Fomapan 200: Why does this stuff exist? 

I’ve heard it’s a hybrid t-grain and cubic grain which would match the results I’ve gotten. Other than that, I’ll gladly stick to Foma 100.

Thanks for sharing your experience! 8 minutes in Rodinal is not enough for Foma 200 so the negatives come out a bit undeveloped. I use 10 minutes in Fomadon R09 with slow agitation and thus I get the results that I personally prefer much more than Foma 100 classic. The negatives come with a full tonal range, small grain and moderate contrast which is good for printing. The actual Foma’s box speeds are all investigated and the true is: 50 for 100, 100 for 200 and 200 for 400 as you mentioned. So I think Foma 200 35mm film is really not bad and even underrated. But avoid 120, the emulsion is really awful there.

Funny, this is my favorite B+W film. It should really be rated at 160 though.

I’ve had great results with Fomapan 200, developed in Adox FX39, which is a non solvent acutance developer, and really shows the sharpness of the T grain. For normal development I dilute 1+9 for 6mins @20c film rated @iso 125. I think this is a good starting point, but I would recommend testing processing yourself under different lighting conditions.

I shoot 200 (the 100 is very lovely though) mainly because the characteristic curve is very flat and it has an extremely short toe. As a result, it feels like it's slower than it actually is because it doesn't have a couple of stops of low contrast exposure data sitting down below the speed point. Foma uses Microphen to determine it's film speed, and if developed to ISO contrast (0.615), its real speed is 160. Per the ISO standards, the manufacturer can round the ISO up or down by as much as a third of a stop, so FOMA rounds up to 200. It also gets 160 in XTOL if developed to ISO contrast. Keep in mind, massive dev chart times do not produce ISO contrast. ISO contrast tends to be more contrasty and grainy than what most people prefer, this is why many films get rated lower than box speed. The manufacturer isn't lying, you're just not going to get as much speed if you develop to a lower contrast than ISO contrast. Other than that, I also prefer 200 because of the grain structure. 100 is very nice, but 200 is a little bit more of a modern look.

Shoot this film at 100 and developed it in D76 1+1 with 20% less developing times at box speed. This film will blow your mind, such a full and beautiful 50s look. The problem that I'm having with the 400 stuff is that is builds up highlight density very quick and very hard. The 200 stuff will be very gentle with its highlights, especially with pulled development or a compensating developer.

Fomapan 200 is a 100-125 iso film, Fomapan 100 is a 50-64 iso film... So not the same thing! Try developing Fomapan 200@100 with Xtol 1+2 11mn30, 20°c and 4 rotations/min, and you'll tell me about it! I just love it... Great acutance, there is some grain but less than the 400 and it is beautiful. Of course a FP4+ will be much thinner, but the old fashioned rendering of the Fomapan has its charm! It's a film with a personality.

In my experience, all Foma films look best when exposed at half their box speed, and developed accordingly. The extra exposure adds shadow detail and gentler development controls Foma's chunky grain characteristics.

Foma 100 is really a 64 speed film, soaking wet. Some sources will say you need to rate it at 50. Which in and of itself is OK, other than its very grainy for such a slow film. In 120 you don't notice it as much, but in 35mm you do. Foma 200, as you've noticed, is really a 125-160 speed film. It's also not much grainier than the 100. It also doesn't produce the golfball sized grain of the 400 (which itself is actually more like a 250 speed film). Foma 200 is also dirt cheap. I would argue that it's a much more useful "general purpose" film than the 100. It's perfect for learning, experimenting, testing light seals, etc.

Foma 200 is amazing. I shoot it boxspeed, develop in Adox XT-3 and it looks just great. Not worse than HP5. Hope, my comment was useful.

Best budget film there is. Best shot at 100-160 in most developers. I shoot it at 200 and develop in diafine, using alkaline fixer. don’t use acid stop bath with it.

Thank you Brian... How did you know I was buying Fomopan ? : ) Finally after years of collecting all we need.. and finally buying first batch of B+W and C41 chemicals from a supplier here in Ireland, I see he stocks Fomopan.. which I read has good reviews and as you point out, is not expensive.. Until recently the last time i developed anything was in the 80s.. Contact prints from an old Bellows camera.. This time I have the Enlarger..

I shoot this at 125 and use cinestill d96 to develop. It comes out ok. EDIT: I know shoot it at 160 and Rodinal. I love the effect and shoot this film most often. I use a Yashica 35 with limited high speed so this works best for me. I bulk roll and will try a couple rolls of Foma 100 after the roll is done.

I developed it in dd-x and it really helps with the muddiness, it basically makes it box speed.

I can't comment on the developing. I'm just starting to go 'off piste' with how I develop as I suspect that once made up the chemicals degrade quicker so I'm aiming at a one shot dilution, but all that's in the early stages. The real challenge is the do it with C41 as well ! Can't say that I've shot Foma 200 either but I looked at the Flickr page and I'd suspect most films arn't developed with the bright Levant sun in mind, which is why your box speeds don't line up. You've got me curious now and I'll pick up a few rolls and shoot them under the less than beaming skies of northern Europe :-) As to Foma in general I'm just glad that they produce 'cheap' good quality film, although its a pity that they allow their products to be re-branded and sold at twice the price by other companies.

Two important points in dealing with this film. 1: It is an iso 100 film and not iso 200. 2: to get the best out of this film the use of a compensating developer , ADOX AT 49 1+1 or dilute HC110, dilution H is required. Once you get these right, be prepared to be surprised, most pleasantly.

I developed mine in df96 and they did come out quite thin. The film leader was thin as well

I have just bought 50 sheets of 5x4 Fomapan 200. I am going to process in an open dish in a darkroom with fairly constant agitation for 5 minutes.

my favourite low budget bw film

I have used foma 100, 200, and 400, develop all in FPP-110, the 200 not my favorite either. I have 4 rolls taking up space in the freezer.

might just be me but if the sprocket hole side of the neg looks a little bit to dark i normally re dip in fix for an extra minute minute / fix for 6:00 . but i give it a go @160

my experience with Fomapan 200 matches yours. I'm used to use 100 both at box speed and 400 and I think even at 400 it out performs Fomapan 400. I don't get Fomapan 200 and I should not be using it again.

Don't know the veracity of this but I read years ago that the 100 asa and the 200 asa were the same film stock .... That being said , I've used the 200 in caffenol and it looked amazing ......

Thanx - superb presentation ! Is it true that Foma 100 scratches very easy ? Thanx

For Rodinal you need to shoot it at about 100

I use Fomapan 200 in 4x5 format because it is so inexpensive. It is basically a buck a negative. So it is something you can have fun with. However, I am not impressed with it at all. I shoot it at 100 ISO instead of the 200 ISO that the Foma company claims. Their website is really misleading. It doesn't perform at all as claimed. I do tray developing in D-76. After the recommended time, I do inspection under a green darkroom light. I find I usually have to develop it a bit longer to get the right negative density. Also, because it scratches so easily, I only develop one negative at a time. You can't really rotate several negatives in a tray without serious scratches. Also, I have trouble drying the film without water marks, even with a wetting agent in distilled water. The grain is not as good as I would have expected with a negative that is 14 times the size of a 35 mm negative. When I run out of my box of Fomapan 200, I am going to try Fomapan 100 as recommended by Brian. The price is right and hopefully, it is a better film. BTW I had a 100 foot roll of Fomapan 400 in 35mm. I thankfully ran out after a lot of frustration and switched to Kentmere 400. What a revelation. I just wish Kentmere made 4x5 film.

I like the stuff in xtol-r @125. I also use foma 100@100 in xtol-r too but I find foma 200 is a cleaner film. However, it is God awful in 120. Too many defects. the backing paper + emulsion is suspected of being the culprit. Stick with the 100 or 400@250 in 120. I will admit though. I really disliked it in Rodinal and had difficulties in handling the highlights in hc-110

what developer to get the best sharpness from this film?

I shot alot of foma between 2006-2010. I just usually got the 100. For whatever reason the 200 never impressed me. Your vids making me miss fortepan

Foma makes some of the greatest B&W films out there. I use the 100 and 400 speed films, I never understood the purpose of 200 film.

my friend from Germany once said to me - never use this Fomapan SIO200

If you’re going to show negatives use a light box so we can see them correctly you should be just able to read news paper print through the darkest area of the negatives the negatives you showed us looked ok and printable use a light box next time 🙄

Your videos lack credibility, given the absence of evidence that you have ever made a photograph of anything. How difficult would it be to show us some results?

200 you speak of or all ISO? For me I love 400 ….Because Fomapan haven’t changed their formula since it came out, and I can still capture a vintage look/mood. Unlike triX which have changed the original formula and now doesn’t have the vintage look. Too much noise ? Well, you don’t like the vintage look, simply put.

Am I the only one with impression that the negatives called “thin” are actually great, and those that “look better” in fact look overexposed / overdeveloped?