Foma 200?

[MichaelGJ47]

Morning All
Just getting back into Film
Photography after 30 years . I have just received a package of 5x7 200 ads FoMa film . My developer has always been rodinal . Has anybody any experience using this combination or is there a better developer. I am curious if 200 ISO is the best setting .
Thanks and Happy New year

[Michael R]

Rodinal is a fine developer. No reason to change if you liked it in the past. Based on the technical data provided by Foma the ISO speeds of their films appear to be lower than what they are called. In the case of Foma 200, a meter setting of 100-125 seems more appropriate for Rodinal, but you’ll need to evaluate the results for yourself.


Morning All
Just getting back into Film
Photography after 30 years . I have just received a package of 5x7 200 ads FoMa film . My developer has always been rodinal . Has anybody any experience using this combination or is there a better developer. I am curious if 200 ISO is the best setting .
Thanks and Happy New year

[Drew Wiley]

Foma 200 isn't even remotely box speed. Start at 100, and adjust from there. All kinds of developers work (I preferred PMK pyro); but realize that this particular film develops VERY fast. I was using only 6 min @ 20C for my "normal" tray dev time. It doesn't "Plus" or "Push" develop well, maybe +1 in Zone lingo terminology. It also has the worst long-exposure characteristics (recip failure) of any film I can think of; so it's not a good candidate for time exposures.

Don't trust the original clamshell box to keep the film protected from light once you remove it from the inner sleeve. Use a 3-part clamshell box from Kodak or Ilford instead.

Positives : This film has the longest straight line of any film currently on the market, so can handle extreme contrast scenes nicely. But it's not a realistic substitute for classic ole Super-XX or even Bergger 200 due to those shortcomings I mentioned above.

[MichaelGJ47]

Thanks i will start at 100 and see what happens . I decided to go with Foma for my first box to get back in to the hobby if all goes well I hope to get my old stand by FP4 once I have made all the mistakes on the more affordable Foma

[wooserco]

Reach out to Jiri Vasina, a member here. He has shot a ton of Foma/Arista EDU 200 developed in Rodinal. I consider him the expert on this combination.

BTW: I shoot Arista EDU Ultra 200 in 4x5 and develop in XTOL straight for 6 minutes, rotary processed in JOBO. 5 minute prewash, develope 6 minutes (XTOL straight), normal stop and fix, all JOBO rotary.

[Ulophot]

Michael, welcome back to film! Did you stop taking pictures all that time or shift over to that other medium? I had to stop for 13 to support my family. I has been a long road back over several years with limited time, but it's great to be back behind the camera and in the darkroom.

[Pedro_fiz]

Hello Michael and welcome back to film.
I develop Foma200@200 with HC110 dilution H plus 2ml of Rodinal, 16’30” agitation every minute. I am very happy with the results.

[Havoc]

I have not used it in 4x5 yet but I have used it in 120. I did use box speed and I'm happy with it. Developed in HC110 1+63 for 13 minutes in a Jobo CPE. However all 120 films I have developed so far have tiny black dots all over the negative.

[Pmlpoma]

Foma have a very poor quality control, make some test before use it in important works. Their films show often tiny scratches, dots, spots and other defects.
The effective speed is far from the box speed, with rodinal no more than 64 ASA.

[koraks]

The defects problem with Foma 200 is limited to 120 roll film. It doesn't occur in their 100 and 200 sheet films, which I've both used extensively (and still do). The only type of defect in these films I notice occasionally is a solitary pinhole somewhere in the sheet. It's a rare occurrence, but I've never seen these with e.g Kodak TMAX100 which I've also shot a lot of.

[Drew Wiley]

I had two flawed batches of 8X10 Foma 200 sheet film : little emulsion zits or craters, fine linear cracks or scratches. Only half the images I shot were printable unless retouching hell came into play. Much of that was small enough that it might not cause a lot of distraction in a contact print; but at even 2X enlargement, it ended the game. It's an intriguing film; but I just can't gamble with it again. Too much effort goes into LF shoots to come back with zero usable in what I had anticipated as great images. Yeah, I printed some really good ones; but for every one of those, there was another useless negative due to mfg flaws. Not even remotely in the quality control league of Kodak or Ilford sheet films, but still worth experimenting with at least. You might be lucky and get a box or unflawed sheets. If it were me again, I'd test 4x5 before springing for any more boxes of 8x10.

[Havoc]

The defects problem with Foma 200 is limited to 120 roll film. It doesn't occur in their 100 and 200 sheet films,....

Good to know that the 200 issue is limited to 120 format. I haven't used the 200 in 4x5 yet. I do use the Foma 100 in 4x5 regularly, it is my standard film. Never had any issues with it at box speed of 100.

[Drew Wiley]

It ISN'T limited to just 120 roll film! Did you even read my immediately preceding post concerning 200 sheet film, or pmlpoma's identical complaint? The quality control is a crap shoot, and your own choice whether to gamble or not.

[Michael R]

Mark Citret was not satisfied and had to go back to Ilford, which was already his second choice (he was a Kodak guy but eventually decided he couldn't afford Kodak sheet film anymore).


It ISN'T limited to just 120 roll film! Did you even read my immediately preceding post concerning 200 sheet film, or pmlpoma's identical complaint? The quality control is a crap shoot, and your own choice whether to gamble or not.

[Drew Wiley]

Interesting. I haven't run into or spoken to Mark for over 20 yrs.

[Michael R]

Interesting. I haven't run into or spoken to Mark for over 20 yrs.

I have exchanged emails with him infrequently over the past 10 or 15 years (basically me asking him for opinions, advice, that sort of thing). The cost of sheet film seems to have been a concern of his for quite a while. One of the issues he had with Foma was scratching more easily (he still tray-shuffles like he always did). In my most recent exchange with him this past summer on a different but related topic, he indicated he was actually considering downsizing to a medium format back on his Norma due to the cost of sheet film and limited options. That really struck me. What the hell am I doing buying sheet film if a guy of Mark's stature finds it expensive? Especially since Kodak is the only sheet film I use.

Always wanted to visit Mark for a darkroom workshop. Him, and George Tice.

[Drew Wiley]

Foma sheet film has distinct disadvantages in a tray of not only a soft emulsion and lack of a resistant overcoating, but due to verrrrry sharp corners and edges, which have even slit my nitrile gloves at times, and will tear into another sheet quite easily.

When he was hanging around my workplace long ago, making his living in architectual photog, he was using a green 4X5 Toyo VX. The next time I saw him he had switched to an Arca MF digital system, and was going nuts because that switch, with its instant feedback, tempted clients to constantly peer over his shoulder and micro-manage him. It's one reason I decided to throw in the towel around the same time regarding commercial architectural shooting, even in a moonlighting sense. But I still continued to do it all film and darkroom workflow for our own company, since they still allowed me to be in full control, at my own pace, and mostly wanted it for sake of high quality framed prints. I wasn't about to waste time on any mere web presence foolishness.

I'd be more interested in what Mark currently prints on, Kodak Polymax now being long gone. His printing style is very understated; no Wagnerian drama or high contrast overstatement, but all midtone, silvery - kinda like Robert Adams - unless something has changed recently.

[Michael R]

I agree - understated and subtle, and just superb. He’s really one of my favourite photographers and printers. His thing was papers and printing, never films or film developers, and like others the loss of so many papers was a problem for him. For example he was/is well known for printing on and toning a Kodak paper that had a “vellum”-type of surface. I think it was Polyfiber “A”. If I remember correctly he bought a big stash of that when it was discontinued in the 1990s but that was so long ago I don’t know if it is still usable for him.

Interesting you bring up the Toyo. Maybe 10 years ago I asked him for camera suggestions when I was going through a bit of a time with that. He said he had used a Norma (and sometimes one of those older Linhof Kardan variants - I can’t remember which) for many years and then decided to try a Toyo VX because it was quite compact, and it was good, except he stripped the gears - twice, and ultimately went back to the Norma. One of the several things he liked about the Norma was the fact the wide angle bellows was long enough that he could basically make it his standard bellows and not need to switch very often. Symmetric parallel displacements on the front and rear standards are another must for him.


Foma sheet film has distinct disadvantages in a tray of not only a soft emulsion and lack of a resistant overcoating, but due to verrrrry sharp corners and edges, which have even slit my nitrile gloves at times, and will tear into another sheet quite easily.

When he was hanging around my workplace long ago, making his living in architectual photog, he was using a green 4X5 Toyo VX. The next time I saw him he had switched to an Arca MF digital system, and was going nuts because that switch, with its instant feedback, tempted clients to constantly peer over his shoulder and micro-manage him. It's one reason I decided to throw in the towel around the same time regarding commercial architectural shooting, even in a moonlighting sense. But I still continued to do it all film and darkroom workflow for our own company, since they still allowed me to be in full control, at my own pace, and mostly wanted it for sake of high quality framed prints. I wasn't about to waste time on any mere web presence foolishness.

I'd be more interested in what Mark currently prints on, Kodak Polymax now being long gone. His printing style is very understated; no Wagnerian drama or high contrast overstatement, but all midtone, silvery - kinda like Robert Adams - unless something has changed recently.

[koraks]

Foma sheet film has distinct disadvantages in a tray of not only a soft emulsion and lack of a resistant overcoating, but due to verrrrry sharp corners and edges, which have even slit my nitrile gloves at times, and will tear into another sheet quite easily.
In trays, I develop only one sheet at a time. This prevents the problem you're talking about. As to the corners being so sharp they slit your nitrile gloves - I find that hard to believe, but perhaps you've been able to find exceptionally flimsy gloves. I use the cheapest available to me.

As to your insistence on Foma 200 defects on sheet film: for all I know you're recounting the same experience you apparently had years ago, since the remarks you've made on this film are always virtually identical and seem to be limited to a brief period of time, perhaps only one or a handful of boxes of film. My experiences, all recent ones of the past few years, don't match yours. Perhaps the problem you encountered was solved in the meantime. This particular film has gone through at least one major manufacturing change some years ago. Perhaps your experience stems from before that period.

I just inspected a couple of sheets I developed yesterday. Nothing to match your description of the issues you ran into.

[Drew Wiley]

I've even had my finger cut just loading film holders to begin with. It seems to be a combination of the especially hard brittle emulsion and the relatively crude sheet sizing machinery. And keep in mind, I've probably tried 90% of the sheet film options out there over the decades. And Foma films are the ONLY ones with this problem. It ain't my gloves at fault!

Anyway - get bitten by a rattlesnake once, twice even, and I'm certainly going to be leery of walking through that same patch of grass again, even a decade or two later. But I'm keeping my ears open, and an open mind too. But the fact is, I have a big stash of both speeds of TMax in the freezer, which I know I can count on, even if replenishing that stockpile of 8x10 might not be realistic for me at today's pricing.

[Drew Wiley]

Michael - thank you for updating the info. on Mark. And yeah, with today's paper selection, it is indeed difficult to skate on an all-midscale ice rink, and still keep it all silvery, without turning muddy-looking. The last paper I have on my shelves that will competently do that is discontinued EMaks graded; I hope it's still good.

[Havoc]

It ISN'T limited to just 120 roll film! Did you even read my immediately preceding post concerning 200 sheet film, or pmlpoma's identical complaint? The quality control is a crap shoot, and your own choice whether to gamble or not.


I've even had my finger cut just loading film holders to begin with. It seems to be a combination of the especially hard brittle emulsion and the relatively crude sheet sizing machinery. And keep in mind, I've probably tried 90% of the sheet film options out there over the decades. And Foma films are the ONLY ones with this problem. It ain't my gloves at fault!

Sorry, but just like Koraks I have completely different experiences so I think you are just retelling your experiences from long ago.

I have shot several boxes of Foma 100 in 4x5 the last years and used it at box speed having no trouble with ID11 or HC110 (1+31 or 1+63). Got just the same results as with FP4+ in rendering. I haven't had a single sheet with the defects you mention. All issues where clear user errors like wrong exposure or light leaks. And I just felt some FP4+ and Foma 100 4x5 negative edges and they are not distinguishable by touch.

Foma 400 is only iso 250 at best, but that is clear to see if you open the datasheet. Like wise Foma 200 is iso 200 (HC110 1+63) but in 120 there are black dots on the negative and this is what I have also received as feedback from other users at the same time I shot my rolls. I haven't opened my box of 4x5 yet.

If you think that Foma is the sharpest edge, you have not yet tried Adox CHS100II which does have rough edges. But while unpleasant they will not cut.

[PRJ]

I stopped shooting Foma large format film years ago when I realized that I was making two of every exposure to make sure I got one good one. No point to that at all since it is more expensive than just shooting one sheet of Ilford, so I just use Ilford now.

Their 120 films have problems from time to time it seems so I stopped using that as well, and just use ilford now. And yeah, black dots on Foma 120. Terrible. If I just scanned the film it would be ok but I still wet print so a slew of black dots just makes the image not worth it.

I still use quite a bit of Foma 35mm film. They seem to be ok with that. Wish they would get a better anti halation layer though. Not sure why they don't.

[koraks]

I've even had my finger cut just loading film holders to begin with. It seems to be a combination of the especially hard brittle emulsion and the relatively crude sheet sizing machinery. And keep in mind, I've probably tried 90% of the sheet film options out there over the decades. And Foma films are the ONLY ones with this problem. It ain't my gloves at fault!

Well, I consider myself a plain old klutz much of the time - if someone gives my a present, I'll cut myself unwrapping it. I always sport a wide range of bruises and cuts from bumping into stuff etc. However, I've NEVER cut myself on sheet film, LOL! Having handled hundreds of sheets of Fomapan film, it's beyond me how I could manage to hurt myself using it, even if I tried.

Seriously though, there are perfectly valid reasons not to use certain films. Fomapan 100 is nice, but you have to like (or at least not be bothered by) its shoulder behavior. Fomapan 200 has awful reciprocity behavior and if that's important to you, there's no solution to it but to use a different kind of film. But some people just manage to come up with reasons that only seem to be the resulting really, really trying very hard to disqualify something.

No worries though; nobody's holding a gun to your head to make you use any particular film.

Now I'm off to develop another couple of Foma 200 sheets. Did a test carbon transfer from one of yesterday's batch last night; came out great! I even managed to walk away from the experience without requiring a blood transfusion! It's a miracle...

[Serge S]

I shot about 20 sheets of Foma 100 - in 4x5 & 5x7
No issues so far apart from the rebate edges not being square to the emulsion edge if that makes sense.
Have not tried the Foma 200

[Lachlan 717]

I shot about 20 sheets of Foma 100 - in 4x5 & 5x7
No issues so far apart from the rebate edges not being square to the emulsion edge if that makes sense.
Have not tried the Foma 200

Hopefully, I’ve understood your issue…

The rebate is based on no light hitting the sheet, isn’t it? As it, the area under the holder lip.

As such, this would be how the film was sitting in the holder, not the film itself (the film has a solid coating, after all). just tap the base of the holder, in the orientation you’re shooting,just prior to insertion, to bed the sheet on the base of the film holder rebate. This will square it.

[Serge S]

Thank You Lachlan!
Will give it a try.



Hopefully, I’ve understood your issue…

The rebate is based on no light hitting the sheet, isn’t it? As it, the area under the holder lip.

As such, this would be how the film was sitting in the holder, not the film itself (the film has a solid coating, after all). just tap the base of the holder, in the orientation you’re shooting,just prior to insertion, to bed the sheet on the base of the film holder rebate. This will square it.

[Lars Holte]

There are still problems with Fomapan 200 in 120:
234970
I love Fomapan 200 in 120 for its tonailty and hate it for its black dots or spots or streaks. Here are two pictures taken under nearly the same conditions, but admittedly on two different days and with two different lenses. The "black rain" on the Fompan 200 image should be pretty obvious compared to the Fomapan 100 image. I wish Fomapan would improve its quality control.
Fomapan 200 in 4x5 on the other hand is lovely and works very well.

[Bernice Loui]

Purchased 10 rolls of Arista EDU (same as Forma) 120 about a year ago, used 4 rolls to try.. still have 6 rolls not used..

Tonality is ok, defects are not ok... film is lower cost, in the overall picture, the initial lower cost is not so ok...


Bernice

[Gary Samson]

I purchase a box of 4x5 Fomapan 100, 50 sheets in June of 2020. Tiny black spots on all 12 sheets I shot and processed with two developers, Pyrocat M and Rodinal. That was it for me, I will not give that brand another chance.

[Scott Davis]

I've shot a lot of it in 5x7 (and some in 8x10). As others have mentioned, actual speed is more like 100, and it develops very fast (7 minutes in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100). I've noticed, as Drew mentioned, that the original boxes it comes in are NOT long-term storage solutions. Also, I get the zits on it (little black dots in the emulsion) when it ages. So it is best to buy, shoot and process quickly. If you can do that, you'll be very happy with it.

[Willie]

Using film you know has problems is like driving a car you know vapor locks. All is fine until...

[wooserco]

I've never experienced the issues that the two most vociferous opponents of Foma 200 have so virtuously extolled. HOWEVER, my experience has only been in 4x5, not 120. In 4x5, I like it. I've shot their 100 speed film in 135. I have one negative from this emulsion that survived the May 2022 flood. That is one of my favorite shots.

Sadly, ALL of my negatives were destroyed in our flood last May 11, so I can't share any photos to back up my statement.

Maybe I'm lucky or I'm not as discerning as others. But, if their quality was so bad as these two have so vehemently expressed. Frankly, it's getting old. Don't busy it. Don't shoot it. But, don't condemn others because they do. I've seen shots that I really like from FOMA 200. None of the problems that the vociferous dual have so vehemently posted about. I'm not doubting that they have their issues, I'm just not discerning enough to see it IN MY SHOTS.

[Daniel Unkefer]

I've heard that the 4x5 200 looks really good pushed to 800. I'm about to find out, the holders are now loaded. I'll post when I'm ready

[wooserco]

Looking forward to seeing your results! I REALLY need to get out shooting.

[nitroplait]

Foma 200 in 120 format is widely considered problematic, for the reasons Bernice shows above as well as tendency to excessive curling.

I find Foma 200 perfectly adequate as an economic alternative for 4X5 and 35mm formats - which are those formats I have used.
I haven't experienced any problems other than some scratches due to me forgetting the emulsion is softer than HP5+ or FP4+ and therefore requires a more gentle handling.

[tokyo_blues]

Could people reporting issues describe batch number, expiration date, and process used, down to the details, please.

I have had nothing but fantastic results from Foma in medium format over the past years. Foma 100 and 400 are simply perfect, and all the reported 'issues' I've seen online were due to operator mishandling. 100% of them. As for Foma 200, it had a couple of problematic batches, and it's definitely a softer emulsion than the other two, but it's mostly fine since a year or so.

The main issue IMHO with Foma is that it's perceived as a 'cheap' option which encourages 'experimental' (to put it mildly) handling.

You don't often see people complaining about Tmax or Trix because it's expensive, so it almost never ends in old pinhole junk or 100 year old folders with rusty rollers, or tortured by 'semi-stand' or 'stand' processes.

[interneg]

Could people reporting issues describe batch number, expiration date, and process used, down to the details, please.

I have had nothing but fantastic results from Foma in medium format over the past years. Foma 100 and 400 are simply perfect, and all the reported 'issues' I've seen online were due to operator mishandling. 100% of them. As for Foma 200, it had a couple of problematic batches, and it's definitely a softer emulsion than the other two, but it's mostly fine since a year or so.

The main issue IMHO with Foma is that it's perceived as a 'cheap' option which encourages 'experimental' (to put it mildly) handling.

You don't often see people complaining about Tmax or Trix because it's expensive, so it almost never ends in old pinhole junk or 100 year old folders with rusty rollers, or tortured by 'semi-stand' or 'stand' processes.

Most of Foma 200's problems relate to known problems with tabular grain emulsions suffering from physical stress (grain cracking) when subjected to the angles found in some 120 film paths - they even say as much in the current data sheet. Tmax 100 is on a thicker base than most 120 precisely because of this. I also recall something to the effect that if Foma resolved the issues, the film would be about level with Kodak/ Ilford pricing.

[Havoc]

Most of Foma 200's problems relate to known problems with tabular grain emulsions suffering from physical stress (grain cracking) when subjected to the angles found in some 120 film paths - they even say as much in the current data sheet. Tmax 100 is on a thicker base than most 120 precisely because of this. I also recall something to the effect that if Foma resolved the issues, the film would be about level with Kodak/ Ilford pricing.

Interesting. So far I have used the 200 in 120 format only in a Wista roll film holder. This has rather large rollers so I would not expect it. I still have a couple of rolls from the same buy, I'll give it a try in a Mamiya C330 which has a (so good as) straight path between the spools.

[koraks]

The main issue IMHO with Foma is that it's perceived as a 'cheap' option which encourages 'experimental' (to put it mildly) handling.

You don't often see people complaining about Tmax or Trix because it's expensive, so it almost never ends in old pinhole junk or 100 year old folders with rusty rollers, or tortured by 'semi-stand' or 'stand' processes.

While this may explain a tiny portion of the problems with Foma 200 in 120 format, the majority of the incidents I see described & illustrated and have experienced myself have nothing to do with poor handling. In my own case, I've even sent materials for evaluation to Foma who got back to me, confirmed the problem was with the film and sent me replacement rolls (with the same defects).

I'm not a fan of bashing a brand based on a particular problem that's demonstrably confined to a particular product, neither am I a fan of bashing people who report problems on the assumption that they don't know what they're doing.

[koraks]

A good chunk of Foma's market for camera film products seems to like to (quite loudly) portray themselves as more price than quality sensitive - you can draw your own conclusions from that as to how tied Foma's hands are.
Alright, but that brings up the question how useful it is to keep a product around that's fundamentally flawed. It's a bit like marketing a very cheap car, "but don't take it out onto the highway, because the bonnet will pop off and you may lose a wheel or two." Of course I understand that financial limitations may play a big role in Foma not being able to re-engineer Foma 200 in 120 format so that it actually works reliably. As a company, don't you sometimes have to conclude that something just doesn't fly and that it's perhaps better to not go there? Given how people respond to this, I'd think it makes sense to just discontinue the product. Just look at this thread; half the people are stating that they won't use Foma only because this particular product doesn't work, regardless of the fact that the other products in the lineup don't suffer from this problem. There's a clear spillover effect to their entire brand reputation.

[tokyo_blues]

Here's a decent read

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26629722

Quoting from the abstract,


Online product reviews help consumers infer product quality, and the mean (average) rating is often used as a proxy for product quality. However, two self-selection biases, acquisition bias (mostly consumers with a favorable predisposition acquire a product and hence write a product review) and underreporting bias (consumers with extreme, either positive or negative, ratings are more likely to write reviews than consumers with moderate product ratings), render the mean rating a biased estimator of product quality, and they result in the well-known J-shaped (positively skewed, asymmetric, bimodal) distribution of online product reviews.


If you're enjoying something, and getting on with it, you're less likely to reach for the closest keyboard and vent.

[iml]

FWIW, I have shot a lot of Foma 100 in 8x10 and 4x5 sheets over the years and never had any problems with it at all, it's a very decent film. Anecdotally I have heard that Foma 200 is less reliable, but I never saw the point of it anyway. Foma 100 rated at EI 64 in Pyrocat HD works just fine, I never saw the need for an ISO 200 sheet film that seems to be closer to EI 100, given that Foma 100 exists and isn't significantly slower.

[Daniel Unkefer]

I like using FOMA films from time to time, have some to use up. But I don't think I would use it for any photo making that is not repeatable. DON'T like how it curls tightly at all

[Rick A]

I've been shooting Foma 100 in medium and LF for years with no issues other than the ones I created. I've been trying Foma 200 in my 5x7 for about a year now and still can't wrap my brain around it, as in I still am not satisfied with any of my results. I haven't tried it in medium format, in fact I won't be since I'm selling my MF camera and only shooting LF these days. My developer of choice is PMK Pyro.

[Havoc]

I've been shooting Foma 100 in medium and LF for years with no issues other than the ones I created. I've been trying Foma 200 in my 5x7 for about a year now and still can't wrap my brain around it, as in I still am not satisfied with any of my results.

Care to tell us what you can't wrap your head around?

[paulbarden]

I've been shooting Foma 100 in medium and LF for years with no issues other than the ones I created. I've been trying Foma 200 in my 5x7 for about a year now and still can't wrap my brain around it, as in I still am not satisfied with any of my results. I haven't tried it in medium format, in fact I won't be since I'm selling my MF camera and only shooting LF these days. My developer of choice is PMK Pyro.

Some emulsions simply do not play nice when developed in PMK. Perhaps that is what you are seeing?

[Mark Sampson]

One thing to learn from all this is that manufacturing B&W film is an extremely complicated and difficult endeavor. In my past career I was lucky to occasionally work with Kodak's film designers and production engineers. The amount of institutional knowledge, and the skills and dedication of the personnel, were truly amazing.
I'd already been working for the company for some years, and had made my living using Kodak film from the start, yet it was a revelation to find out just how complex the process of making film is. Of course Kodak's resources were enormous, and a great deal of research was done before releasing a new product. Equally true, they didn't always get it right (I'm sure many of us would have stories to tell), but EK was able to dominate the industry for a hundred years, partly because of the reliable quality of their film and materials.
Back on topic, it's likely that Foma lacks the resources to fix the issues described with their 200 film. i'm sure they want to provide a top-quality product, but no one is perfect.
For the record, I have not used any Foma film, but do enjoy using their paper, and I wish them success.
And anyone who has an interest in all this should find a copy of Bob Shanebrook's essential book, "Making Kodak Film", at makingkodakfilm.com, IIRC.

[Drew Wiley]

PMK works fine for Foma 200 development. That was never an issue for me, but the poor quality control and miserable long exposure characteristics. Recalibrating PMK mentality for this film is mainly a matter of recognizing how this film develops especially fast, along with fact it is nowhere near 200 box speed.

Trying to make comparisons to Foma 100 and 400 is not realistic, since the 200 product has a very different, especially long straight line characteristic curve.

[Scott Davis]

I've been shooting Foma 100 in medium and LF for years with no issues other than the ones I created. I've been trying Foma 200 in my 5x7 for about a year now and still can't wrap my brain around it, as in I still am not satisfied with any of my results. I haven't tried it in medium format, in fact I won't be since I'm selling my MF camera and only shooting LF these days. My developer of choice is PMK Pyro.

A: try switching to Pyrocat HD.
B: make sure you rate it at 100 when exposing, not 200. It is NOT a 200 speed film, all of Foma's protestations to the contrary.
C: as Drew noted, it develops extremely fast. My experience has been 7 minutes @ 75F in a Jobo rotary processor running at the slowest available speed, vs 11 for FP4+ in the same circumstances. This is developing for printing Palladium. You may need to cut the time to 6 minutes if you are only printing silver.

[Drew Wiley]

Pyrocat and PMK seem to be quite similar in this respect : 6 min @20C was my normal time with either.

[Daniel Unkefer]

Anybody here try pushing large format FOMA 200 two stops? I'm about to start some testing along those lines. Anybody?

I thinking maybe Acufine (I have plenty) or maybe Microphen? I have both. D23 1:1 is my go-to soup for about everything

[koraks]

While I agree that Foma possibly should consider if they really want 120 on the market; it is worth noting that only few people complains about their large format version of Foma 200.

Indeed. It's a product I enjoy using a lot, in both 4x5 and 8x10!

[Oren Grad]

I've removed a mass of bickering about what is or isn't wrong with Foma films and whether to trust them.

Make your point, preferably supported with clearly-described, well-documented evidence, and then move on. Assume that other members are capable of weighing conflicting evidence and making thoughtful decisions about what will best serve their purposes. It's no help to anyone to keep reiterating your opinion in an effort to bludgeon into submission those who have had a different experience or who bring alternative information or perspectives to the discussion.

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/5513/30160624653_36f14ee418_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/MXc5VT)Makiflex Std 250 Imagon Foma 200 2 (https://flic.kr/p/MXc5VT) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Makiflex Std, 250mm Rodenstock Imagon, H5.8 Imagon Disk with Imagon ND Filter, Foma 200 roll film, Legacy Pro Mic-X, Replenished.

[Drew Wiley]

What do you mean by "pushing" Foma 200 two stops, Daniel? Taking a low contrast scene and doing a Plus 2 longer development, ala Zone jargon? It's not great at that, which is one reason the late Michael Smith cursed it (versus his preferred Super-XX, which can be plus developed significantly).

Or do you mean exposing it two stops faster, at 800 speed instead of 200, and then trying to recover an acceptable image? I think everyone would agree that it's nowhere near true 200 speed. So essentially you'd be three stops off, and would be sacrificing that same amount from the shadow values. Not a good idea either. But since the straight line goes way down there, deep into the shadows, with only a minimal toe, you might partially get away with it in relation to a scene relatively low contrast to begin with. If in doubt, experiment first.

[Daniel Unkefer]

I mean exposing at EI 800 (OK maybe 400 we will see) AND then developing +2 stops of pushing (maybe more). Not easy to handhold an F8 lens (65mm), something completely new to me, but fun. I've found by Googling, some images that make me think it might work. It's an interesting alternative to pushing HP5+ and TMX400 to EI 1600, and developing to EI 3200, which I do all the time with 35mm HP5+, it's not a stretch at all. TMX400 we will see, not familar but now I have plenty to test.

[Drew Wiley]

Oh gosh, when TMY400 will do that so much better, sacrificing only a single zone of deep shadow, shooting at 800, instead of 3 zones in the case of F 200. I'd sometimes lop a stop off TMY, and then overdevelop it a bit to get that blacked-out-graphic shadow effect ala Brett Weston. Foma 200 is far less malleable, and has a far slower real-world speed (2 stops lower than TMY to begin with). But if you have it around anyway, no harm trying it. Foma 200 doesn't overdevelop well either, certainly nothing like the potential of TMax films, classic ole Super-XX, or even FP4.

Hp5 has a relatively long toe, so is in another category. Frankly, what I liked to do with HP5 was to counterintuitively both overexpose and overdevelop it (pyro) and then rein it back in with a supplementary mask. That's a lot of cumulative extra density; but I have some really muscular light sources on my 8x10 enlargers. Delta 100 has a medium toe, and can be overdeveloped well for extra contrast gradient.

I'm just speaking technically and predictably. But sometimes technical felonies turn out to be creative gems.

[mihag]

I mean exposing at EI 800 (OK maybe 400 we will see) AND then developing +2 stops of pushing (maybe more). Not easy to handhold an F8 lens (65mm), something completely new to me, but fun. I've found by Googling, some images that make me think it might work. It's an interesting alternative to pushing HP5+ and TMX400 to EI 1600, and developing to EI 3200, which I do all the time with 35mm HP5+, it's not a stretch at all. TMX400 we will see, not familar but now I have plenty to test.

I made quite a few prints (on Adox Variotone) from pushed Fomapan 200 120. My developer od choice at that time was T-MAX 1+4 @12'.

[Daniel Unkefer]

Thanks mihag! Just so happens I have a bottle of TMAX I have never opened, it's expiration 2016. Have to give it a try soon. Film's expired, so is the chemistry LOL. I know I may need to retry with fresh stocks maybe

[Daniel Unkefer]

Oh gosh, when TMY400 will do that so much better, sacrificing only a single zone of deep shadow, shooting at 800, instead of 3 zones in the case of F 200. I'd sometimes lop a stop off TMY, and then overdevelop it a bit to get that blacked-out-graphic shadow effect ala Brett Weston. Foma 200 is far less malleable, and has a far slower real-world speed (2 stops lower than TMY to begin with). But if you have it around anyway, no harm trying it. Foma 200 doesn't overdevelop well either, certainly nothing like the potential of TMax films, classic ole Super-XX, or even FP4.

Hp5 has a relatively long toe, so is in another category. Frankly, what I liked to do with HP5 was to counterintuitively both overexpose and overdevelop it (pyro) and then rein it back in with a supplementary mask. That's a lot of cumulative extra density; but I have some really muscular light sources on my 8x10 enlargers. Delta 100 has a medium toe, and can be overdeveloped well for extra contrast gradient.

I'm just speaking technically and predictably. But sometimes technical felonies turn out to be creative gems.

That's helpful. Thanks Drew. I do have a muscular LED head for my DII's. Hmmm

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/5723/30717824571_cf9d978110_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/NNqT42)250 Imagon Makiflex Foma (https://flic.kr/p/NNqT42) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Makiflex Std, 250mm Rodenstock Imagon, H5.8 Imagon Disk with Imagon ND Filter, Foma 200 roll film, Legacy Pro Mic-X, Replenished.

[joho]

Anybody here try pushing large format FOMA 200 two stops? I'm about to start some testing along those lines. Anybody?

I thinking maybe Acufine (I have plenty) or maybe Microphen? I have both. D23 1:1 is my go-to soup for about everything

Been using Foma200 at 800-to -1600 asa but with an old camera 9x12cm. [with glass plate holders modified to film] in a jobo drum.
due to the camera & lens combo the developer - I do not guarantee the save out come !! let me send a photo but first can I have an idea as what are the results you want ????
Foma 200 s a picky film it has a tamperamento. let me send two to three thumbs, due to out look needed the chemistry used for me may not be what you are looking for.

[Daniel Unkefer]

joho,

Hi Again Well that's good I have 9x12cm Foma 200 and I have olde cameras! LOL And JOBO stuff too.

Primarally I am shooting superwide 9x12 and 4x5 handheld with an olde 65mm F8 Super Angulon, on my home built Sinar Norma Handy. The faster real speed with this crazy camera the better. Shadow detail has got to be close to decent, although I'm sure it won't be. I'm about ready to take it out, it needs to be spring weather around here

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52715002621_70e617e8d9_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ojfaHx)SONY DSC (https://flic.kr/p/2ojfaHx) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

[joho]

Ok -i get your idea, see this just as you say for push to 900asa see the tones.236912

[joho]

236913
this is foma on the streets hand held 9x12 at 1000asa sun light f120 1/120s filtered red...

[Drew Wiley]

Oh great! Now Neofin blue is mutating ordinary potatoes into giant crawling mites, devouring people? That's a B horror movie if there ever was one.

[Daniel Unkefer]

236913
this is foma on the streets hand held 9x12 at 1000asa sun light f120 1/120s filtered red...

Looks good to me. If out street shooting I could go with that. Thanks Me I'd leave out the red filter. I have Med Yello on most of my lenses. So I can go with this look or compare HP5+ and TMX400 for very different rendering. This looks olde school to me. I like it

[joho]

Have been working on the "old" look with Foma 200 with the MENTOR for a year +.
The street photo__ ath street __ was scanned to digi- so its not that contrasty, so till I prof the negs in contact prints and enlargements ????? scanning the negs I estimate a loss of the true out come.

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/21073944691_559c30af9b_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/y7etxZ)Makiflex 360 Tele Arton FOMA MicX (https://flic.kr/p/y7etxZ) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Plaubel Makiflex Standard, 360mm Schneider Tele-Arton, FOMA Classic 200 Microdol-X Replenished Straight Omega DII 180mm Rodagon laser aligned Aristo #2 RC Dektol

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/21072049485_2073d295b0_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

Makiflex Standard, Schneider 120mm F6.8 Angulon @F11 FOMA Classic Microdol-X

[joho]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/21072049485_2073d295b0_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

Makiflex Standard, Schneider 120mm F6.8 Angulon @F11 FOMA Classic Microdol-X

What!! Microdol-X is still sold ???? any info ???

[Daniel Unkefer]

Yes! Right here:

https://www.freestylephoto.com/749710-LegacyPro-Mic-X-Film-Developer-(Makes-1-Gallon)

Buy two bags, use the second to make the kodak recipe Mic-X Replenisher. I have straight Replenished Mic-X that is over four years old, it gets better as it "seasons". Looooonnnnngggg developing times with this stuff, which is what I want. I have gone out to thirty five minutes at 62F and it hasen't overcooked the film. Great stuff!

[interneg]

What!! Microdol-X is still sold ???? any info ???

Perceptol is the Ilford functional equivalent, the proper formula for Microdol can be found in a Kodak patent (Richard Henn was the inventor), the '-X' was mainly the addition of Chlororesorcinol as an anti-dichroic stain agent (which are now mostly incorporated in emulsions).

[Michael R]

And despite the name Mic-“X”, I highly doubt the LegacyPro product contains either chlororesorcinol or the benzophenone from the other Henn patent. It is probably virtually identical to Perceptol.


Perceptol is the Ilford functional equivalent, the proper formula for Microdol can be found in a Kodak patent (Richard Henn was the inventor), the '-X' was mainly the addition of Chlororesorcinol as an anti-dichroic stain agent (which are now mostly incorporated in emulsions).

[Daniel Unkefer]

Here's the original datasheet, the Replenisher Formula works, substituting Legacy Mic-X for Microdol-X. They are essentially the same in my book. Works great with FOMA 120 and large format

https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/j4027-2003_11.pdf

You use 3/4 of the gallon of water, then add Sodium Carbonate. Works good with Legacy as a substitute. Olde Mic-X can be sketchy but not all the time. I've had good luck with olde cans. I do filter my gallon every so often, and use a glass brown bottle for storage.

[interneg]

And despite the name Mic-“X”, I highly doubt the LegacyPro product contains either chlororesorcinol or the benzophenone from the other Henn patent. It is probably virtually identical to Perceptol.

Perceptol was released in 1969 & Ilford had significant research interests into dichroic-stain preventing agents, so I'd be wary of making that linkage to the LP Mic-X product - not least as the quantities used are going to be below disclosable levels. That being said, from hints in SDS that have bubbled up over the years, the basic formula of Perceptol (barring specific chelation agents or anti-stain addenda) seems likely to be compliant with 2,466,423 - which expired, conveniently enough, a couple of years before Perceptol came to the market.

[Michael R]

True, I'm overstepping. There could easily be small quantities of other active compounds in Perceptol besides the "core" chemicals we know it contains (metol, sod. sulfite, NaCl).


Perceptol was released in 1969 & Ilford had significant research interests into dichroic-stain preventing agents, so I'd be wary of making that linkage to the LP Mic-X product - not least as the quantities used are going to be below disclosable levels. That being said, from hints in SDS that have bubbled up over the years, the basic formula of Perceptol (barring specific chelation agents or anti-stain addenda) seems likely to be compliant with 2,466,423 - which expired, conveniently enough, a couple of years before Perceptol came to the market.