Help me choose foma 400 or foma 200 or 400

I only have experience of 100 and 400, with 400 being a bit flat and disappointing, dull even. So that makes the bottom one 400. I'll guess 100 on top, leaving 200 in the middle.
 
TallBill said:
I only have experience of 100 and 400, with 400 being a bit flat and disappointing, dull even. So that makes the bottom one 400. I'll guess 100 on top, leaving 200 in the middle.
Click to expand...
Spot on . Well done.

Foma 100
Foma 200
Foma 400
 
Francis R said:
Well, I was completely wrong :cool:
Click to expand...
At least you were brave enough to stick your neck out!
Seriously, it is difficult to see differences in small files on a monitor. You can't beat looking at a 15 x 12inch print. When I look at foma 100 and Foma 200 prints like this, I don't see a lot of difference. I like them both. (Though I have now settled for FP4) Foma 400 is a different matter. It has unique characteristics, which come over quite strongly. In 35mm I have used it a lot because it often, but not always, produces prints of real character. There is nothing bland about it, but it's not everyone's cup of tea. I have only used it twice in 5x4 and half a dozen times in 7x5 and no longer use it in large format because it is likely to come out with a slightly odd look.
 
I use mostly Foma 200 for 4x5 (and Foma 100, FP4, TPX 320 and T Max 100 for less than 10% of shots). I must admit that the balance price/quality is quite acceptable for me. Moreover, it is versatile and easy to process.
 
I would definitely have guess 400 as the final image, would have been a tossup between the other two.

It's interesting to see the blotchy sky there on Foma 100, this is the sort of thing I see on Foma 200 and not on Ilford/Kodak film. I had read somewhere that 100 was much less prone to what I think of as the usual foma 'weirdness", but maybe that isn't true.
 
I wonder if filters might be the answer to improve the blandness people are describing?
 
I'm really not seeing this blandness - but then I tend to work a lot on my images in 'post' - much as when I had a full time darkroom I seldom made a print without a lot of burning and dodging - playing with paper grades and toning. To me the negative is just the rough sketch for the final image. To be cropped, adjusted into the way I saw the scene ... not necessarily the way the film did.
There are punchier films sure, but given Fomapan's price ... I think I'm prepared to do the extra 'finishing' work. :)
 
I have no idea why people regard Foma 400 as bland. It has a definite character all of its own. This comes over most strongly in 35mm, and the first photo is a 35mm one, shown here to illustrate the point. It must have something to do with its spectral sensitivity. Some subject colours come out with a different tone to what you would expect to see with, say, HP5. But this is difficult to predict, and if you limit yourself to Foma 400, there will be some disappointments. Its colour sensitivity can render some textures rather oddly, as I think the second photograph shows. This is from a 7x5 negative.hazel head farm.jpgriverside trees.jpg
 
Marley's Ghost said:
Fomapan 200 5x4 ... not bland in my book
Click to expand...

I've used a lot of 120 Fomapan 100 & 200, then settled on 200 as there's little difference when printed. It's Fpmapan 400 people including myself feel is bland, Agfapan 400 was similar, so was HP4.

Ian
 
Ian Grant said:
I've used a lot of 120 Fomapan 100 & 200, then settled on 200 as there's little difference when printed. It's Fpmapan 400 people including myself feel is bland, Agfapan 400 was similar, so was HP4.

Ian
Click to expand...
Well I have quite a bit of it in my fridge ... so I will give it a good go. :) I will probably start my tests at iso 160 with Pyrocat HD I think ... this has given me good results with other lower contrast emulsions. A good prewash - and a mild alkaline fixer is now my go to method for all Foma.
 
Marley's Ghost said:
Well I have quite a bit of it in my fridge ... so I will give it a good go. :) I will probably start my tests at iso 160 with Pyrocat HD I think ... this has given me good results with other lower contrast emulsions. A good prewash - and a mild alkaline fixer is now my go to method for all Foma.
Click to expand...
Treat Foma 400 like Hp5 -same dev times - and you won't go far wrong.
 
I don't know about the Foma 400 looking bland. Here are some portraits of mine made on Foma 400 with an old uncoated lens (Dallmeyer 2B).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top