Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,900   Posts: 1,584,391   Online: 671
      
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 58
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoeinx Arizona
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,343
    [On 35mm I use almost only Tri-X and the Foma was not the same.


    I agree that Foma and Tri-X are not the same, if you like the look of current Tri-X stick with Tri-X, but I think that Foma looks like an older version of Tri-X which I happen to like.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Groningen, Nederland
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    144
    Images
    8
    I've been using Fomatone MG paper (fiber based, variable contrast) for some time now (conventional printing only, no lith stuff) and I'm very happy with the results. I have limited experience with other brands, but looking at my own prints, I can recommend the paper to anyone. In fact, I'll be loading up some more paper when I'm in the Czech Republic this summer.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    I like the Foma films. I have a rather large stock of Tri-X 320, HP5+ and FP4+ in 4x5, and I don't use too much of it so it will be a while before I need any. I have no complaints with the stuff in 35mm and medium format though. The 100 stuff looks great in D-76 1+1 or Rodinal. The 200 and 400 versions are really good in D-76 or XTOL, but then what isn't good in D-76 or XTOL? For my purposes, all 3 films can stand a bit more development than the manufacturer recommends with these two developers. The 100 version is almost perfect in Rodinal at the recommended times.

    The variable contrast RC papers are a good value for the money if you buy them as the Arista.EDU Ultra brand. Certainly not in the same league as Ilford, and the now defunct Agfa and Kodak papers, but pretty good. It is thinner than some of the other RC papers I've used, but I don't see that as a particular disadvantage. If I have a really good negative, the prints look good. I never count on the paper to bail me out of a bad negative. The emulsion is slightly warm and tones well in selenium or two bath sepia. I've only done a few tests with the fiber based, variable contrast papers in both glossy and semi-matte finishes. These papers also tone well in the aforementioned toners, and have a much nicer finish than the resin coated products. I've not seen any QC problems yet.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Woonsocket, RI USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,725
    I've also used Foma products -- mostly 35mm film and VC RC paper (Fomaspeed Variant III 311, IIRC). I agree with much of what's been said, but have some points I'd like to make or re-iterate:

    • I like the 400-speed 35mm film, mainly because of the grain pattern, which I find subjectively appealing. I think part of it's that the grain seems crisper than the grain of most other ISO 400 films, even in developers that tend to produce softer grain. I've also used a fair amount of the 200-speed film, but I've shot relatively few rolls of the 100-speed film.
    • I've processed the film I've shot mostly in XTOL or PC-Glycol, both of which seem to work well. I've also used D-76, Rodinal, and DS-12 on some rolls, but not enough to really judge how they work.
    • In 35mm, Foma films have poor anti-halation characteristics. This isn't important for a lot of shots, but if you shoot at night with street lights visible or in the day with bright objects (reflective chrome, say), it can be an issue. I've heard that larger formats don't have halation problems, but I have yet to shoot any Foma in MF (as large as I've got).
    • Some people have reported quality control problems. There was a batch of ISO 200 35mm film that seemed to generate a lot of complaints a few months back, for instance.
    • I agree that the paper is thinner than most and is slightly on the warm side. It curls a bit more than some I've used.


    It's all subjective, of course; you might or might not like Foma products. They're certainly worth trying, though.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Saugerties, NY
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,159
    Images
    182
    i shoot primarily 4x5 foma 100. i love it. i use hc110 at 119:1 and i love it. i have been using it mostly for pinhole work (i just love shooting pinhole images!). the only complaint i have is its reciprocity figures are so slow. as a result i have been using a bit of Tmax for the super increase in speed. but i still favor foma100. most of my 4x5 pinhole images are shot with foma. please have a look.
    photoshop is somewhere you go to buy photo equipment.


    lens photos here

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Plymouth. UK.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,403
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Dobbs View Post
    I have recently become aware of a company called FOMA from the Czech Republic. I understand that they produce b&w film and paper (amongst other products).
    Does anyone have experience with this brand? If so, how does it compare with Ilford or other brands available in North America?
    Your reply will be greatly appreciated.
    They`re probably more comparable with the films of the 1960`s such as Ilford FP3 and HP4 although perfectly serviceable. The 200T film seems to be popular with some.
    I`ve used Paterson Acupan 200 which is said to have been made by Foma and is/was their 200T film.

  7. #27
    Mark Antony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    East Anglia,UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    772
    Images
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Tapscott. View Post
    They`re probably more comparable with the films of the 1960`s such as Ilford FP3 and HP4 although perfectly serviceable. .
    Keith i think you are being a little unkind there. The Foma emulsions I've used are much better than that, and unlike Adox they certainly aren't old 1960's emulsions. In fact i've seen somewhere that the 200 has some Fuji across tech all in all I rate them as highly as Ilford and .
    http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

  8. #28

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shenadoah Valley
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    342
    Images
    4
    I use the fomatone mg variable contrast for my warm tone prints and I really like the paper. It has a brown green to brown olive color which can be toned down (the green) by using GAF 135 and following that with selenium @ 68-70 degrees 75cc/L for a minute or less. The prints will be very nice warm color that I really like. Longer selenium produces a strong red color that I don’t care for. Here is an example.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails ithaca falls.jpg  

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Westport, MA.
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,063
    I've used the foma 100 and 400 films. The Foma 100 in 4x5 sheets is awesome, I use D76 1:1 and it's great stuff.

    For 120 I use both 100 and 400 but prefer the 100. Haven't tried it in 35mm and haven't tried to paper either.
    The low prices scare me. Look at Agfa and Forte.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    855
    Images
    131
    Can't tell you about the film. The MG Classic paper is great, I'm in the same boat as DrPablo, it looks so good in lith, bleaches and tones great, I haven't even tried it straight up. May I extrapolate from limited experience: any paper that liths well also prints well.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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