My friend used foma 200@100
Dev in Pyrocat 1:1:100
My friend used foma 200@100
Dev in Pyrocat 1:1:100
Depends a bit, but 100 is a safe compromise for this film in my experience. Whenever shadows aren't critical, I don't hesitate to shoot it at 200. But since I currently only use it in 4x5, which is a tripod mounted affair anyway, I generally expose it at around 100 and get good results in pyrocat HD and instant mytol. It's a nice film in sheet formats. I did have persistent and deal-breaking problems with it in 120 format. I might give it a try in 135 as well as I suspect the issues I ran into are pretty much specific to 120. They didn't manifest themselves in sheet film in any case.
I used 8x10" Foma 400 (actually Arista EDU, but that's just a repackage) cut into 2 2/3 x 10" strips for 360 degree pinhole panoramas I made a couple years ago, and was very pleased with the tonality and overall performance.
Simon Cygielski
IG: https://www.instagram.com/mr.cygielski/
I shoot both the 100 and 400 versions (Arista EDU) at box speed, with slightly less than the recommended development time in Rodinal and adjusting development as needed depending on my exposure range. I find I get the shadow detail I am expecting and don't have issues with blocking up the highlights. I don't have testing data to back it up, I just adjusted my process over the years from looking at my negatives and prints to arrive at results I like. This is in 35mm, 120, and 4x5 formats with metering methods ranging from Sunny-16 (35mm) to spot metering (4x5).
Reid
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rjbuzzclick/
Leicaf16, that's a superb print.
Philip Ulanowsky
Sine scientia ars nihil est. (Without science/knowledge, art is nothing.)
www.imagesinsilver.art
https://www.flickr.com/photos/156933346@N07/
So the arguing is pointing out that I certainly don't know SQUAT about a LOT of things, film related.
I'm still amazed that there's actually an image when I pull a sheet out of my developing tank.
If I was a pro getting decent or better than decent rates, I would go with whatever I felt delivered the absolute best results. As is, if a product like Fomapan delivers great results that might be a tiny notch below the absolute best available at half the cost, I'll take it. I get to burn more film, and that means I get more enjoyment and learn more.
As to quality, I have seen - rarely - small defects in the emulsion, particularly in 400, but certainly nothing that I wouldn't be able to handle or that I would feel required me to discard a negative to save face as a photographer. I haven't done any densitometry, but if I need to rate a film at a hair below its box speed, that's what I do. Something like that might make a difference shooting action at night (assuming you'd want to do that with film these days - digital cameras have EIs into the tens of thousands), not so much doing work from a tripod with a moderate-to-slow LF lens in the first place.
Simon Cygielski
IG: https://www.instagram.com/mr.cygielski/
Having just started LF photography, I went with Arista EDU 400. The results were, for a first try at manual metering, and developing at home, surprisingly good in my opinion (Let's face it-- anything recognizable would be surprising to me for a first effort!).
It's nothing exciting-- it's literally the view out my back door.
f/22, 1/15 metered at box speed, developed with Ilfosol 3-- which is apparently an unusual combination of film and developer.
Bookmarks