10 choices.

[drgoose]

I appreciate all the good info that has been provided. thanks to all.

[Bernice Loui]

Some time ago, got a box of Efke 5x7 to try.. only to discover those "zits" in the emulsion post process. Since that time, that box of Efke has been sitting with little to zero motivation to use it again. Making every sheet count adds to the difficulty if a single sheet of film has an "issue".

I was warned about this problem by Lenny during a visit..

With this it is back to Ilford or the old stash of Agfa APX100.

Problem emulsions can be sort of OK when starting out in LF, but in short time the associated cost and resources required to do LF relative to film cost is simply, "penny wise and pound foolish."


Bernice




Efke/Fotochemika had a lot of quality control issues toward the end.

I personally gave up on Arista/Foma 200 for awhile due to film scratches and zits, which probably wouldn't be visible on a contact print, but sure as heck were on enlargement, and were miserable to spot out on the prints.

[dncswclds]

Just picked up some Shanghai GP 3 4x5 for a very few $$ and was surprised loading my frames that there is tissue paper between ever sheet. Makes for very good loading experience in complete darkness. No fighting with sheets hoping you are not loading two at once. The squareness with the emulsion onto the backing needs a bit of cropping once you are done but other than that that there is not much you can say bad about it. Developed 1-100 Rodinal Stand Dev. Sorry the picture was not framed correctly as I did not concern myself with the outcome I only wanted test exposures to make sure it had not passed through Xrays of the unfortunate nature in shipping from Taiwan. On my "good to go" list. With shipping it was $1.06 per sheet buying 1 pk. (.80 per w/o shipping) The more you buy the less the shipping cost

114771

[John Kasaian]

Pick one film & developer and stay with it until you've mastered it. Arista.edu is good for this as it is cheap and you can shoot more of it than Ilford. Ilford (and Kodak) are also excellent if you can afford it. When you've gotten the hang of it, try Ilford and Kodak (Foma is Arista.edu so you'll already have that one covered) When you find the film you enjoy working with then cost becomes a non issue as you can shoot less and get better results.
Then keep trying different emulsions, because the chances are, whatever emulsion you've settled on will either be discontinued or you'll have supply line glitches.
If you're doing everything right you can get excellent results from Arista.edu so don't sell it short, just don't expect it to behave like Ilford of Kodak

[Shootar401]

I shoot mostly Arista/Foma 200 because I like the look and it's cheap. I can go through a box of 50 a month in casual shooting or up to a box in a weekend if I'm going on a trip or to an event.

I still shoot HP5 for low light, and Tmax100 for landscapes and other subjects I want to get the maximum quality out of.

[Toyon]

I usually have a WHOLE lot more tied up into getting there and back than I do in the film.

Exactly!!!

[bobwysiwyg]

Exactly +2, figure $0.50/mile minimum (fuel, insurance, depreciation) for driving, then figure how much of an impact film costs are.

[Jody_S]

When you'lre learning, you won't be spending thousands of $ on road trips specifically for LF shooting, you'll be trying to figure out why you keep screwing up.

IMHO, you're better off finding a cheap, plentiful supply of film to learn with, so that you're not counting the cost every time you press the shutter (release cable). I did not learn much in LF until I gave up the Velvia 50 I first bought, and got a few lots of expired B&W (so, cheap) film off eBay. Once I got my costs down under $0.25/sheet, I didn't care anymore if I took the shot just to see how it would turn out. Several hundred shots later, I was getting an understanding of how the lens/film/developing/camera combo worked out. When you're learning, you can expect to go through 500 sheets just to figure out what 'look' you like and what are the more obvious mistakes; there is obviously a significant cost associated with this, from looking at your spreadsheet and doing some simple math.

With x-ray film, shooting 8x10, my current costs are now about $0.50/sheet (so: $0.12/sheet if I cut that down to 4x5), but I now keep some 'proper' in-date (Ilford) film around for when I want to do serious work.

[StoneNYC]

I shoot 4x5 and 8x10, let's assume I'm talking 8x10 for the remainder of the discussion.

I love the LOOK of HP5+ but part of my goal for landscape work is to have Increadibly detailed images printed large.

I mean 20x24 as a standard size.

SO even with HP5+ having a great look the grain detail isn't there, for that purpose... If I were shooting portraits or still life's HP5+ would be perfect, just fine, even for massive prints. But the subtleties of far away structures and curves of rock formations and the details of them, to me, require very tight grain.

This, coupled with the need for better reciprocity characteristics of large format images forced me to really look at what I WANTED from the image and the process, not what my bank account wanted.

I recently decided, that the look and grain and reciprocity characteristics I wanted meant the hard choice, Acros100 in 8x10 (and 4x5).

For lower light with wind, I also switched to TMY-2 (Tmax-400) in 8x10 (and 4x5) to get the finer grain I was looking for.

My second choice combo would be Delta100 and HP5+

Ultimately if ilford could better their reciprocity, I would switch, I love Delta100, reciprocity isn't TERRIBLE but it's different enough from Acros100 (plus the spectral response of Acros100 which just gives that extra something subtle I love) that I have to make the financially hard choice to choose Acros100, I love it so much that I found a way to import it directly from Japan in 8x10 since no one else does. (Same with Velvia50).

So the real question is, what's your vision, what's your need, what's most important to you. Only you can make that decision.

Foma100(Arista100) is great for its application, it's great for its price, it gives a unique "film" look that no one else can do (IMO) because the emulsion is very much in the older traditional style. If I wanted that, I would go for that film souped in Rodinal.. But I don't.

FYI look at the prices of film by B&H, typically all film prices will be slightly cheaper from B&H Photo than from Freestyle with the exception of Arista because it's a house brand so you can't get that at B&H, and Rodinal because B&H won't ship it (mostly shipping regulations and extra paperwork and cost, I also suspect additional rules about shipping HazMat through the bridge and tunnels has something to do with it). But anyway typically it's cheaper plus free shipping over $50 if you go with B&H, although Freestyle will also offer some things that B&H won't, so just depends what you're ordering if you're penny pinching, it's good to check both sites for pricing).

Hope that puts it in perspective.

BTW, Foma100 has TERRIBLE reciprocity characteristics, much worse than ilford and much much worse than fuji/kodak so this is also something that can REALLY mess up your photos.

I once shot an image on FOMA100 that would have been 3 minutes on Acros100 , maybe 5 minutes on Kodak, and maybe 10-15 on Ilford but was over 1 hour on FOMA100... So, something to pay attention to.

(To those familiar with these films, just to clarify the reason that the time was so much more how to do with the fading light, because of the already poor reciprocity the time had to be extended but as the time extended I also had to calculate for the fading light and change in that loss of light over the initial 5 to 10 minutes that I wouldn't have even still been shooting on Acros100), FOMA (Arista) isn't that bad in steady light, I just happen to shoot a lot of sunsets).

Good Luck!

[MDR]

I shoot 4x5 and 8x10, let's assume I'm talking 8x10 for the remainder of the discussion.

I love the LOOK of HP5+ but part of my goal for landscape work is to have Increadibly detailed images printed large.

I mean 20x24 as a standard size.

SO even with HP5+ having a great look the grain detail isn't there, for that purpose... If I were shooting portraits or still life's HP5+ would be perfect, just fine, even for massive prints. But the subtleties of far away structures and curves of rock formations and the details of them, to me, require very tight grain.

This, coupled with the need for better reciprocity characteristics of large format images forced me to really look at what I WANTED from the image and the process, not what my bank account wanted.

I recently decided, that the look and grain and reciprocity characteristics I wanted meant the hard choice, Acros100 in 8x10 (and 4x5).

For lower light with wind, I also switched to TMY-2 (Tmax-400) in 8x10 (and 4x5) to get the finer grain I was looking for.

My second choice combo would be Delta100 and HP5+

Ultimately if ilford could better their reciprocity, I would switch, I love Delta100, reciprocity isn't TERRIBLE but it's different enough from Acros100 (plus the spectral response of Acros100 which just gives that extra something subtle I love) that I have to make the financially hard choice to choose Acros100, I love it so much that I found a way to import it directly from Japan in 8x10 since no one else does. (Same with Velvia50).

So the real question is, what's your vision, what's your need, what's most important to you. Only you can make that decision.

Foma100(Arista100) is great for its application, it's great for its price, it gives a unique "film" look that no one else can do (IMO) because the emulsion is very much in the older traditional style. If I wanted that, I would go for that film souped in Rodinal.. But I don't.

FYI look at the prices of film by B&H, typically all film prices will be slightly cheaper from B&H Photo than from Freestyle with the exception of Arista because it's a house brand so you can't get that at B&H, and Rodinal because B&H won't ship it (mostly shipping regulations and extra paperwork and cost, I also suspect additional rules about shipping HazMat through the bridge and tunnels has something to do with it). But anyway typically it's cheaper plus free shipping over $50 if you go with B&H, although Freestyle will also offer some things that B&H won't, so just depends what you're ordering if you're penny pinching, it's good to check both sites for pricing).

Hope that puts it in perspective.

BTW, Foma100 has TERRIBLE reciprocity characteristics, much worse than ilford and much much worse than fuji/kodak so this is also something that can REALLY mess up your photos.

I once shot an image on FOMA100 that would have been 3 minutes on Acros100 , maybe 5 minutes on Kodak, and maybe 10-15 on Ilford but was over 1 hour on FOMA100... So, something to pay attention to.

(To those familiar with these films, just to clarify the reason that the time was so much more how to do with the fading light, because of the already poor reciprocity the time had to be extended but as the time extended I also had to calculate for the fading light and change in that loss of light over the initial 5 to 10 minutes that I wouldn't have even still been shooting on Acros100), FOMA (Arista) isn't that bad in steady light, I just happen to shoot a lot of sunsets).

Good Luck!

Stone Foma reciprocity characteristics are not up to modern films but the data sheet does exaggerate quiet a bit.
Those extreme reciprocity characteristics can also be put to good use sometimes one wants 1 hour plus exposures.

[StoneNYC]

Stone Foma reciprocity characteristics are not up to modern films but the data sheet does exaggerate quiet a bit.
Those extreme reciprocity characteristics can also be put to good use sometimes one wants 1 hour plus exposures.

I don't think they exaggerate in my experience, that 1 hour exposure should have been 3 hours, it was still very thin in density. All the long exposure FOMA I've shot needed even more time. It's insane. Yes you can use it for some long exposure water work or other reasons for creativity. But I would argue the times are NOT exaggerated. But again, methods per-person vary greatly, but glad you pointed out that reciprocity can be used to your advantage and it's good to have options.