Roberto, those times look about the same as mine for most 100/400films.
My experience with Foma films is that i cannot get enough shadow detail at box speed.
Perhaps those who have used lots of Foma can offer their comments
Roberto, those times look about the same as mine for most 100/400films.
My experience with Foma films is that i cannot get enough shadow detail at box speed.
Perhaps those who have used lots of Foma can offer their comments
Thank you Greg.
Yes, tha's true, for my experience too Foma films have low detail in shadow. I was used to expose Foma400 at 200 and 250, better detail in shadow but overall low contrast of the image, that's why I want to find a good development for box speed. With Foma200 I'm quite ok by exposing at 160 and 200 but when the scene is low in contrast, then I get bad shadow. Not easy films in my opinion but they have some good points like non-emulsion side is less prone to scratch and treatment issues (unlike Ilford).
Pressing the shutter is the only easy thing
I have shot both 4x5 and 8x10 Foma and used a few developers with good results. My real reason for no longer using it is quality control. I had too many sheets with emulsion issues (poor coating?) nicks in the box (non-processing) and other surface related issues. It just doesn't happen with Kodak or Ilford and the price difference means little when you consider the cost of a bag negative. (And yes, I have ruled out processing errors on my part)
Brian
Hi!
Presa del Villar, Madrid - Spain
Graflex Pacemaker SpeedGraphic : Optar 135/4.7
Foma 100@64 : Hc-110 (h)
Nearly sunset.
1.
presa del villar by Antonio Gimeno, on Flickr
2.
presa del villar by Antonio Gimeno, on Flickr
Kind regards from Spain.
Antonio
Igor.
www.igafoto.com
Bookmarks