fomapan 100 and 200

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by puketronic, Jun 28, 2013.

  1. puketronic

    puketronic Member

    Messages:
    199
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2011
    Shooter:
    35mm
    How would you describe the look/tonality/grain between the two?

    i'm interested in making one of these my slow/medium film emulsion. In 120, I like fomapan 100 but fomapan 200 seems to be the more popular film choice. From what I gather, fomapan 200 has a hybrid tabular grain structure.

    Between the two would I expect fomapan 200 to look similar to fomapan 100 but with slightly more grain and slightly less contrast? Which do you prefer and why?

    I'm already aware of the controversial quality control issues and lack of advertised speed.
     
  2. Peter Schrager

    Peter Schrager Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,121
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2004
    Location:
    fairfield co
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    can't speak for the 100 but there are no quality issues with the 200 sheet film or the 35mm I have used
    Best, peter
     
  3. pdeeh

    pdeeh Member

    Messages:
    3,576
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    No quality issues for me either in 135 or 120.
    Not quite sure what "lack of advertised speed" means ... surely a matter of developer and personal preference for how you want your negatives, as with any film?

    I prefer Foma 200 to 100, I don't find it coarser grained than 100, in fact rather the opposite. I rate it at 160 and develop it in Rodinal. I didn't care for the 100, found the grain obtrusive and the tones a bit sooty.
     
  4. R.Gould

    R.Gould Member

    Messages:
    758
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Location:
    Jersey Chann
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I use Fomapan 400 as my main film, I get the box speed, and no QC issues in a few years of using it, I find I get results more to my liking wit the 400 at box speed, as for tonality, Fomapan has a look that is very much it's own, to me quite beautiful
    Richard
     
  5. Oscar Carlsson

    Oscar Carlsson Subscriber

    Messages:
    208
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Location:
    Linköping, Sweden
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I had some issues with Fomapan 200 in 120, all negatives came out scratched only with this film, and it seems to have been due to a change of backing paper. This has been corrected since.

    I've only exposed a few rolls and wasn't very happy with the results, but it might be due to these scratches and inexperience working with handheld meters. If I'd try it again I'd begin by exposing it at ISO100 from experiences with Fomapan 400 (which is a great ISO200 film).
     
  6. Ian Grant

    Ian Grant Subscriber

    Messages:
    18,121
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    West Midland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Having used quite a lot of both they are great films I've had no quality issues with 120 or sheet film. It's hard to chosse which to use but I prefer the 200 for hand held work (in 1200 and am happy with the 100 for LF.

    Yes they aren't box speed but then I never used Tmax 100 at box speed either it was best at 50EI, APX100 was true to its box speed though.

    Ian
     
  7. Klainmeister

    Klainmeister Member

    Messages:
    1,491
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Location:
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    I find that the 100 and 400 have pretty similar characteristics, which could be described as fairly high contrast, medium/high grain (for their respective speeds), and overall traditional looking.

    I absolutely love the 200, which seems more like a TMAX style film and holds highlights very well. The grain structure is actually quite good for scanning and is fabulous under the enlarger. Highly recommend the 200.

    Had a minor QC issue with 100, but I think the emulsion is just kinda soft.
     
  8. puketronic

    puketronic Member

    Messages:
    199
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2011
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Thanks for the comments!

    I'm just going to give them all a shot.
     
  9. Ian Grant

    Ian Grant Subscriber

    Messages:
    18,121
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    West Midland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    They are excellent films but you need to do some quick testing to find your own optimum dev times and EIs. My first film was way off but after testing with a couple of rolls I have the same controls as with other films.

    Ian
     
  10. piu58

    piu58 Member

    Messages:
    805
    Joined:
    May 29, 2006
    Location:
    Leipzig, Ger
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I used 100 ann 400 film. Both tend to come out high contrasty, especially with blocked highlights. You have to develop carefully.
    Additional I had issues with MF film. The backing paper emitted tiny paper speck which moved through the camera an landed eventually at the film. This gives blank spots which you cannot retouche.
     
  11. Ian Grant

    Ian Grant Subscriber

    Messages:
    18,121
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    West Midland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The reason for doing some personal tests is to tame the contrast, Foma films are far more responsive to changes in development times/temperatures, I shoot the 100 & 200 at half the box speed and my development times are about 70% those of other films. I did simple Zone system tests but these just confirmed others findings.

    Once you've established your personal EI and dev time for Normal lighting conditions these films behave as well as any others. If you don't test for yourself you'll struggle with contrast.

    Ian
     
  12. wblynch

    wblynch Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Location:
    Mission Viejo
    Shooter:
    127 Format
    I like HC-110 in dilution H (1+63) for Fomapan. It gives me the tonality and sharpness that I like.

    In Ilfosol-3 I got flat, lifeless negatives with too much grain and splotchy skies.

    I haven't tried the 200 yet but I want to. I have heard it has the best tonality. I am not a super contrasty guy, I like smooth tones.
     
  13. TheToadMen

    TheToadMen Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,022
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Location:
    Netherlands, EU
    Shooter:
    Pinhole
  14. baachitraka

    baachitraka Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,439
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Location:
    Bremen, Germany.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    @Ian: May I know the details of quick testing? I have a film(Fomapan 400 bulk roll) + Incident/Reflective meter + Developer(Rodinal 1+50 and Tanol from Moersch) + Adox vario classic paper.

    I do not have any device to measure the densities or have any interest to send it to prof., testing services, if available.

    How do I establish the personal E.I.?
     
  15. TheToadMen

    TheToadMen Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,022
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Location:
    Netherlands, EU
    Shooter:
    Pinhole
    I recently instaled Silverfast 8 as my scanner software for scanning negatives. Silverfast has an option for a densitometer, see:
    http://www.silverfast.com/highlights/densitometer/en.html
    I haven't used it yet, but maybe it is a good option for you?
     
  16. Ian Grant

    Ian Grant Subscriber

    Messages:
    18,121
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    West Midland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I'll try and find my notes, most here in the UK don't use densitometers etc but do a practical series of tests, this is similar.

    Ian