Fomapan Film Impressions - All speeds

[arpy]

Originally Posted by Roninman

M2 50mm Summicron-M / Fomapan Classic 100

Roninman, that is a fabulous one.



I can write about 135 only - I think the tonality of the "classic" (ISO 100) is just superb and that one of the "action" (ISO 400) is not bad either, given the film speed (my most favourite). But I grew up with their materials (I live some hundreds meters from that fabric and even jobbed there for a few months) so you can easy apply these sayings about routine and old dogs.

Despite being a rather loyal and definitely satisfied customer I must say that their QC is unfortunately still not up to date (I'm talking about the 135 format). But hey, they are going better.

[surfer dude]

Originally Posted by Roninman

M2 50mm Summicron-M / Fomapan Classic 100

But even in this exquisite image there are "tram track" scratches - most evident in the lower central portion of the frame. Can you see those? I seem to get them myself in about half the Fomapan 100 rolls I've used recently.

[Mister E]

I love fomopan:

Naesosa Temple Hermitage by NateVenture, on Flickr


Untitled by NateVenture, on Flickr


Untitled by NateVenture, on Flickr


Yurt Life by NateVenture, on Flickr

[philosomatographer]

Last year, I purchesed a bulk roll of Fomapan 100 in 35mm, just for the heck of it - it was cheap, I was on a budget, and they didn't have much else. I develop it in D67 diluted 1+1. The film is quite grainy, and I wouldn't do work in 35mm where overly-punchy tones and lots of grain would be a problem, but I have produced many prints (usually 12x16in) which I am very happy with.

All these are scanned darkroom prints from Fomapan 100 negatives in 135 format:

(Voigltander Heliar 50mm f/3.5 shot wide open)


(Zuiko 250mm at f/2.0)


(Zuiko 90mm Macro at f/2.0)


(Zuiko 250mm at f/2.0)

This film does not have a modern rendering by any standard (and Kodak TMY2-400 has *much* finer grain!) but it's certainly a different, fun film.

Fun, because it's so cheap, you can play around with it without reservation, yet get very good results.

[Roger Hicks]

The only one I really like is 200 in 35mm. Gorgeous tonality, never had a problem with the emulsion. The only catch is that it's only 200 in speed-increasing developers. The true speed is just about identical to FP4 (also nearly 200 in DD-X). It's quite grainy for a ISO 125-160 film.

There's a fair amount of Foma 200/Acupan 200 scattered around on my site.

Cheers,

R.

[Roninman]

Originally Posted by phil.wright

But even in this exquisite image there are "tram track" scratches - most evident in the lower central portion of the frame. Can you see those? I seem to get them myself in about half the Fomapan 100 rolls I've used recently.

I want to thank you Phil, I hadn't noticed these before you pointed them out! My eyes are getting worse every day. So I went back to the images I had saved from these six rolls I bought last year and they are on every roll!! I used several film M bodies and a Nikon F too so I know it wasn't the camera. Now I'm in total agreement that foma's QC is not worth the price of this film. Too bad because the tonality of this film is really beautiful.

[kiemchacsu]

I have shot plenty of Fomapan 100, and now I post here to complement the quality of that film. Beautiful tone, beautiful grain and ... pretty cheap.


1205_18_Fomapan by kiemchacsu, on Flickr

[mfogiel]

I've only used Fomapan 200, and in FX 39 at EI 125 this gives you he tonality to die for:

20092102 by mfogiel, on Flickr

2008090504 by mfogiel, on Flickr

20095513 by mfogiel, on Flickr

2008090225 by mfogiel, on Flickr


Problems:
1- 120 film curls like crazy
2- Prints from 135 film had dark spots, as if there were holes in the emulsion

In my opinion, it is a fantastic portrait and still life film, but not easy for general use.

[raytoei@gmail.com]

i like the 120 version in 400 but found the 200 iso too many spots (like Shanghai GP3 with quality issues). I have just bought some 400 and 100 to test out. Hope to replace Ultrafine Extreme 400.

[znapper]

I've shot a few rolls of Foma 100 and souped it in Tetenal Ultrafin and Rodinal.
In Rodinal (and 120 format), the film was in my view, extremely nice.

Here's souped in tetenal ultrafin 1:20




And here it is, souped in Rodinal !:50









All shot at EI 100, very punchy tones and I really love it.

Too bad their quality control is iffy. I had several tiny black scratches/specs and a few lines in the photo's as well.

The film easily scratches while wet, but that isn't really a problem as long as you're careful.
The marks and scratches I had on my negatives, are identical to what has been discussed around the net (apug has a 20 page discussion on the subject).

Foma 100 curls quite a bit after drying, which can make scanning a challenge, but it gets better after a week or so in sleeves under pressure.

I still have around 15 rolls of Foma 100 in 120 format and I did buy 15 rolls of 35mm and 15 rolls of 120 of Foma 200 creative -people are raving about that one,
so that has to be tried off course

[RFH]

I have tried most of the Foma films from 135 through 120 to 4x5. These are my impressions:
ISO 100 is quite grainy across all formats.
ISO 400 is great and can be pushed to ISO 3200 with no problems (I've only done this with 120 film, and I'll see how it does at 6400). If you expose it correctly, you can push it with very little grain.
I mostly use HC110 B. I believe the push process time for 400@3200 was 29 mins. at 20 degrees.

So, all in all a pretty good film for the price (it's the cheapest you can get in Europe), but I prefer the punch and clarity of Ilford Delta negatives any day.

[znapper]

Hmm, I never saw that thing you mention about punch and clarity with the Ilford, do you have an example of that? I always seem to get muddy, flat and rather grainy delta 100 negatives (in 35mm, never tried 120).

[kiemchacsu]

hi guys,

you've been talking about the Quality COntrol issue of Foma (some spots / scratches). Could you post some photos for the evidence?

thanks.

[raytoei@gmail.com]

trung,

For my issues on the Fomapan 200 in 120 format,
a lot of small black random dots on the negatives.
i don't have the negatives with me now.

but i can give you a similar example,
http://retro.ms11.net/fs-tlr-1.jpg
the above was taken on the Lucky 120 format, same issues,
look the left of the girl's face, there are dark spots.


raytoei

[kiemchacsu]

thank you raytoei for quick response,

just another question: looking to the image, i found that the spots are only visible on the shadows or dark area but not the bright one. Do you have any idea why?

[x-ray]

I've shot a good deal of the 200 in sheet up to 8x10. I generally process in HC110 B. The 200 responds very well to expanded development and works very well for platinum printing or silver prints. It's one of my all time favorite sheet emulsions.

[oceanpriest]

I bought fomapan 100 in 100 feet, so far no quality issue even after it's expired. I like how flat the negative when you dry it. My Tri-x curls more than the fomapan.




Rodinal 1+50




Caffenol C-M

[znapper]

Originally Posted by kiemchacsu

hi guys,

you've been talking about the Quality COntrol issue of Foma (some spots / scratches). Could you post some photos for the evidence?

thanks.

You have two looong threads (with pictures if you are a registered, free user) here:
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/98998-i-give-up.html
and here
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/7...g-culprit.html

[marduk]

Originally Posted by raytoei@gmail.com

trung,

For my issues on the Fomapan 200 in 120 format,
a lot of small black random dots on the negatives.
i don't have the negatives with me now.

but i can give you a similar example,
http://retro.ms11.net/fs-tlr-1.jpg
the above was taken on the Lucky 120 format, same issues,
look the left of the girl's face, there are dark spots.


raytoei

I've had similar black specs on T200 in 120 format when developing in Rodinal. The other roll souped in Diafine came out great though. I'm not sure, but you can write to Foma they are helpful and respond to all inquiries. I contacted Macodirect and they redirected my request to dana.hojna [at] foma.cz. They will likely ask you to send them a sample of the film with the defect and when possible one non-developed film. I need to read the mentioned 20-page apug discussion the other day.

[kiemchacsu]

Originally Posted by znapper

You have two looong threads (with pictures if you are a registered, free user) here:
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/98998-i-give-up.html
and here
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/7...g-culprit.html

thank you for the links, i also have an account there but rarely online
so far, I dont have any problem with QC of my Fomapan 100

[Fotohuis]

The Fomapan Creative 200 film (120 roll film) has been re-newed. It's on Clear Polyester layer now, different backing paper (more soft and flexible) and the glue of the self adhesive strip is not getting off to quickly anymore.
I am talking about emnr. 0106564 exp. date: 1/2015. Hopefully most Q.C. issues are solved now.

Here an example in 6x7cm (C.V. Bessa III 667) of the Creative 200 120 roll film. Developer D74 1+15 for 5:00 minutes at 20C.

[Photo_Smith]

Like Robert says Fomapan 200 is a new (reworked) emulsion. They actually shut the line down for a while to cure some of the issues.
I've never had an issue with their film myself and have used 100, 200 and 400 the latter being slightly grainy buy having a nice pattern.


I tested them out and wrote about them on my blog.
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.co.uk/2...zech-firm.html

[Dana B.]

Arista 400 EDU (Fomapan) Notice the lines on the right.

[Dana B.]

Arista 400 EDU (Fomapan)