I'm a Fomapan user, both films and papers. I like the tonal range of these films, and the overall balance they provide, always printable, easy to push/pull, always reliable. and yes, cheap if compared to others. Since a couple of years I'm shooting Fomapan (100/200/400 and the beautiful Retropan), Bergger Pancro 400 (my top one favorite), Ferrania P30. Developing in Bellini (Nucleol, Hydrofen, Ecofilm). I found my process... have a great summer!!!!
I bought a 100 ft. roll of Fomapan 400 based on the price. Quite frankly, I was not happy with it at all. For one thing is it not 400 ISO. At best it is 200 ISO. This is a huge dealbreaker for me. Also, I never cared for the tone of the photos. They seemed muddy, with no "pop.". In addition, the film was very easily scratched and after the rinse cycle the film seemed to always dry with spots on it even if the final rinse was in distilled water with a wetting agent. Finally ran out the 100 ft. roll and switched to Kentmere 400. It's actually a 400 film. Feeling great to have a film that is trustworthy. The images are nice with decent grain and contrast. It almost seems like Tri X. I am presently using Fomapan 200 in my 4x5. It is better than the 400 but boy, I wish Kentmere made a 4x5 film
While I appreciate you didn’t get what you expected from it, I have always found that the right developer makes a big difference in the quality of the images it gives you. LC-29 has had worked really well.
Tom, it may surprise you but ALL films on the market are not actually the speed that the boxes claim. one of the things we learn first off with proffesional black and white photography is that all film box speeds are not accurate. Daniel Milnor actually made a great video about this topic. for instance 100 speed film is in reality actually a 35 speed film. This issue you talk about is not just Fomopan, it is literally ALL film stocks across all companies that produce and sell film.
I am a Foma user as well,great results,and easy printeble on Foma paper. Now i bought a few rolls of Foma 100 reversal,and the developping kit. No results yet,but im am curious.
Brilliant. I know about gloom being in Rottingdean. But I can use 400 even in sunny Somerset w/ BL/FP flash to 8000th. I'd like to try some. How does it fair to Arista or Ilford HP5.
I think the notion that a fast speed like 400 isn’t for bright light is a bit shortsighted. Even with a camera that only has a 500th of a second max shutter speed and a lens that only goes down to f16, you’re set for everything. It’s quite rare that I actually read true f16 & 500th sec meter readings and in situations like sun lit snow, I actually prefer to over expose it a bit so the harshness of the light comes through.
I found a fresh bulk roll of foma 400 (17m) for £20. Grabbed that quicker than you can imagine. I've shot a lot of foma over the years and really liked it, so I couldn't pass up a deal like that
It is dependent on the style of shooting. I will rate it 320 when using it of portraits, and 800 in the middle of winter. Use the Foma Developers or Ilford LC-29 for some excellent results.
Oof. I wouldn't use it at nighttime. The reciprocity failure is pretty substantial with foma films. I only get the green in 120. Not 135. It's a film I always have available in 120 and 135 (bulk). At stock speed I find it a bit contrasty for most situations so I pull to 250 in xtol and really like the results
woah... I have never considered this. I doubt it - as it's a traditional B&W emulsion - I don't think it'll work well with C41 at all! If you fancy B&W c41 fun though then you can always try Ilford XP2!
I wrote a comment on this. I used a 100 ft. film of Fomapan 400 and was totally frustrated with it. The film is actually 200 ISO, not 400 ISO. I found the film easily scratches and doesn't dry cleanly. It always seemed that half or more of the negatives were not useable. I just bought a 100 ft. roll of Kentmere 400. Huge difference. It seems to be a very dependable film, dries evenly and has decent grain. AND, it is actually a 400 ISO film. Almost all of my negatives are useable. The fun is back in photography and dark room work!
I don't like this film at all. You get “atmospheric” shots OK, if by atmospheric you mean grainy, which I think a lot of people must do, the number of times I've heard a photo called “atmospheric” when I've thought “That looks bloody grainy to me”. Also, it seems to lose contrast in dull overcast weather of which, being in Manchester, we get a lot. I have no doubt changing the developer might improve things, but I'm not going to do that: I don't have sufficient throughput to make that an economic proposition. I settled on Ilfotec LC-29 because of its long life and its design as a one-shot developer. I don't at all want bottles of part-used developer hanging about, and I don't want part bottles of unused developer rapidly going off, either, while I simply cannot be arsed with powders. LC-29 gives me good results with the various other films I have tried, however cheap, too, so it is staying. It is Foma that is down the road. As I've tried their 200 as well. which is very nearly as bad, I'm steering clear of everything Bohemian and photographic if I can possibly avoid it in future. I will save my pennies for HP5+ or get a cheaper film made down the road in Mobberley if I have to scrimp, and I'd advise everybody else to do the same.
