Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,821   Posts: 1,581,712   Online: 1014
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39

Thread: Foma film

  1. #21
    erikg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    pawtucket rhode island usa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,451
    Quote Originally Posted by ntenny View Post
    .... But if you really want viewers to go "OMG V1NT4G3!!1!" ...

    -NT
    Funniest thing I've read on apug in awhile! I'm imagining someone actually saying that with words and stuff. Thanks for the laugh.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    Second tier manufactures like Foma do not have the best reputations for quality control.
    All the careless manufacturers are extinct these days. Over the last five years Foma have also made investments in quality control and certification - it's not a setup like the unfortunate-but-sadly-missed Efke.

  3. #23
    Chris Lange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    765
    Images
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Light Guru View Post
    A good way to see images shot on a particular film is to search that film on Flickr.
    I do not agree. People do all sorts of untold editing to their negative scans (if they have indeed scanned the negative) or print scans, or whatever. I think if someone were to use my website to base their opinion of what FP4+ in 6x6 should look like...they would have an aneurysm.

    Bad scanning technique makes grain look mushy, or invisible, bad processing (both chemical and digital) results in whacked out contrast or muddy tones, and who knows if they even exposed the film "correctly" in the first place. I've seen TMY-2 scans that made Delta 3200 look like TMX.

    The best way to see images shot on a particular film is to buy a roll, shoot half the roll in the morning and the other half in the late afternoon at box speed and develop it in whatever developer you are most consistent with.

    For all it's worth, I doubt I could tell you if a print was made from a Tri-X neg, an HP5+ neg, a Fomapan 400 neg, or a Kentmere 400 neg if they were all devved in the same chemicals.
    See my work at my website CHRISTOPHER LANGE PHOTOGRAPHY

    or my snaps at my blog MINIMUM DENSITY
    --
    If you don't have it, then you don't have it.

  4. #24
    ath
    ath is offline
    ath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    890
    Quote Originally Posted by ntenny View Post
    To my taste, Fomapan 100 is pretty grainy for routine use in 35mm, but fine in larger formats.
    My experience with Fomapan 100 is limited to two 35mm rolls which I developed in XTOL 1+1 to a CI of ca. 0.65 in 2009.
    The grain in the prints was visibly finer than that of ACROS in the same developer.
    Regards,
    Andreas

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,286
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by ath View Post
    My experience with Fomapan 100 is limited to two 35mm rolls which I developed in XTOL 1+1 to a CI of ca. 0.65 in 2009.
    The grain in the prints was visibly finer than that of ACROS in the same developer.
    That's strange. The RMS numerology says Fomapan should be a *lot* grainier: 13.5 vs 7! Even granting that RMS grain measurements don't always align with people's perceptions, it seems surprising that a difference of almost a factor of two would disappear like that.

    I'm curious---subjectively, were they both "pretty grainy", "basically grainless", or somewhere in between?

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  6. #26
    ath
    ath is offline
    ath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    890
    Nathan,
    I'd say the ACROS is very fine grained in XTOL and Fomapan 100 was nearly grainless, comparably to TMAX100. That was not what I expected.
    Regards,
    Andreas

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    14

    Forma or EDU

    Foma

    I have been using EDU 100 in 120 rolls Oddly the film itself is fine but the spooling is something to be desired, I always carry a few small rubber bands with me if I am going to change film in the field The gummed label on the end of the roll is some times missing or not gummed. Of course in all fairness I have had the happen with FP-4 too.

  8. #28
    cmacd123's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stittsville, Ontario
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,132
    Quote Originally Posted by bobmolson View Post
    Foma

    I have been using EDU 100 in 120 rolls Oddly the film itself is fine The gummed label on the end of the roll is some times missing or not gummed. Of course in all fairness I have had the happen with FP-4 too.
    The FOMA I have been using in 120 has a Sticky label with a Yellowish backing paper. You can peel off the backing and the label then sticks. It does take a bit more effort to break the label in the darkroom particularly if you only peel the "far end" and the double thickness ends up at the location you want to tear.
    Charles MacDonald
    aa508@ncf.ca
    I still live just beyond the fringe in Stittsville

  9. #29
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,549
    Images
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by cmacd123 View Post
    The FOMA I have been using in 120 has a Sticky label with a Yellowish backing paper. You can peel off the backing and the label then sticks. It does take a bit more effort to break the label in the darkroom particularly if you only peel the "far end" and the double thickness ends up at the location you want to tear.
    For the record, the Foma and Arista.EDU Ultra both have that self adhesive sticker.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  10. #30
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area (Albany, California)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,247
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by bobmolson View Post
    Foma

    I have been using EDU 100 in 120 rolls Oddly the film itself is fine but the spooling is something to be desired, I always carry a few small rubber bands with me if I am going to change film in the field The gummed label on the end of the roll is some times missing or not gummed. Of course in all fairness I have had the happen with FP-4 too.
    And you missed out on that Ilford gummy-minty goodness? Ilford gummed labels are the best tasting by far...
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin