Fomapan 100

[Richard Littlewood]

I'm usually an FP-4 regular, but have got hold of plenty of Fomapan 100 in 5x4 and I'd like to give it a whirl rotary deving in ID-11. I'd like to hear how others have found this film in comparison to more 'premium' films, especially tonally and how it gets on with contrast filters. I've been using FP-4 for years, so this stuff is a bit of a departure. I have pretty much nailed FP-4/ID-11 rotary processing, and as a starter I'm thinking with the Fomapan - 80iso, ID-11 1+1, rotary, 8mins. I know it's tests ahead, but does that sound near-ish?

[IanG]

In many regards it will give similar results to FP4 but it is slower than the box speed, my tests showed 50 EI and it requires less development than most other films - around 2/3rds. It has a tendency to build up contrast extremely quickly with over development.

My experience is your over optimistic of the speed, and I'd suggest using 80% of your FP4 times as a staring point.

Ian

[Vlad Soare]

I started using Fomapan 100 about 1.5 years ago because of its price. Then, when I moved up to 4x5", I also chose Fomapan, because in large format the price difference was even greater. It's three times cheaper than 4x5" Kodak or Ilford films.
I chose it solely for its price, thinking that I'll go back to Ilford or Kodak when I can afford it.
However, as time went by, I fell in love with it. I came to know it very well, and I love it. It's an excellent film in all formats and is of very consistent quality from batch to batch. Now I can afford more expensive films, but I still buy Fomapan because I like it and I became used to it. Every time I order some film I first decide to buy Kodak, then change my mind and end up with Foma instead.

I find Fomapan 100 to be quite contrasty. My development times are always noticeably shorter than recommended ones, whether I use D-76, D-23 or R09.
My normal development times in home-made D-76 diluted 1+1, at 20 degrees Centigrade, are 8 minutes in an inversion tank (120 film) and 6 minutes in a Jobo with constant agitation (sheet film). Yours may differ, of course.

I rate it at ASA 80 when applying the Zone System with large format, and ASA 100 when taking street pictures based on incident metering.

If you already have it, by all means use it. I'm sure you won't be disappointed. It's a good film.


It has a tendency to build up contrast extremely quickly with over development.
Yup. That's my experience, too. It's very easy to block up the highlights. I even managed to overdevelop it pretty badly with D-23, despite its reputation as a soft, non-highlight-blocking developer. :)
Go easy on the development, especially on sunny days.

[Vlad Soare]

In case you haven't already seen this:
Fomapan 100 technical data sheet (http://www.foma.cz/Upload/foma/prilohy/F_pan_100_en.pdf)
Great documentation, in my opinion. :)

[eddie]

i use foma 100 sheet film in many sizes and love it. sorry i do not use a motor rotary developer machine. but in tray and in my 4x5 daylight tank i have used d76, hc110 and pyro hd.

i have used hc100 most often. dilution 1:63 for 9 min and 1:119 for 18 min with agitation every 3rd.

pyro hd 2:2:100 for 8 min is working well for me.

[Richard Littlewood]

Thanks all. Vlad your 6 mins in a rotary processor sounds like a good starting point. Interested to know what it is exactly you like about the film.

[Gene McCluney]

I know what I like about it. It is reasonably good, and it is CHEAP. (compared to other films).

[Scott Whitford]

I've shot about a hundred sheets of Fomapan 100 so far, and here are my thoughts.

I agree with the others about the contrast. Using pyrocat M at 1+1+100, I find that I need to rate the film at no more than ISO 50 and use very short development times to fit my negs to grade 2 or 3 paper. Around 5-6 minutes for normal development at 70 deg F using constant agitation (Jobo). My biggest complaint about this film/developer combination is that in order to keep the macro-contrast to a manageable level, you sacrifice micro-contrast. The film just doesn't look "sharp". For instance, for the same scene on HP5+ developed for the same paper grade, the detail and texture really jump out in comparison.

I've also tried rating the film at ISO 200 and developing in Diafine. This combination seems to yield better micro-contrast, but with the usual trade-offs associated with a push developer.

Scott

[Roger Vadim]

I really like the film in Rodinal 1:100, EI 80 (sorry, don't have the times here). Rotary processing won't work too good, I use the "Taco" method. The effort is really worth it, beautiful old school looks, stunning tonality and it looks sharp. Really nice Film for a different look. But it does become quite dense quickly...
My favorite film at the Moment (althou I need to do a bit of a proper testing...)

Enjoy and play,
cheers, Michael

[Vlad Soare]

Interested to know what it is exactly you like about the film.
It's a classic emulsion. It doesn't rely on sensitizing dyes in order to use less silver and to save money. Because of this, it responds well to changes in development and to the choice of developer. You can easily see grain and sharpness differences between D-76 and Rodinal, for example. You can easily see the effect of shortening or prolonging the development. It responds very well to stand development (tried it myself) and to compensating development in two baths (tried this myself, too). It's a classic film, and all classic theories apply to it.
That doesn't mean it's soft. The emulsion is hardened and isn't more prone to scratching than any other modern emulsion.

It's very strongly affected by the Schwarzschild effect. Some regard this as a bad thing, but I love it. I use the Schwarzschild effect to my advantage, and I just love being able to expose for minutes, or even tens of minutes.

It has a very good base. The base is polyester even in the 120 format, where most other manufacturers use cellulose triacetate. Polyester should age more gracefully, at least in theory. In sheet form the base is clear polyester. No pink tint, no magenta, no gray. Perfectly clear. 120 is blue, though, but that's the color of the polyester itself, it doesn't come from any sensitizing dyes.
The base dries perfectly flat in all formats (well, sheet film doesn't count :D), and it has never given me any Newton rings despite using a plain glass carrier in my former enlarger (my current one is glassless). It dries flatter than Tri-X and FP4+, at least in my experience.

The 120 version has a self-adhesive sealing tape, so you don't have to lick it. As far as I now, Fuji is the only other manufacturer that offers this feature.

It doesn't show its price. There's nothing cheap about it. No manufacturing defects, no variations from batch to batch, no flimsy and curly base, no soft and scratchy emulsion. I don't know about other Foma dealers, but our local one also provides the quality certificate of the current batch when you buy film from them, stating batch number, manufacturing date, etc.

It's very well documented. The technical data sheets can be downloaded from Foma, and I find them excellent.

This is what I like about it. :)

On the minus side: too contrasty, a bit grainier than other films of the same speed (but I shoot mostly 6x7 and 4x5", so I couldn't care less about grain, and even in 35mm the grain doesn't look bad at all - on the contrary, it has an appealing classic look), lousy Schwarzschild characteristics (though I personally regard this as an advantage).

[Roger Vadim]

It's a classic emulsion. It doesn't rely on sensitizing dyes in order to use less silver and to save money. Because of this, it responds well to changes in development and to the choice of developer. You can easily see grain and sharpness differences between D-76 and Rodinal, for example. You can easily see the effect of shortening or prolonging the development. It responds very well to stand development (tried it myself) and to compensating development in two baths (tried this myself, too). It's a classic film, and all classic theories apply to it.
That doesn't mean it's soft. The emulsion is hardened and isn't more prone to scratching than any other modern emulsion.

It's very strongly affected by the Schwarzschild effect. Some regard this as a bad thing, but I love it. I use the Schwarzschild effect to my advantage, and I just love being able to expose for minutes, or even tens of minutes.

It has a very good base. The base is polyester even in the 120 format, where most other manufacturers use cellulose triacetate. Polyester should age more gracefully, at least in theory. In sheet form the base is clear polyester. No pink tint, no magenta, no gray. Perfectly clear. 120 is blue, though, but that's the color of the polyester itself, it doesn't come from any sensitizing dyes.
The base dries perfectly flat in all formats (well, sheet film doesn't count :D), and it has never given me any Newton rings despite using a plain glass carrier in my former enlarger (my current one is glassless). It dries flatter than Tri-X and FP4+, at least in my experience.

The 120 version has a self-adhesive sealing tape, so you don't have to lick it. As far as I now, Fuji is the only other manufacturer that offers this feature.

It doesn't show its price. There's nothing cheap about it. No manufacturing defects, no variations from batch to batch, no flimsy and curly base, no soft and scratchy emulsion. I don't know about other Foma dealers, but our local one also provides the quality certificate of the current batch when you buy film from them, stating batch number, manufacturing date, etc.

It's very well documented. The technical data sheets can be downloaded from Foma, and I find them excellent.

This is what I like about it. :)

On the minus side: too contrasty, a bit grainier than other films of the same speed (but I shoot mostly 6x7 and 4x5", so I couldn't care less about grain, and even in 35mm the grain doesn't look bad at all - on the contrary, it has an appealing classic look), lousy Schwarzschild characteristics (though I personally regard this as an advantage).

Very nice summary. Thanks!

[Richard Littlewood]

Thanks for that Vlad. I'm going to dev it like I do FP4 - in home brewed ID-11 1+2 in a Jobo.

[ghost]

and best of all- this is a manufacturer who is commited to silver based images. support Foma!

[mikebarger]

Aren't all manufacturers of analog film supporting our habit?

Mike

[Neil Purling]

Clearly Foma 100 can be very good. I had some of it in 120 roll, when I was getting acquainted with a Holga. Things did not go well because with such a simple camera there is no way to bracket exposure, not with a un-modified Holga anyway.
I have not done well with the 4x5 version either. With 4x5 you are usually running a slow exposure to get decent depth, of the order of 1/2 to 1 sec. Apparently the film doesn't like long exposures. that's going to be interesting with my Brass W.A.R's working at f32 if the weather is garbage.
I am after a dev time that you know is effective for Foma 100 in R09, the old Rodinal formula.
I have some 35mm Foma 100 to use to do a clip test and check the speed I ought to rate the 4x5 stuff at. Then any deficiency in exposure is down to that Schwarzchild thingie. At least it won't mean burning through as many sheets before the 4x5 Foma 100 looks the same as the 35mm variant in respect of exposure & developement.

[Vlad Soare]

Indeed, Foma 100 seems to me to be identical in all formats as far as exposure and development are concerned.
In R09 1+40 my normal development time is 6 minutes with LF (Jobo - continuous back-and-forth rotation), and 7 minutes with 120 and 135 (SS tank, five inversions every minute), both at 20°C plus-minus half a degree.
Stand development for two hours (but with pre-wash and then continuous agitation in the first minute) in R09 1+160 works very well with very contrasty subjects, like night city scenes. I've tried it on 4x5" once, and the exposure ranged from 56" (a reading of 8" corrected for Schwarzschild) to 2'15" (from a reading of 15"). I got good shadow detail and well defined highlights, which didn't leak into the surrounding areas. It was exactly what I had expected from stand development.

[Richard Littlewood]

Vlad. How do you find those longer exposures? Just looked at the Foma site, and are they long! Do you find Foma's times pretty near. I would have thought given this films dev/contrast issues and the long exposure times it could spell trouble. Sounds to me you have done a few tests.

[Vlad Soare]

I compiled a small table based on the technical data sheet. I've printed it on a small piece of paper and keep it in my camera bag. I haven't used all the times in that table, just a few of them, I believe 8", 15", 1' and perhaps 10", so I can't comment on the entire chart, but the few correction factors I did use proved to be spot-on. I'll attach the table.

In this picture (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=41006&page=3&highlight=foma) I didn't want to record any passers-by, so the twelve minutes exposure (corrected from one minute) suited me perfectly. A film with better Schwarzschild characteristics would have recorded people, or at least shadows of people.
The development was shorter than normal to compensate for the increase in contrast caused by the Schwarzschild correction. The negative is quite easily printable, but the contrast is still a bit too high, requiring either split contrast printing or a pre-flash. Next time I take a similar picture I'll shorten the development even further (or, better yet, use either stand or two bath development).

Sometimes I do wish the exposures were shorter. In this picture (http://picasaweb.google.ro/vsoare/Misc?authkey=Gv1sRgCO7AiIusns3SAw#) the exposure of 56 seconds gave me the effect I was after. I would have liked to use a smaller aperture, but that would have given me an unacceptably long exposure. With a film with better Schwarzschild behaviour I could have got the same exposure time with a smaller aperture.
This time I had no problems with the contrast, because I used the stand developing method.
The comments attached to the pictures were meant for a fellow photographer who wanted to know about stand development and to see an example. :)

So, to answer your questions, yes, so far I find Foma's correction factors pretty near, and yes, the strong Schwarzschild effect and the film's inherent high contrast can spell trouble when you develop normally, unless you shorten the development. However, the few tests I did with stand development were very encouraging. Who knows, maybe this could be the key to managing Fomapan's contrast in long exposures.

[Richard Littlewood]

Vlad. Again thanks for that. I can see there may be times when the long exposures needed may be a little off-putting, say in natural, darkening light (evening). But where the light is pretty constant, yet dim, a long exposure may be less of a problem. Also Forte's times assume an iso of 100, and not (as I have heard) a more true 50-64 speed. I have a few night pics lined up, so when I've established a dev time for this film rated at around iso 64, I think I'll run a few tests, at night, with varying times, rating it nearer 100, and start by reducing the dev time by say 30%. If contrast is too much of an issue, then as you say, the compensating route may be the way to go.

[Richard Littlewood]

Did a few tests myself, and found this film (to my liking) is around 64iso, dev'd in a Jobo, ID-11 1+2, 20c 8.5 mins, for an average. Also did a metered 2min exposure for 5mins that came out pretty well. Maybe Foma's times are for 100iso in this respect, and possibly a bit too generous.
On the whole I find this a good film and not unlike FP4, although I do think it is less forgiving in developing than FP4.

[77seriesiii]

I've been using foma 100 for the past few months and have developed close to 100 sheets all in pyrocat HD in semi-stand, sorry no rotary. I have heard that there are some contrast issues but I have not seen that, at least in the way I am processing. I am still narrowing in on my personal EI, but again at stock 100 and semi-stand, everything seems to come out very nice. I have even shot into the Schwarzwald area and have had initial good luck.

Have also shot and developed the 120 version and cannot get the stuff to lay flat to save my life. No where near as bad as Rollei Retro 100 but still curls. I am trying to figure out if the curling is something I am doing or just the film. So far I have only developed the 120 in HD, I will mix up some ID-11 and rodinal and see what happens.

Overall, love the film and deal with the 120 curling and you cant beat the price.

./e

[Vlad Soare]

I've been using foma 100 for the past few months and have developed close to 100 sheets all in pyrocat HD in semi-stand, sorry no rotary. I have heard that there are some contrast issues but I have not seen that, at least in the way I am processing. I am still narrowing in on my personal EI, but again at stock 100 and semi-stand, everything seems to come out very nice. I have even shot into the Schwarzwald area and have had initial good luck.
Indeed, it responds very well to stand development and shows a strong compensating effect.
Here (http://picasaweb.google.ro/vsoare/Misc?authkey=Gv1sRgCO7AiIusns3SAw#) is an example shot at f/8 for 56 seconds (metered 8 seconds). Despite the high contrast scene, and despite the Schwarzschild effect, the negative was printed on normal grade paper. This is a scan of the print.


Have also shot and developed the 120 version and cannot get the stuff to lay flat to save my life.
That's strange. I have never had any curling problem with it. It dries perfectly flat. I use a 6x7 glassless carrier in my enlarger, and I have absolutely no flatness problem.
I have heard that a few years ago they had a curling problem, and that they solved it by changing the base. But I can't certify that it's true, as I've been using the film for less than two years and had no problems with it. I've never seen an older Foma, and I'm not even sure whether the supposed problem used to affect 120, or 35mm, or both. It's just something I remember having read on the internet some time ago, so take it with a pinch of salt.
Unless you happen to have an old batch of film, I suspect there may be something about the processing or drying stage that causes this curling.

[jb7]

Vlad, that is a very good summary-

I've only used the Fomapan 200,
and would be interested to hear if you've used it yourself,
and if you have any thoughts about the comparison-

Particularly regarding reciprocity and grain-

Thank you-

joseph

[Helcio J Tagliolatto]

Isn't Arista Edu Ultra 100, in sheets, exactly a repacked Foma 100?
I think so, because I got very similar results with both, all pleasant to my taste.
Hélcio

[Vlad Soare]

Joseph, I've only used a few rolls of Fomapan 200, in 120 only. As far as I can tell from this limited experience, it has the same tendency of building up density very quickly, and the grain is noticeably coarser.
I don't know about reciprocity. I haven't tried it.

I've read that the Arista.EDU Ultra is Fomapan, while the plain Arista.EDU was Fortepan. I don't know for sure; we have no Arista here.

[jb7]

Thanks Vlad-
I think I'll be giving the 100 a go...

[gevalia]

Isn't Arista Edu Ultra 100, in sheets, exactly a repacked Foma 100?
I think so, because I got very similar results with both, all pleasant to my taste.
Hélcio

Yes.

[Pete Watkins]

Hi Vlad,
Have you ever dealt with the Foma factory in The Czech Republic.
I'm thinking about it but I really need to know if the service is reliable.
Best wishes,
Pete

[Vlad Soare]

With the factory, no. I'm not that important. :) I'm just an amateur who uses on average two or three films a month. I buy their products either from the official Romanian dealer, or on-line from Maco, depending on availability.

[Jiri Vasina]

I've tried communication with the factory, and also through a dedicated local shop (when I was thinking about 5x12 camera to find out if they would be willing to provide film), but my tries were unsuccessful. Completely. No answers to direct questions - emails. Declining answers (no it could not be done. it is not possible) through the shop. They had even problems providing Fomapan 200 sheet film (although it's available abroad, they seem extremely reluctant to sell it in the Czech Republic), also imperial sized Fomapan 100 sheets are a bit difficult to obtain (they only sell metric sizes here).

But like Vlad, I'm not that important, just and amateur, so noone interesting to that factory...

[Pete Watkins]

Thanks Vlad, thanks Jiri. Foma in 5x7 is hard to find over here (from any reliable source anyway). I'll rethink the situation.
Best wishes,
Pete.

[Vlad Soare]

Fomafoto (http://www.fomafoto.com/index.php?page=shop.browse&category_id=35&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=1) in Norway lists 5x7" Fomapan 100 and 200. They're in the EU, so there's no customs or any extra charges.
I have no experience with them. I usually buy from Maco, but I see they only offer 13x18cm, not 5x7". The Romanian Foma dealer also doesn't offer imperial sizes, only metric. I buy 120 from them, but I have to get 4x5" from Maco.

[Jiri Vasina]

Yes Vlad, I know. But to me it's a bit strange to order Czech goods (manufactured in the Czech Republic) to be exported to Norway and then sent back to the Czech Republic.

I can obtain the imperial sizes also locally, but it was not easy to find out - the clerk at the dedicated shop had first to ask the factory for availability, then for the price, they have a minimum order (well, not large, but not a single box). And that was only possible because I buy in this shop quite regularly, and the lady already knows me... That should not be a standard way.

(if they do not regularly deliver the imperial sizes to the shops, they could list it in their web shop, with a note on availability... But not so. And the same for Fomapan 200...).

[Philippe Grunchec]

Jiri: can you tell us the name of this shop? Do they have a website?

[Jiri Vasina]

Philippe, unfortunatelly I can not - it's a stone shop, nothing virtual. I could give you the address here in Brno (Czech Republic :) ). Foma's regular web shop is here (http://www.fomaobchod.cz/), but they have a note about not shipping abroad - not even to Slovakia, which is quite unusual for our mentality here...

[mhulsman]

I use fomapan 100 in 8x10.
Rate it at EI 80 .
Develop in JOBO continues rotation 20 degrees celcius.
In XTOL 1+1, 100 ml per 8x10 sheet.
This works for me.

[kleinbatavia]

I really like the film in Rodinal 1:100, EI 80 (sorry, don't have the times here). Rotary processing won't work too good, I use the "Taco" method. The effort is really worth it, beautiful old school looks, stunning tonality and it looks sharp. Really nice Film for a different look. But it does become quite dense quickly...
My favorite film at the Moment (althou I need to do a bit of a proper testing...)

Enjoy and play,
cheers, Michael

I've shot hundreds of sheets of Foma 100, which I shoot at 80 and my go to developer is APH09 (Rodinal). I generally use it at 1:50 and rotary process for 8:00. This consistently gives me good results with sufficient detail in the highlights whilst maintaining a good contrast curve. I spotmeter the subject and adjust shutter speeds accordingly. Taking an average reading, I have found images have a tendency to come out flat. Anyway, rotary developing works for me.

[kleinbatavia]

Fomafoto (http://www.fomafoto.com/index.php?page=shop.browse&category_id=35&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=1) in Norway lists 5x7" Fomapan 100 and 200. They're in the EU, so there's no customs or any extra charges.
I have no experience with them. I usually buy from Maco, but I see they only offer 13x18cm, not 5x7". The Romanian Foma dealer also doesn't offer imperial sizes, only metric. I buy 120 from them, but I have to get 4x5" from Maco.

Please be advised that buying from Norway will result in customs charges when buying from an EU country!

[Willie]

Aren't all manufacturers of analog film supporting our habit?

Mike

Film. Just FILM. analog film is wrong. Just plain wrong.

[Jockos]

Please be advised that buying from Norway will sometimes result in customs charges when buying from an EU country!

There, fixed it for you!
Never had any problems with customs importing Foma film from Norway myself, I've taken in three orders so far. Both film and chemicals :)

[Vlad Soare]

Please be advised that buying from Norway will result in customs charges when buying from an EU country!

Although Norway is not part of the European Union, there are some agreements regarding the free flow of goods between them and EU countries, so Norwegian goods imported into the Union (or the other way around) are not subject to customs or VAT.
I did buy from Fomafoto a couple of times and never had to pay anything extra. So did a friend of mine who lives in Spain.

[kleinbatavia]

Well, the fine print reads you pay... And I actually did a few weeks ago when I bought a lens from Norway... Everyone for him or herself, just warning there is a risk and they are formally allowed to tax you (which in NL they apparently do).