HP5+ or Tri-X Replacement? | FOMAPAN 400 Review 

Fomapan 400 is actually 250ISO according to its data sheets. Exposing my Fomapan 400 at EI250 yielded much nicer negatives in terms of local contrast and shadow detail. I'm unsure if it's due to the denser negatives but the grain seemed to look nicer as well. In terms of development, I feel like at EI400 and above Fomapan 400 is great with Rodinal which emphasises the grain you're going to get anyway in a pleasing manner. At EI250 or below I've only tried Ilfosol 3 and 510-Pyro, but I liked the look of 510 Pyro a bit more. Also important to note that Fomapan 200 is technically 160ISO, while Fomapan 100 is actually true 100ISO.

I discovered you channel today through the follow up of some discussions around the spotmatic and then I switched to your video on B&W films and I really love them. Congrats for these tests and feedbacks from your experience. You give us envy to take photos with film and it s very pleasant. Thx a lot.

Fomapan has a lot of character. I love it as 120 film but for 35mm, I prefer Fomapan 200 developed in Rodinal. 400 is a bit too wild for my taste or I haven't figured it out correctly. Great review! The last film that really surprised me, was Ferrania P30. It matches my style of open aperture photography, even for landscapes and has an insane contrast and sharpness. Oh, try to develop black and white film by yourself, it saves you money in the long run and you are way more flexible. I prefer good old Rodinal, because I like grain.

I'm shooting mostly Foma now and develop solely in Adox XT-3 and it looks just great.

Have you tried comparing the sharpness between your own scans and the lab scans ? A flatbed scanner will not yield the ideal sharpness from a 135 film, which is why you might find it is not as sharp as the other stocks. Just a thought

Weirdly enough Foma 400 is sharper in my experience than HP5+ and curls considerably less than Tmax 100. I suppose mileage may vary

Never had an issue with Fomapan 400 curling. I reckon it's something you can get if you don't weight the negs when you hand them to dry. Or if they dry too fast in a too dry environment. I've shot 100 feet of it last year (plus many canisters before that) and never ever had it curling on me. I hang them, weighted, in my bathroom and it's always perfect.

Never tried this film... I like agfa apx 400... Especially when I push it to ISO800 with Ilford microphen, love the grain that I get, and also it has a certain look, that I can't really explain, but really like... Seems almost perfect to get my emotion across.

You should try Kentmere 400 instead. It is a true EI400 film and can compare with HP5+ at EI400 but HP5+ is better for pushing more than 1½ stops so iif that is your game then stick to HP5+

I happened to have a roll knockong around and it was my first ever 35mm roll in a new to me Pentax MX. Pleasantly surprised, got some nice photos out of the roll considering i was just experimenting with the camera. The photos were generally a little underexposed but that could have easily been user error. Considering its the same price as HP5 then i probably wont go out my way for it again.

Current price in Australia puts Fomopan 1.50 less than HP5, if you hunt around. Price is not an incentive. Edit: For 120

I like the Fomapan 400 in all its formats except the 200 ISo, I shoot foma in 35mm, 120mm and 4x5 and have never ever had such dull results as you show here. But I also develop them myself and do not give them away. The negatives are mostly very crisp and rich in contrast. I use rodinal most of the time, as well as fx39 … But this said, when I see your outcomes here, … if that happened before I tried that film, I would never ever use it. Sorry, but your or better the laboratory’s results are a nightmare compared to what I achieve with this film quite consistently and easily. I also use Kentmere, hp5+, Rollei 400 but am very happy with the fomapan as well, even at box speed. Always good light, and try to develop a roll of foma by yourself!👍🏼🙋🏼‍♂️

I have not used this film, but I have used quite a lot of 100 and 200 in all formats including 4X5. The QC of foma is below par and I have had many issues with both the 100 and the 200, so not a fan of Foma at the moment. Also Foma films were reasonably cheap in the UK up to two years ago but their prices have gone up considerably in the last 18 months. I think that for the price it is hard to beat HP5 +. Rated @ iso 200 and developed properly in perceptol the film is almost as fne grained as a medium speed emulsion with superb tonality and sharpness, and no QC issues so far.

Doesn't tri-x have a t-grain? It should not be in the same category as classic tech/grained films. Maybe a comparable one is delta from ilford (in best case scenario)

I have given up on Fomapan. Their QC is very bad. I have had 35mm that has had white spots on the negs, and the last 2 rolls of Fomapan 400 shot on a Mamiya 645 only produced 14 and a bit images. When I compared the length of the films with another brand, they were both over 1.5 cms (over 1/2 inch) shorter.

You have to print in the darkroom to really test a film. Unfortunatelly for the price, in my opinion, there is anything like the Tri-x. I like the Delta 400 but without to push it. If you want a grainless image I prefer the Delta 100. I cannot spend time and money for cheaper film but for poor images. I use cheaper film only for testing cameras.

watching this video meanwhile developing fomapan 400 haha

I don't like it. I think that it is too much expensive for its low quality. HP5 is the right compromise. Tri-x is the best but it is expensive.

Was this review paid by Foma? Fomapan 400 looks like s**t compared to TriX or HP5.