Fomapan 100, 200 and 400

[Drew Wiley]

Hi Michael. Foma 200 actually will resolve shadow detail about a step lower than TMY or TMX, just like Bergger 200 and Super XX 200 could. I sometimes placed texture threshold on Zone 0. But it is far inferior to TMY or TMX in terms of development flexibility and general quality. Nor does it have the sophisticated spectral balance of TMax products which is retained even at long exp. In other words, if you can afford TMY, don't switch. F 200 wasn't even cheaper for me because nearly every other sheet was flawed. The last time I used it, I had to take a brisk steep goat path hike with the 8x10 starting around 9000 ft and going up a couple thousand more, so I didn't want to lug spare holders. There were gleaming backlit clouds behind a lovely dark volcanic spire with much deeper shadow details, esp w/a 29 red filter, plus glistening sunlit ice. I like crystalline effects, and not compression like minus dev gives, and even TMY in pyro would have struggled. This film took in the whole scale wonderfully, but all the little zits in the emulsion made spotting the print hell.

[Michael Kadillak]

Hi Michael. Foma 200 actually will resolve shadow detail about a step lower than TMY or TMX, just like Bergger 200 and Super XX 200 could. I sometimes placed texture threshold on Zone 0. But it is far inferior to TMY or TMX in terms of development flexibility and general quality. Nor does it have the sophisticated spectral balance of TMax products which is retained even at long exp. In other words, if you can afford TMY, don't switch. F 200 wasn't even cheaper for me because nearly every other sheet was flawed. The last time I used it, I had to take a brisk steep goat path hike with the 8x10 starting around 9000 ft and going up a couple thousand more, so I didn't want to lug spare holders. There were gleaming backlit clouds behind a lovely dark volcanic spire with much deeper shadow details, esp w/a 29 red filter, plus glistening sunlit ice. I like crystalline effects, and not compression like minus dev gives, and even TMY in pyro would have struggled. This film took in the whole scale wonderfully, but all the little zits in the emulsion made spotting the print hell.

Let be real Drew. Giving up a stop on the low end to jump straight into the shadows is meaningless in the broader context when you are starting with a 400 speed film and you have that density potential in front of you. I would gladly give that up in a heart beat for what you also get in the package with T Max films - the best reciprocity characteristics and excellent quality control. At the end of the day it all comes down to a consumers choice as to which film they decide to consume for what they want to achieve. Plus I do not find T Max 400 films hard to process and even T Max 100 in a RAD process delivered excellent predictable results. I was even surprised with the ability to get T Max 100 to cooperate because it has that reputation of being fickle which is unfounded in this instance. RAD also handles the extremes in the low and the high end easily with it.

If there is one thing that drives me frigging bat *#%^ crazy is bad quality control in any film production and the total unpredictability as to when it will rear its ugly head. I do not like surprises when I make one exposure (what savings is there when you have to shoot two sheets all of the damn time to ensure a usable negative?) and see a defect that renders the time and effort expended to produce it moot. I get that T Max film is expensive. I keep it on hand for special trips and revert to Ilford FP4 and Delta 100 for regular shooting. If Foma works for anyone I say go for it. In the world of consumables, the vast majority of the time you get what you pay for.

[Drew Wiley]

I know precisely what I am doing, Michael, and have successfully done it over and over again. Just these past few days I've been sorting through all kinds of mounted prints where the ability of certain films to handle the extremes of contrast in deserts and high mountains especially well is perfectly evident in the print itself. I long for the days when Bergger 200 was still around, because it had that kind of range but was a high quality product. A bit too grainy for me in anything smaller than 8x10, so that's what I used it for. I have used quite a variety of films and became very familiar with each. I always keep around 4x5 and 8x10 sheets of TMY, TMX, and FP4, and that's the kind of product I have in my freezer, not counting color films. So you see, we don't disagree much at all. I think you'd be rather surprised just how well I know how to handle TMax development. How many people do you know that can make perfectly matched color separation negs with TMax in a single bath, all at the same time? It's a highly predictable film, both speeds. But I do think the odd duck, Foma 200, is a film worth testing just because it's so unique. The kinds of blemishes that drove me crazy in enlargements would barely show in a contact print. I never bracket, and especially at my age can't be hauling around too many 8x10 holders in the pack at a time. And one often just gets one crack at a shot anyway before the lighting or clouds or whatever suddenly changes. So I can't personally gamble with dicey quality control any more than you can. But I can't make the rules for others, and apparently Foma films have a following, as this very thread evidences.

[Michael Kadillak]

I know precisely what I am doing, Michael, and have successfully done it over and over again. Just these past few days I've been sorting through all kinds of mounted prints where the ability of certain films to handle the extremes of contrast in deserts and high mountains especially well is perfectly evident in the print itself. I long for the days when Bergger 200 was still around, because it had that kind of range but was a high quality product. A bit too grainy for me in anything smaller than 8x10, so that's what I used it for. I have used quite a variety of films and became very familiar with each. I always keep around 4x5 and 8x10 sheets of TMY, TMX, and FP4, and that's the kind of product I have in my freezer, not counting color films. So you see, we don't disagree much at all. I think you'd be rather surprised just how well I know how to handle TMax development. How many people do you know that can make perfectly matched color separation negs with TMax in a single bath, all at the same time? It's a highly predictable film, both speeds. But I do think the odd duck, Foma 200, is a film worth testing just because it's so unique. The kinds of blemishes that drove me crazy in enlargements would barely show in a contact print. I never bracket, and especially at my age can't be hauling around too many 8x10 holders in the pack at a time. And one often just gets one crack at a shot anyway before the lighting or clouds or whatever suddenly changes. So I can't personally gamble with dicey quality control any more than you can. But I can't make the rules for others, and apparently Foma films have a following, as this very thread evidences.

Quite honestly Drew, this forum is designed to encourage a dissertation of the execution of large format techniques in all of its marvelous iterations as an educational venue and we should all remind ourselves of this objective when we post. Why you would you choose to defend yourself and how/what you do is simply beyond me? I as well as the viewers of this forum could care less about you individually because it is not about the individual but the collective body. Onward!

[Drew Wiley]

I'm not defending myself, nor do I need to. I'm merely making an objective observation that should be self-evident. Anyone who relied on Super XX in former days would know exactly what I am talking about. That's what was meant by a "straight line film", an exceptional short toe. TMax films do not fall in that category, though they do resolve shadows much better than most current films. But as far as your definition of a "collective body" goes, Robspierre, how many films have to go to the guillotine to meet your requirement for enforced standardized thinking?

[Peter De Smidt]

Drew, no one here as any evidence that you've done any photographic work in years. You make claims that what people here say is false, such as in this very thread. Deardorffuser posts pictures that count as good evidence that you're wrong, and you just go blindly on pontificating. You love to burst into threads, say something negative, and then do what you can to make the discussion about you. Well, you've succeeded again. Great job!

[Drew Wiley]

You're just showing your ignorance, Peter. Anyone who has done a bit of their own homework recognizes there is no way I can make this kind of thing up. Pertaining to everything I stated on this thread, it's just basic sensitometry. The ABC's. There is ZERO posted "evidence" on this thread or anywhere else that this nominal 200 film, which everyone who has actually used it knows is not even close to box speed, can deliver realistic results three stops underexposed. Please reply, Have YOU ever actually worked with this particular film? I go to the trouble to help people with practical issues based on an awful lot of hard work and careful testing, and frankly, a lot of money at times, and all you can think of is why I don't post itty-bitty web images? Been there, done that. Have other priorities, involving real prints, and often very current films and papers, which I often comment on too. Now go discount every other photographer who, for the first 150 years of the photography, didn't post web images either. To your mindset, their images must have never existed! If you simply don't understand what I'm talking about, then perhaps you could phrase it that way rather than as a personal attack. But if someone wants to go out an spend well over a hundred bucks on a box of 8x10 sheet film on a misleading premise, that's their right. I'm just interjecting a bit of reality.

[Michael Kadillak]

. But if someone wants to go out an spend well over a hundred bucks on a box of 8x10 sheet film on a misleading premise, that's their right.

Yes indeed it is our right and why should it matter to you to try to demean this decision in the comment above? I am damn proud to be in the rather broad category of those who gladly and purposefully spending over $100 on a box of 8x10 sheet film. Been there for many years and my well stocked freezer storage is testament to this consistent activity on my part. Terrible premise on your part to attempt to conclude it is on a "misleading premise". I believe the forum participants can sort through legitimate guidance and pontificating to the nines. Onward!

[Drew Wiley]

Did either of you even read a word I posted? Apparently not. You just start throwing rocks without thinking it through. The over 100 dollar box of film I was referring to was 8x10 Foma 200, 50 sheet. At today's pricing, that would amount to around $450 for an equivalent quantity of Tmax, which happens to be the kind of film I have in my own freezer, purchased at previous significantly lower pricing. So you're welcome to proceed "onward" to your hamlet riot, or witch burning rally, or public guillotine, or whatever. Just don't expect me to attend.

[Roberto Nania]

Going back to exposure index, Foma 200 is actually more a 100 iso speed, isn't it?
After quite some sheets of Foma 400 exposed at box speed and slower, I found a good balance at EI 200 so it doesn't surprise me that Foma 200 is slower.
Now, any recommendation from whom use it as a standard film?
@Deardoffuser uses it at 160. Does anyone use it at slower EIs?
I will develop it on HC110 or D76.

Thank you