fomapan 100 and 200
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.
can't speak for the 100 but there are no quality issues with the 200 sheet film or the 35mm I have used
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
Thanks for the comments!
I'm just going to give them all a shot.
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.
Originally Posted by puketronic
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.