Anyone currently using Fomapan 100 in 10” x 8”?

[DannyTreacy]

Hi,

If anyone is currently using this or has had experience of using this recently it would be great to hear opinions in terms of its grain structure and consistency etc.

I’m going to be photographing a series of still life objects and contacting directly from the negative. I was planning on using Ilford 100 film but this stuff is half the price. Should I stick with Ilford or is this stuff in the same ball park?

Thanks!

[Pere Casals]

Grain structure of ISO 100 film for 8x10 is mostly irrelevant, you won't perceive it. And if contact printing you won't perceive it at all.

With controlled illumination you may obtain the same result by adjusting filtration and processing for each film, but it can be easier to obtain what you want with a particular film. Ilford may have better industrial quality, at a cost.

What I suggest you is to try it, just take some 135 or 120 rolls of each and make bracketings to see toe, shoulder, latitude, and tonality, then guess N+/- effect, then forget about grain before comparing.

[Alan9940]

I've used quite a lot of 8x10 Fomapan 100 developed in Pyrocat-HD using various development methods over the years. Currently, I develop it in Pyrocat-HD using an extreme minimal agitation technique. Quite nice results! IMO, this film reveals a more traditional film look vs Delta 100. It's not as sharp as Delta 100, but I doubt that anyone could detect that in a contact print. I shoot quite a bit of 8x10 Delta 100, too, developed in F-76+. Both of these combos are favorites of mine. As far as QC is concerned, I've never had any issues with any Foma film.

[koraks]

I use foma 100 in 35mm, 120, 4x5 and 8x10. You can't beat the bang for the buck that this film offers. In a pyro developer such as pyrocat or 510 pyro, grain is very fine indeed and tonality is nice. Foma 100 is consistent in terms of product quality, I find.
However, like its 400 sibling, it has a bit of a long toe. If you want to remain in its linear region, consider exposing it at EI 50. Also, it performs quite horribly with long exposures (several minutes and upwards) as its reciprocity failure is quite massive. In the studio, these things are generally not an issue however.

[DannyTreacy]

Thanks for the replies, I’ve not developed in Pyrocat before, I usually use Ilfosol or the likes. I’m willing to use Pyrocat if it’s brtter suited for a film like Fomapan though. Maybe it’s best to do some comparisons with the developers?

What’s really key for me is that once I discover the right exposure for my series of still life objects I need to know that this exposure will produce consistent results across the series. I’m using flash to maintain this consistency.

[Alan9940]

If you've never used a staining developer, Pyrocat-HD is a good one to start with, but there is a bit of a learning curve. I've also developed Foma 100 in HC-110 with nice results. I'd suggest picking a developer and sticking with it until you get a good feel for the film, then experiment.

[koraks]

Trying some developers would certainly be a good idea. I never tried that many, and some not much with this film:
D76: I found it gave muddy midtones and runaway highlights with foma 100. I never liked it, but didn't put much effort into the combination.
Rodinal: nice tonal scale, but coarse grain and low film seed. Worked quite well for 4x5 for me.
Moersch Finol: this was an eye opener; suddenly this film looked completely different from what I was used to. Beautiful tones, controlled highlights and fine grain.
Pyrocat HD: looked virtually identical to Finol to my eye.
510 pyro: even finer grain, more prominent stain, but a little more tendency for contrast to get out of hand. I'll have to do some more testing, but I think this is going to replace pyrocat as my go-to developer for all foma films.

[Colin Robertson]

I haven't used 10x8, but Fomapan 100 has been my only film in 5x4 for the last 5 years or so. Never mind cost, it looks lovely processed in PMK pyro at EI 50.
Mostly the quality is excellent, but when wet the emulsion is very soft. I previously used FP4, and would happily shuffle process 6 sheets at a time in a tray- when I switched to Fomapan the same technique produced lots of scratches. Now I use a 'slosher' and limit myself to four sheets at a time, but still seem to suffer the odd damaged sheet. I also experience occasional tiny, clear pinholes in the emulsion which I don't believe to be dust marks (having worked hard at avoiding them). Don't see them for ages, then 3 or 4 sheets in a row have them. They get easily lost in an image full of detail and texture, but are a real nuisance in areas of even tone.
I have now taken to shooting two frames of anything I think might be really good as a precaution. Obviously others may be more careful than me, have different water quality, and may never have had any issues.
In short- beautiful tonality, full of character, needs fastidious handling.
I'm about to place an order for film and I am sadly considering moving away from Fomapan 100.

[DannyTreacy]

Thanks for the info. I’ll definitely try different developers. In terms of processing I use a rotary Jobo , are there any issues with using one of these with pyro developers?

Thanks

[Pere Casals]

Thanks for the info. I’ll definitely try different developers. In terms of processing I use a rotary Jobo , are there any issues with using one of these with pyro developers?

Thanks

Single thing is toxicity, handle that chem with care, use gloves and avoid spills, and dispose properly. No problem if you proceed with care, think this is not xtol or caffenol c.

[koraks]

Thanks for the info. I’ll definitely try different developers. In terms of processing I use a rotary Jobo , are there any issues with using one of these with pyro developers?

Thanks

I can only comment on pyrocat and 510 pyro. They both work fine in rotary processing, but the downside of pyro developers is that they oxidize very rapidly. This can be an issue if you need very long development times (eg for negatives for salt prints); in that case, it works better in my experience to use a stronger concentration (eg 1+50 instead of 1+100) to keep development times a bit shorter. But in the normal range of development times (up to 15 minutes), it all works quite nicely.

And Pere is correct, both pyrogallol and pyrocatechol are nasty compounds. Avoid skin contact and definitely make sure you don't breathe in any dust from dry chemicals.

[Alan9940]

Thanks for the info. I’ll definitely try different developers. In terms of processing I use a rotary Jobo , are there any issues with using one of these with pyro developers?

Thanks

I've done Foma 100 in Expert Drums with great success. Use the slowest rotation speed to minimize oxidation.

[DannyTreacy]

Excellent info thanks for all the responses!