Fomapan sheet films - which one to chose

[Xipho]

For 9x12 (only for tripod work) I could chose between the Fomapan 100,200,400

What do you think, and has anyone some experience with them.

From the data sheet, the 200 has the same resolving power than the 100 and much better as the 400 (110:90). but in Schwarzschild tolerance, the 400 ist the best (1.5x at 1 sec) and the 200 the worst (3x at 1 sec) Is this a problem, as with tripod work and small apertures, you easily get to longer exposure times. Is the resultion differnce on the other hand relvant for large format (unless you want to make very large prints)?

I want to take foma for the beginning, as for example ilford sheets films cost 4 times as much.
or maybe you know other alternatives in the Foma price range...

Thanks

[MartinP]

Don't forget to look at the Retropan 320 also. It is also reasonably usable at an EI of double the base speed, which might be useful for you to avoid long exposure times. Unfortunately I haven't had a chance to try that myself yet.

[Xipho]

what makes the "Retropan" retro?

[koraks]

I used foma 100 for a while in 4x5 and it was alright, but I've never gotten very pleasing results from in in 35mm (coarse grain and rather unpleasant midtone separation - or lack thereof). Probably due to my ignorance, but other films work better for me. Can't comment about the other two but I see quite some people using foma 200 and exposing at 100 iso and getting very nice results from it.

[IanG]

I've been using both the 100 & 200 Fomapan in 120 and 5x4 and 200 for 9x12 for about 9 years now. Both are excellent films and I've been very pleased with the results, however you do need to do some testing to determine the optimum EI and development time that suits your way of working. They build up contrast very quickly and need less development than other films typically about 70% I shooot both at half the box speed.

Ian

[Xipho]

z

I've been using both the 100 & 200 Fomapan in 120 and 5x4 and 200 for 9x12 for about 9 years now. Both are excellent films and I've been very pleased with the results, however you do need to do some testing to determine the optimum EI and development time that suits your way of working. They build up contrast very quickly and need less development than other films typically about 70% I shooot both at half the box speed.

Ian

Thanks! Any experience with iD11/d76 for the Fomapans?

I want to use stock as i have no LF Tank, so I want short development times in the absolute darkness while open processing..

Maybe i try the 200 with 9x12, as I have the 100 for 10x15 anyway (the 200 is not availible in 10x15)

sure have to do some testing...

[IanG]

I've not used ID-11/D76 for 30 years, but try a time of 75% of the ones for FP4 and at half the Fomapan box speed, it'll be very close to what you need. It's what I found with Xtol..

The Fomapan 200 is a really nice film and over 120n is probably a better choice.

Ian

[Shootar401]

I tried Foma 100 and never really liked it, I could never really get the exposure down correctly. Foma 200 on the other hand is one of my Favorites next to HP5 and Tmax 100. I never tried 400 other than a roll of 120, and if I remember correctly it was so-so for my use.

[Xipho]

I bought 100 Sheets of Fomapan200 9x12 yesterday.

With 10x15 im am stuck to Foma100 anyway, but I fould a working pack of 50 HP4 (yes, four...) and hope to get another 50 Sheets of it..

With the reciprocity, what is pracically seen the longest exposure time that is usable without any Problems of underexposed shadows?

[Xipho]

Ilford HP4 old batch test by xipho68, auf Flickr

old Ilford HP4 test shot