Fomapan 200 works well with Adox FX39 II. The film was originally made by Paterson under the brand name Acupan 200. Geoffrey Crawley who worked for Paterson formulated a number of developers such as Aculux, and Acuspecial, but I believe he formulated FX39 specifically for this film and T grain films. It’s a great combination at iso 125.
Great comment :) you wrote what I was about to lol. Another thing about FX39 ii is its shelf life is now way better, up to two years plus, and, with a small steel tank, at 1:9, I am getting 20 rolls out of a £12 bottle making it really economical :)
@@GeertKuster there is a partner for Adox on Photrio. Adox technicians post info and reply in that forum. On there a tech called Henning states that shelf life is two years plus in optimal conditions. It makes for an interesting read :)
I use Fomapan 200 almost exclusively now. Got some bulk rolls and same loader as you, I just use APP cartridges, not reusing old film ones. No scratches on mine, but Foma had a time when their film had emulsion problems, cracking, scratches etc. Maybe gelatin issues or something and you got bad roll. I develop in old good Rodinal, 1:19 and it is very nice film. Nothing wonderful, it is not TMax or BW400CN but it is very nice film for everyday shooting. It being mix of cubic and T-Grain it likes T-Grain developers like DD-X but those are waaaaaay to expensive and results are not that much better so I kept using Rodinal.
Fomapan is one of my favorite films regardless of cost but it's the 100, 400 also gets a shout out for it's "look" but the 200 I could never get on with and I also had those blemishes on the emulsion minus scratch marks.
I wish i saw this 12 hours ago! I developed a roll of fomapan 200 in xt3 for 8.5 mins. Underexposed, most of the roll is unusable. I am shooting it in a kodak ektar 35n, but still, fp4+ was heaps better in the same camera (I did that in perceptol). I'll try again when I get another couple of rolls. I noticed scratches/wierd lines on a couple of the frames, I assumed scanning issue, but, now, not so sure. It's also _very_ curly, even after cutting them up. :-/. I'm trying to find the best allrounder (cheap) for the kodak happy snap. Kentmere 400 was ok, but, a tad flat (xt3 again). fp4+ was ace when shot during the day, but, no go with flash indoors. Trying fomapan 400 next :-)
I have a lot of success with Fomapan 200 and semi stand development. 5mL HC110 and 1mL Rodinal in 710 mL water. presoak, 10sec agitation at beginning, 10 sec agitation after 30 min and then an additional 30min. I've been fortunate not to have had the issues with scratching or flaws in emulsion (although I have read others complaining about that). I don't roll my own fomapan but buy pre-rolled cassettes.
I'm on my second 100ft can of Foma 200, with good results, at least nothing I can blame on the film. I'm using replenished D-23, which I learned about from John Finch, of Pictorial Planet. I have pretty good luck following the times for D-76 on the Massive Dev Chart. Where I live in Oregon, it's not easy to take a picture without a tree in it. One adapts.
I bought a tin of Arista Edu 200. Same as Fomapan 200 ? I get some scratching. I scan it and use sepia or yellow tones (in Nic Collection) to make the print look old. Scratches help depending on the subject. I tend to old things like barns and buildings. I also develop in 510 Pyro.
If the scratches are lengthwise, it's probably the can. If not, then it's the handling. Foma makes some pretty low silver content film (hence the low price). This makes them less dense than Kodak or Ilford. They're also quite finicky when it comes to which developer is used. But for the price, they do offer quite a bit quality wise.
Any advice about which developers to use? And/or which to avoid? I’ve been a D-76, Xtol and HC110 user for a long time. I recently bought some Rodinol and found some forgotten Dektol with which I’ll be experimenting.
04:00 Would I take the shot? Most definitely. The trees don't put me off and the sky is great. I live in the South of Europe and we don’t get clouds like that. BTW, couldn't the scratches be down to spooling it onto the reels? I buy plenty of reels of 36 exposures, and I've never had those issues.
In my experience Fomapan 200 worked well in Microphen than in Rodinal, but someone commented to me that the film shot in Rodinal looked better though (probably it was the light in that photo). Planning to test this in Rollei Supergrain (Amaloco AM74) in the near future. As with the scratching, it's most likely because of the loading process.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBossFomapan 200 scratches very easily, I have had so many issues with this in 120. In 4x5 it is fine, but my cameras that don't scratch any other film do scratch fomapan 200. I gave up on it after that.
I shoot Foma 200 at box and dev in Adox FX39II for 10 min at 20c. I always use a yellow filter when shooting B&W. I find Foma 200 loves a yellow filter. I get just the contrast I’m looking for with this combo. I haven’t noticed scratches on my Foma negs. I have had issues with white spots on the negs in 120 Foma 200 film.
Thanks for the videos. I have had similar lines and streaks before and figured out that they were from the "film squeegee". I always keep it clean but sometimes if you have crystallization of the developer of the fixer or any particulate matter in your solutions, maybe even dust, it sticks to wet film. When you run the squeegee at the end to dry the film, the particulate matter drags over the film causing those lines. Or even worn out rubber on your squeegee. Foma may be flimsy and cheap but I have had such things on Kodak film before due to the issues mentioned above. I hope this helps. It is amazing how film photographers have to work with so many variables to get decent negatives.
In the late 1960's/early 1970's Freestyle Sales Company had "mystery film" available for less that Kodak or GAF films. That's where I discovered Ilford FP3 and HP3, which were my first "foreign films" I fed to Ye Olde Nikkormat FTN. Later on, I discovered ORWO films that led me to Agfa Rodinal, though I did try to soup everything in Kodak D-76. (I was a poor college photographer back then.) I also looked at DuPont enlarging papers, as well. These films were "additional brushes" in the Monochrome film box, used as needed, when Kodak Plus-X or Tri-X Pan didn't quite fit the situation. Fun/great times.;)
I remember those old Freestyle days. There were doing stuff like that up to about 2010, Arista branded TX and PX for $2/box. Also saw them roll and sell T-Max 100 and some Ilford films. Nothing like that these days.
I really like your day in the life sort of videos. They are very relatable and give me the impetus to go out more myself. I trick that I used back in the day ( 1968) for scratches was to use petroleum jelly on the back of the negative. It has nearly the same refractive index as the backing. Put a dab on the back and wipe it off with a tissue. If the scratches are on the back, they will disappear but if the emulsion is scratched, nothing can be done. As for dynamic range, would shooting at half ISO speed and underdeveloping by one stop yield flatter negs with more detail in shadows?
I get scratches occasionally with my F100. I’ve put it down to the overly complicated roller system on the door of the camera. Get a bit of grit in there and bingo. Expect the F6 ( very nice by the way) has a similar system. I check it every time now and blow out with a blower brush before loading. So far, so good. Have also used Foma 200 in HC110, which is not apparently a favoured combo, but it works for me.
Always bulk loaded Fomapan 100, and the only time I've had scratches is from the felt light trap in the cassette. I run a blunt blade along the felt before loading to dislodge any gremlins, and don't use the old film cassette more than three times, twice preferably. Ensure the bulk loader lever is set to "load film", and the light trap isn't closed for "remove cassette", and wind on gently. Use a hardening fixer for soft emulsions. Can't say I've used Foma 200 but don't see why it should scratch?
When you have bulk loaded for ages with various films and get good results you forget the obvious care which I should have adopted here! So yes, I will be loading my next cassette with precaution! LOL
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss Just trying to be helpful! I've heard mixed opinions of Fomapan 200, whereas the the 100 and 400 generally get good reviews. So it may just be lousy film, but begs the question why only the 200 ASA film shows technical flaws in a traditional (non-T grain) emulsion? Except for rare examples of Kodak film, the only film I've had consistent emulsion issues with was Chinese manufactured "Lucky" film, in its final years. Older films required a hardening developer and maybe that's the issue, but you probably already know that. PS, I've been bulk loading film almost 50 years, and a couple of years ago managed to load a cassette the wrong way round!
My experience tells me that Foma is prone to scratches, especially when bulk loading. One thing I thought of was to minimize film contact with its canister gate, therefore I'm loading bulk film in the dark and insert it spooled from the top, so it only goes once in every direction before the can is dusted again prior to loading another film in it. The top of every canister can be popped off and put back, making a reusable. Some metal canisters even come with chamfered top, making it super awesome as a reusable can - Ferrania, for example. Reduced agitation frequency/stand development can help against contrast. Or different developer.
I was having problems with scratches on Fomapan 100. After a lot of investigating I found that it was caused by the paterson film squeegee I was using.
People will disagree, but squeegees should be reserved for prints. Film gelatine is much too fragile for a dirty great rubber blade containing heaven knows what embedded in its surface.
shoot loads of foma200 (think about 4 tins) - I tend to shoot it at 125 and develop in rodinal - its quite soft when wet, I run it thought my fingers rather than a film squeegee
I had an issue with a roll from my bulk expired hp5. It seemed to happen with just one roll but months later after I had reloaded a couple cans and shot/developed them the dirt and scratches were back on one roll. Turned out the felt on the film canister was drying out and tiny pieces were flaking off causing the issue. As I have only a small supply of canisters I reuse them a lot. But good news I used a rocket blower and a very fine small brush on the offender (taking it apart to blow out any dirt inside as well). I shot a short roll of 6 to test. All good now.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss BTW...don't buy those plastic canisters unless you have to. The felt on those is very cheap and it flakes off quite a bit so you have to make sure you rocket blow them before loading. But first run your gloved finger across the felt lightly to get any loose particles off, then use the blower. I have a few of those canisters and have had an issue once before I noticed the issue.
Foma 200 has been my default film for a while and found after a bit of experimenting it comes out a treat with great shadow detail with Microphen when scanned. Advantage of Microphen is you can use it 10 times to save costs. It's also a T-grain but don't know if that makes any difference. It does scratch easily when its still wet so I don't use a squeegee.
Fomapan 200 tech sheet actually lists Microphen as the ideal developer. Been shooting almost exclusively fomapan 200, just got around testing it in Microphen as i alway tend to use D76.
@@studiosnchI tested the 30c development that is also listed in the data sheet, its kinda interesting it shows how you can reach almost 250iso by using this higher temperature and really short dev time. It did actually work perfectly. I just shot it at 200 iso, and developed at 30c for 4min. Just needed a really long prewash to get all the antihalation off before the development. Because of the short dev time that did not first remove it completely. What i would like to know, how does 1+1 microphen work, as its a bit expensive to be using stock dilutions. The grain was not as pleasing as with D76 though. But considerably lower gamma and better shadow detail. The curves shown in the data sheet seem to be correct. D76 gives really high gamma. Iw been shooting it mostly at 100iso with D76.
Thanks! I really likes some of the images. An advantage of shooting in the UK is that you can easily economise on film. Any film will show the sky in B&W.
@tedcrosby9361 nailed it. I am on my second tin of fomapan 200. I always shoot it between ei 125-160 & recently started using FX-39. The film works beautifully in ID-11 but I don't like powder developers particularly (shelf life issues). I use steel developing cans and love them. The single spool one only uses 240ml of liquid which was a problem with HC110 until I tried the lesser known dilution D (1:39). This gave me a 6:30 dev time and the 6ml minimum jollop I needed. The negatives were nice and contrasty. (By all accounts any dev times below 5mins are to be avoided, so 1:31 doesn't really work and 1:63 doesn't give me the 6ml in the small tank). As for FX-39, this is the one for me. 1:9, 10mins at 20°c it is gorgeous. It's an acutance dev so it enhances the grain a bit but that's fine. The thing to remember is it is £50 for 30m. HP4, XP2 etc are £100 & T-max is £200. You can get tremendous results from the foma and its cost allows you to shoot freely. Just don't expect it to be like ilford delta
Hello Roger, interesting video, I buy Fomapan 200 both in coils and 120 reels, I also have scratch problems, especially when I shoot with my Holga, I think it is because the emulsion is too soft. I live in the south of Spain and in summer when I put the film in the development spiral, it sticks.
I have shot Fomapan 100 200 and 400 with very good results and usually buy in 100ft rolls. Im loading them in old Leica cassettes where the film cant be scratched by any form of light seals on the cassette
Hi Roger, have used fomapan 200 in 35mm and 120 never have problems with the 120 ,I bulk load the 35mm all ways give the felt a gentle wipe with a tooth brush and a blower also give the loader the same, never had lines but sometimes get a few spots, out of interest I always shoot with a orange filter which seems to help with the sky's.
I used to have a lot of trouble with scratches when I bulk loaded my film. I threw away the cassettes after three uses; I rolled the film extra slowly onto the cassette; I even bought a different bulk loader (the kind without the felt light seal). Still, I would occasionally get a long horizontal scratch across the film. Multiple frames ruined (dammit!). Finally. I gave up and went back to pre-rolled film. Problem went away. But my wallet went empty. So now (glutton for punishment) I'm thinking of going back to bulk-loading. Wish me luck!
Roger, Roger from Australia here. I have been delevoping my own Fomapan for 10 years or so, never had any scratches. 120 and 35mm bulk loaded. Maybe you got a Monday morning tin.
I had similar problems with 35mm Fomapan 200. Some rolls had a lot of scratches and also missing pieces in the emulsion. After looking at everything I'm pretty sure that is wasn't me.Other rolls from the brick were fine and the 120 films I had we fine too. I bought it a few months ago so maybe it was just a bad production run (defect canning machine?).
I have kinda gone right off Fomapan - I did buy a lot of it about 5-6 years ago (still have some lurking in my freezer but cant bring myself to use it) and was a bit pissed off with the multiple emulsion defects (including from the factory scratches) that seemed to be par for the course with it, so I went with kentmere stock which didn't seem to suffer in the same way and was much more reliable.
I have narrowed down the film to just a few ones that I know that have worked well for me in the past. My experimenting with film is over it it too expensive.
I just delay couple of developer\fixer because of a strange problem: on extremely slow film like ilford panf+50 or adox25iso on the developed negative there are hundreds of small white dots, that not seen by bare eye, but on the positive scans looks black and awful. With 100iso+ film that problem disappears. And after i mix different type of dev\fix, i finaly can sucessivly develop my panf+50.
Hi Roger ...all I can say is that you have a very intereting toe curve ( ok then tonality - or lack of mid range ) this would be a good film for fashion...no need to return to the drawing board ...I will go dumpster diving again for your discarded prints
Fomapan 200 in D23 1+1 one shot is an extraordinary combo. There are some fascinating examples on Flickr, and on the Photrio forum, which is likely where this youtuber found inspiration for this video (without of course acknowledging any of these resources). Fomapan 200 in 35mm is fine, not as prone to scratches as its 120 counterpart, so the scratches seen here are likely the consequence of bulk loading or mishandling or heavy handed squeegeeing.
I had a couple of rolls 120 size ON one roll developed in a 2 bath developer it came out all blotchy but on another rol done in 510 Pyro came out well I have never used it in 35mm O
Have watched your prior videos using a Mamiya RB67. I have one and use it less now that I have a 645 pro tl that is easily a walk around camera. But I then picked up a nikon f5, huge camera, but didn't like the focus confirmation in the top right viewfinder, hard to see, easy to lose. F100 better, but now, the f6 has if bright in the center of the view finder because I like to use manual focus zeiss glass as you did here. 35 is sharp, the 85 gorgeous bokeh, the 100 crazy sharp and does my film scanning as well as portraits with 2 or 3 people. I can easily pull a 16" digital print from it, and now, with topaz gigapixel, I expect even larger.
Have exactly the same issue, hundreds of little black dots and scratches. But only with 200 in medium format. Exactly the same development techniques with 100 ISO. and 400 ISO no problem there, only the 200 ISO.
Hi Roger. I shoot it at 200 and develop in adox adonol 1+25 like you did before, but for five minutes. Not so many rolls yet, but I like the result. Br Ronnie
I bought a few rolls each of Fomapan 100, 200, & 400 in 120 format - mainly because of the low price, but then started to hear of the emulsion issues with the 200 speed. So of course that’s the film I loaded first into my Mamiya RB67 and a Bronica SQ. I’ve taken the photos but haven’t developed the film yet. I’m realizing now that if I’m not mistaken, the cautionary tales of the Fomapan 200 that I’ve heard have all been from you.. I can’t think of anyone else who’s brought it up or mentioned any difference between the emulsions of the various speed Fomapan films. I’ll be very careful when handling it during development and I’ll hope for no scratches or emulsion abnormalities. I enjoy your videos as always sir! Cheers!
FWIW I too have experienced scratched Fomapan 200 I bought bulk loaded by store. And scratched Double X, so poor bulk loading practices will most likely be at fault
I once read that adding a tea spoonful of sodium chloride to D23 get you similar the Perceptol. So that is what I have done. I don't use them sufficiently to know if it makes a difference (FP4+).
Having only recently started with my own darkroom, I am getting more of an appreciation for how this is done. That said, my tendency to be a bit clinical in testing is stepping up and if you're going to test different developers you'll want to have the same scene be the reference (a colour checker is a good get mainly for the greys on the one side.) Especially when trying to tame highlights.
Very timely video, Roger. Like you, I haven't shot much Foma, and I just got a 100 foot roll. Haven't shot any of it yet. I was making mental notes as I watched. I'm looking forward to more about your adventures with this film. Oh, and good luck with finding the cause of the scratches.
Another great video Rodger, One reason I don't bulk roll, is the chances of problems arrising using the same canisters over and over again. Why dont't you try and use a brand new cannister and a older well used cannister and see if the scratches appear, a couple of short 12 exposure rolls, and compare them.
Someone has to do a factory tour at Fomapan facility. It's 2h drive from where I live, but they are busy people and don't practice opening the factory doors to strangers. Maybe a UA-camr like you could approach them :) I can help with commute and travelling tips in Czech Republic.
I suggest you to try also Fomapan 100 and to try it also @50, haven't tried yet, but people say it's nice. I shoot foma 100 as 100 and sometimes it gets just to use a little contrast filters when developing and it looks very nice.
I haven't tried Fomapan but I have suffered from scratched negatives when I used bulk film long ago. In my case it was FP4 and I was spooling it into cassettes by hand, not using a loader. The scratches were from " invisible" bits of dirt in the felt light traps of the cassettes and I have never used bulk film since. Like you I regard a negative with scratches as ruined and I want to be able to rely on the film being able to deliver a good print without having to try and repeat the picture. To me bulk film is not worth the cost saving if I end up with spoiled prints. If you feel that the Foma in D23 is too contrasty how about reducing development by 10 - 20% and over-exposing it by a stop and see if you prefer it, rather than going straight over to Pyro, to reduce the variables.
My only real experience with 200 in 135 came out under exposed so I’m not sure…. Of the foma line I’ve found the most pleasing and got the best results from 100
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss bummer. I usually see that with Foma with an acidic stop bath, but water doesn't usually have that. I guess you got a batch that has issues.
I've been just satisfied with the results I get using stock XTOL and shooting it at ISO 200. But there are a lot of people around the internet that say that the true speed of this is ISO 160. I haven't yet tried it at that speed, but I have a feeling I would like it more than box speed. So maybe try ISO 160? Fomapan seems to be very temperamental when it comes to pushing and somewhat pulling. I've shot Fomapan 100 at box speed and at ISO 80 and there was definitely a noticeable difference. I liked it a little more at 100, but at 80 there was a more even tonality. I got decent results pulling Fomapan 400 to ISO 260 in the past as well.
1) Have you tried going Leitz Two Bath Dev? If you are making D23 you could just cut back on the dev time a bit (to 4 mins?) then move it straight to a second bath of 15g/l Sodium Carbonate for 3 minutes. That might stop the highlights blocking. It might be worth a punt as you only have to buy some Sodium Carbonate (anhydrous) if you haven't got any. Not tried it with Foma 200 but works OK with Foma 100. Delta 400 didn't like it! I tend to use Ilfotec HC at the moment though so I'm not too familiar with it. 2) Is the dust and scratches from squeegeeing your film? I guess the Isle of White has pretty hard water. I used to develop in Bristol and then Reading and I always remember the pain of drying marks or scratches from squeegeeing. Now I'm in Edinburgh with lovely soft water. You could move to Yorkshire or do a final rinse in distilled water - anything but the dreaded squeegee! 3) All the best people are called Roger
I'll look into that Roger. Thanks. I don't use a squeegee. I think the scratches were from the cassette. I've been careful since and no scratches. I use just tap water for washing and hang the negs in the bathroom to dry naturally.
Roger , I coincidentally bought 200 creative about the same time as yourself and shot it on one of those mental bright Australian winter mornings with a red filter....looks to be sorted on the neg front.....maybe it doesn't stand up to the slate grey British sky, needing the sun to give shadow to the subject matter and consequently that bringing out the best of the contrast of the qualities of the film ....I was shooting geological rock formations up on the scarp and also ferns so wasn't really utilising heaps of the sky , again maybe it works better more localised to subject matter opposed to big landscape vista's? processed in PERCEPTOL STOCK
Would you consider scanning the negatives of the corn and editing them on the computer to clone out the scratches and then give them to the farmer? Or, will you go back again with a different film and recreate the images?
I've just been through your catalogue of reviews but I can't find one on the Nikon F2 (unless I missed it). I've got the F2AS with a 55mm f1.2 lens and I'd love to see what you think of this system. :)
I've done fomapan 200 and 510 pyro many times and when scanned its a very nice clean, contrasty and fine grain image. How well that will transfer in the dark room I'm not sure but curious to see
Afaik the scratches tend to happen before development. So loader, film canister or camera might cause those? If you find out where they come from a follow up video would be nice. Also, I guess you could digitize the scratched negatives, photoshop them and get a b&w print for the farmer? 👍
Hello Rodger, not good, your having issues with Fomopan 200. For the last 2 years, all i use is Fomapan , both 120 & 35mm. I have never tried bulk film. For 35mm , I use the pre-loaded canisters. Most the time, I use only ISO 400, as I am a bit lazy , at my old age . Never had any issues with scratches , on 35mm, using only 23 cameras. Medium format, same . For high contrast scenes, I usually have Yellow-green or red filter in my bag . I'd be checking the film loader and/or cassettes. I develop with D-76 or Ilford Ilfosol-3 (1:9) Let us know what you discover . Ken
One roll at 200 ISO developed in D76 has give me an underexposed roll about one stop. So I think 200 iso is not a correct sensibility. I think about 125 ISO would be better. I prefer to stay with HP5 or TRI-X.
Please let me ask : Which ISO should i choose with the Fomapan 200 ? ( I don't develop for myself, i send my films always to a lab ). Which ISO/ASA can you recommend ?
Analog photography is too much work to risk using cheap film. You waste $ trying to make it work. I just buy the quality film, learn it, and develop consistency. Nice channel. Love the 'exposure' to variety that you provide.
Hi Roger! Being a Foma customer for more than 10 years I must say that Fomapan 200 and 400 doesn't add anything to my photography. The gem is Fomapan 100 with a classic emulsion that's possible to push to iso 800 with good results and the best is that I develop in Rodinal 1+100, semistand 1 h, regardless of how I've shot the film (iso100-800)! I've never had good results with FP 200 or 400, (the claimed film speed is just rubbish) unless I expose them @ 100 resp 200. As for now I can get a 120 roll of FP 100 for 4,75 Euro if I buy a 10-pack directly from Foma's web shop, and that is the best price for a 120 film roll you can get (I'm mainly into MF and LF). Sorry for brexit, I guess that you have to pay extra customs and VAT fees (+25-30%?) when buying from the Czech republic (as will I when buying stuff from the UK, so sad...). Happy shooting and printing from Sweden/Johan
Developed in W2D2+ Pyro/Metol the tonality can be beautiful. The problem for me is the curl. Loading 6 frames in a film holder is like trying to uncurl one of those cheap New Years Eve party blower thingies.
Awesome video mate! I don't really know about processing film but I would think that maybe some grit or dirt is inside the foam leader? Dunna know... One question on the other end of things, I've noticed lately that when you shoot your vids in BW there like the same in contrast as the photos when you insert them into the timeline in post. What kind of editing program are you using to edit you awesomely funny vids? Cheers!
I don't (and wouldn't) shoot Foma exclusively, but it's certainly in my regular rotation. The 200 gave me a couple of my favorite shots, though I use D76. Might be your dev is why your negs are so flat - they're a bit underdeveloped.
I had similar issues with Fomapan 200 a couple of weeks ago - a roll from 100 years the anniversary edition. I shot during rain, and I thought it was my fault. Good to hear it was maybe not 100%% me.
Fomapan 200 is a tough nut to crack! I enjoy it in D-23, but I just developed a roll in Fomadon LQN, which is supposed to be the dedicated developer. Scans coming next week! Great shots all the same despite the imperfections.
Fomapan 200 is OK OE cassettes BUT leave well alone in bulk version. !00ft rolls are horrendous - scratches and horrible blemishes on the film . Tried 120 and that was even worse full of black spots all over the film. Such a shame that the film has so many coating imperfections because as a photographic film it is really nice BUT I just can't handle the problems. The 100 and 400 though are both excellent films without any issues. For 100 ISO Fomapan try this :- 18 minutes in D76 1:3 with agitation 10 secs every minute. The results are absolutely brilliant with hardly any grain and really nice negatives.
I shot a good few rolls of foma when I started. I noticed when I scanned the negatives the images looked really muddy. Details in the shadows and highlights not the best.Still the cheapest out there but massive difference in price lately. Like all film I suppose. Also noticed those imperfections on my negatives
Foma films are always practically shot half of their stated ISO because of their characteristics. In my experience only when Fomapan 200 is developed in Microphen (compensating developer from Ilford typically used when pushing film) can you shooot the film at box speed, otherwise a rule of thumb is to shoot it at EI 100 (for my developer and style of developing, I can shoot EI 160 with this film).
@@studiosnch On "The Naked Photographer" channel he has tested all Fomapan films and have concluded the following: Fomapan 100: EI 100 Fomapan 200: EI 160 Fomapan 400: EI 250
@@michaelrasmussen3347 Yes this is correct. In my experiments Fomapan 200 usually plays nice at EI 125 to 160, and currently I'm shooting Fomapan 100 which I rated at EI 64 (when developed with Rollei Supergrain) to EI 80 (using Bellini Eco Film, which is basically liquid Xtol).
@@michaelrasmussen3347 I expose it at EI 160 and develop at ISO 200. Basically I used John Finch's (Pictorial Planet) method of determining effective film speed with your developer and dev'ing method.
Fomapan has a nice, retro soft look, I find it really benefits from having lots of light. I find Kentmere 400 better for sharpness and contrast, it has more of a modern look and is almost the same price as Foma. I think the quality control on Fomapan may not be quite as good, so I'll probably stick to Kentmere as my budget b&w.
I quite like Foma 200 in D23. Worth trying higher dillutions too though yep I almost always used 510-Pyro with Foma 200. In part because it supposedly helps to harden the emulsion to help avoid scratches. I quite like Foma 200. It has an interesting look to it and sometimes it surprises me. But I only shoot it in sheets, in part because that helps minimize imperfections and avoids the pitfalls of trying to bulkroll the super soft emulsion. Another emulsion that drives me a bit crazy is Rollei IR 400. It can be absolutely gorgeous in sheets but it's on a super thin base and often seems to have pinholes. I just kinda accept the imperfections there for the privilege of getting to do IR photography. I've tried Svema FN64 to see if it might be a suitable replacement. It's base is _slightly_ thicker but it has even more manufacturing defects. Oh well! If I wanna shoot something I expect to be perfect, I'll bust out some TMX or HP5 :)
Try 510-Pyro! I shoot at bit of Foma 200 (my favorite fomapan) and have developed in both rodinal and pyro. I have to say the pyro gives good results and tonality, kind of like you show in the video. No scratches or blemishes as I have noticed thus far but as shown, your mileage may vary.
Fomapan 200 works well with Adox FX39 II. The film was originally made by Paterson under the brand name Acupan 200. Geoffrey Crawley who worked for Paterson formulated a number of developers such as Aculux, and Acuspecial, but I believe he formulated FX39 specifically for this film and T grain films. It’s a great combination at iso 125.
Great comment :) you wrote what I was about to lol. Another thing about FX39 ii is its shelf life is now way better, up to two years plus, and, with a small steel tank, at 1:9, I am getting 20 rolls out of a £12 bottle making it really economical :)
@@peterkay9050is it really? The shelf life that Adox / fotoimpex mention is 6 months openend. That keeps me from getting it more often unfortunately.
@@GeertKuster there is a partner for Adox on Photrio. Adox technicians post info and reply in that forum. On there a tech called Henning states that shelf life is two years plus in optimal conditions. It makes for an interesting read :)
I’ve started decanting half the 500ml bottle into a 250ml bottle to extend the shelf life.
t-grain like the t-max ?
Made laugh when you were throwing the photos saying and thats sh*t aswell. Thats how my photograghy feels 99% of the time 😂
Use your nose grease to remove the scratches from the negs it relay works
I use Fomapan 200 almost exclusively now. Got some bulk rolls and same loader as you, I just use APP cartridges, not reusing old film ones. No scratches on mine, but Foma had a time when their film had emulsion problems, cracking, scratches etc. Maybe gelatin issues or something and you got bad roll. I develop in old good Rodinal, 1:19 and it is very nice film. Nothing wonderful, it is not TMax or BW400CN but it is very nice film for everyday shooting.
It being mix of cubic and T-Grain it likes T-Grain developers like DD-X but those are waaaaaay to expensive and results are not that much better so I kept using Rodinal.
Fomapan is one of my favorite films regardless of cost but it's the 100, 400 also gets a shout out for it's "look" but the 200 I could never get on with and I also had those blemishes on the emulsion minus scratch marks.
Reusing film cartridges is an excellent way to scratch film. I prefer the cartridges that you can snap off the ends and blow out.
I wish i saw this 12 hours ago! I developed a roll of fomapan 200 in xt3 for 8.5 mins. Underexposed, most of the roll is unusable. I am shooting it in a kodak ektar 35n, but still, fp4+ was heaps better in the same camera (I did that in perceptol). I'll try again when I get another couple of rolls. I noticed scratches/wierd lines on a couple of the frames, I assumed scanning issue, but, now, not so sure. It's also _very_ curly, even after cutting them up. :-/. I'm trying to find the best allrounder (cheap) for the kodak happy snap. Kentmere 400 was ok, but, a tad flat (xt3 again). fp4+ was ace when shot during the day, but, no go with flash indoors. Trying fomapan 400 next :-)
4:54 I thought for a moment (a very brief one) that you were using your beer to develop your film! LOL 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I have a lot of success with Fomapan 200 and semi stand development. 5mL HC110 and 1mL Rodinal in 710 mL water. presoak, 10sec agitation at beginning, 10 sec agitation after 30 min and then an additional 30min. I've been fortunate not to have had the issues with scratching or flaws in emulsion (although I have read others complaining about that). I don't roll my own fomapan but buy pre-rolled cassettes.
I'm on my second 100ft can of Foma 200, with good results, at least nothing I can blame on the film. I'm using replenished D-23, which I learned about from John Finch, of Pictorial Planet. I have pretty good luck following the times for D-76 on the Massive Dev Chart. Where I live in Oregon, it's not easy to take a picture without a tree in it. One adapts.
I bought a tin of Arista Edu 200. Same as Fomapan 200 ? I get some scratching. I scan it and use sepia or yellow tones (in Nic Collection) to make the print look old. Scratches help depending on the subject. I tend to old things like barns and buildings. I also develop in 510 Pyro.
I shoot Fomapan 200 in 4x5" and 8x10" and am very happy. Also shootFP4, RPX25 and other films.
Fomapan 200 works well for me with Rodinal on 5x4. £1 per sheet.
If the scratches are lengthwise, it's probably the can. If not, then it's the handling.
Foma makes some pretty low silver content film (hence the low price). This makes them less dense than Kodak or Ilford. They're also quite finicky when it comes to which developer is used. But for the price, they do offer quite a bit quality wise.
Any advice about which developers to use? And/or which to avoid? I’ve been a D-76, Xtol and HC110 user for a long time. I recently bought some Rodinol and found some forgotten Dektol with which I’ll be experimenting.
@@flyingo I use Fomadon and got good results, it's R09 from Foma itself. So I would try the Rodinol for a test
My last try with the 200 was Rodinal. Good results then
04:00 Would I take the shot? Most definitely. The trees don't put me off and the sky is great. I live in the South of Europe and we don’t get clouds like that.
BTW, couldn't the scratches be down to spooling it onto the reels? I buy plenty of reels of 36 exposures, and I've never had those issues.
I have a bulk roll of Fomapan 200 too and yes, it seems to scratch quite easily.
In my experience Fomapan 200 worked well in Microphen than in Rodinal, but someone commented to me that the film shot in Rodinal looked better though (probably it was the light in that photo). Planning to test this in Rollei Supergrain (Amaloco AM74) in the near future.
As with the scratching, it's most likely because of the loading process.
I think so!
@@ShootFilmLikeaBossFomapan 200 scratches very easily, I have had so many issues with this in 120.
In 4x5 it is fine, but my cameras that don't scratch any other film do scratch fomapan 200.
I gave up on it after that.
I shoot Foma 200 at box and dev in Adox FX39II for 10 min at 20c. I always use a yellow filter when shooting B&W. I find Foma 200 loves a yellow filter. I get just the contrast I’m looking for with this combo. I haven’t noticed scratches on my Foma negs. I have had issues with white spots on the negs in 120 Foma 200 film.
I never use foam 120 anymore as I've had lots of trouble with imperfections in the past but never with 35mm until now. Yes a yellow could benefit Tom
Thanks for the videos. I have had similar lines and streaks before and figured out that they were from the "film squeegee". I always keep it clean but sometimes if you have crystallization of the developer of the fixer or any particulate matter in your solutions, maybe even dust, it sticks to wet film. When you run the squeegee at the end to dry the film, the particulate matter drags over the film causing those lines. Or even worn out rubber on your squeegee. Foma may be flimsy and cheap but I have had such things on Kodak film before due to the issues mentioned above. I hope this helps. It is amazing how film photographers have to work with so many variables to get decent negatives.
Yes we all have to tweak to our own tastes! I never squeegee the negs. They just hang till dry. Thanks
In the late 1960's/early 1970's Freestyle Sales Company had "mystery film" available for less that Kodak or GAF films. That's where I discovered Ilford FP3 and HP3, which were my first "foreign films" I fed to Ye Olde Nikkormat FTN. Later on, I discovered ORWO films that led me to Agfa Rodinal, though I did try to soup everything in Kodak D-76. (I was a poor college photographer back then.) I also looked at DuPont enlarging papers, as well. These films were "additional brushes" in the Monochrome film box, used as needed, when Kodak Plus-X or Tri-X Pan didn't quite fit the situation. Fun/great times.;)
ORWO UN54 is a good film
I remember those old Freestyle days. There were doing stuff like that up to about 2010, Arista branded TX and PX for $2/box. Also saw them roll and sell T-Max 100 and some Ilford films. Nothing like that these days.
I really like your day in the life sort of videos. They are very relatable and give me the impetus to go out more myself.
I trick that I used back in the day ( 1968) for scratches was to use petroleum jelly on the back of the negative. It has nearly the same refractive index as the backing. Put a dab on the back and wipe it off with a tissue. If the scratches are on the back, they will disappear but if the emulsion is scratched, nothing can be done.
As for dynamic range, would shooting at half ISO speed and underdeveloping by one stop yield flatter negs with more detail in shadows?
I had no idea they had photography in the tenth century!
The scratches are black after print so definitely emulsion. Good old nose grease for the gloss side and a diffuser head on the enlarger.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBossThat's snot the right way to do it..surely :-)
I get scratches occasionally with my F100. I’ve put it down to the overly complicated roller system on the door of the camera. Get a bit of grit in there and bingo. Expect the F6 ( very nice by the way) has a similar system. I check it every time now and blow out with a blower brush before loading. So far, so good. Have also used Foma 200 in HC110, which is not apparently a favoured combo, but it works for me.
With older and weaker emulsions, I refrain from using the film wiper and dry it between middle finger and index finger instead. This helps a lot!
Always bulk loaded Fomapan 100, and the only time I've had scratches is from the felt light trap in the cassette. I run a blunt blade along the felt before loading to dislodge any gremlins, and don't use the old film cassette more than three times, twice preferably. Ensure the bulk loader lever is set to "load film", and the light trap isn't closed for "remove cassette", and wind on gently. Use a hardening fixer for soft emulsions. Can't say I've used Foma 200 but don't see why it should scratch?
When you have bulk loaded for ages with various films and get good results you forget the obvious care which I should have adopted here! So yes, I will be loading my next cassette with precaution! LOL
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss Just trying to be helpful! I've heard mixed opinions of Fomapan 200, whereas the the 100 and 400 generally get good reviews. So it may just be lousy film, but begs the question why only the 200 ASA film shows technical flaws in a traditional (non-T grain) emulsion? Except for rare examples of Kodak film, the only film I've had consistent emulsion issues with was Chinese manufactured "Lucky" film, in its final years. Older films required a hardening developer and maybe that's the issue, but you probably already know that.
PS, I've been bulk loading film almost 50 years, and a couple of years ago managed to load a cassette the wrong way round!
My experience tells me that Foma is prone to scratches, especially when bulk loading.
One thing I thought of was to minimize film contact with its canister gate, therefore I'm loading bulk film in the dark and insert it spooled from the top, so it only goes once in every direction before the can is dusted again prior to loading another film in it.
The top of every canister can be popped off and put back, making a reusable. Some metal canisters even come with chamfered top, making it super awesome as a reusable can - Ferrania, for example.
Reduced agitation frequency/stand development can help against contrast. Or different developer.
I was having problems with scratches on Fomapan 100. After a lot of investigating I found that it was caused by the paterson film squeegee I was using.
People will disagree, but squeegees should be reserved for prints. Film gelatine is much too fragile for a dirty great rubber blade containing heaven knows what embedded in its surface.
@@borderlands6606 I agree
I never use a squeegee on the negs. Just let them hang dry
shoot loads of foma200 (think about 4 tins) - I tend to shoot it at 125 and develop in rodinal - its quite soft when wet, I run it thought my fingers rather than a film squeegee
I had an issue with a roll from my bulk expired hp5. It seemed to happen with just one roll but months later after I had reloaded a couple cans and shot/developed them the dirt and scratches were back on one roll. Turned out the felt on the film canister was drying out and tiny pieces were flaking off causing the issue. As I have only a small supply of canisters I reuse them a lot. But good news I used a rocket blower and a very fine small brush on the offender (taking it apart to blow out any dirt inside as well). I shot a short roll of 6 to test. All good now.
Yes you have to check those cassettes. This made me check them more so
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss BTW...don't buy those plastic canisters unless you have to. The felt on those is very cheap and it flakes off quite a bit so you have to make sure you rocket blow them before loading. But first run your gloved finger across the felt lightly to get any loose particles off, then use the blower. I have a few of those canisters and have had an issue once before I noticed the issue.
I use thé Fomapan 200 in a Brownie 620. It has good exposure latitude which is handy for a box camera.
Foma 200 has been my default film for a while and found after a bit of experimenting it comes out a treat with great shadow detail with Microphen when scanned. Advantage of Microphen is you can use it 10 times to save costs. It's also a T-grain but don't know if that makes any difference. It does scratch easily when its still wet so I don't use a squeegee.
Fomapan 200 tech sheet actually lists Microphen as the ideal developer. Been shooting almost exclusively fomapan 200, just got around testing it in Microphen as i alway tend to use D76.
My experience also proves this as well.
Use the combination of 200 and Microphen all the time.
@@michael195b I did the same as well. It works well.
@@michael195b D76 1:1 could be good
@@studiosnchI tested the 30c development that is also listed in the data sheet, its kinda interesting it shows how you can reach almost 250iso by using this higher temperature and really short dev time. It did actually work perfectly. I just shot it at 200 iso, and developed at 30c for 4min. Just needed a really long prewash to get all the antihalation off before the development. Because of the short dev time that did not first remove it completely.
What i would like to know, how does 1+1 microphen work, as its a bit expensive to be using stock dilutions. The grain was not as pleasing as with D76 though. But considerably lower gamma and better shadow detail.
The curves shown in the data sheet seem to be correct. D76 gives really high gamma. Iw been shooting it mostly at 100iso with D76.
Thanks! I really likes some of the images. An advantage of shooting in the UK is that you can easily economise on film. Any film will show the sky in B&W.
Yes, when I was in Bahrain it was very bright. Mind you, our Winters can be also very bright Skys.
Que bien que encontré esta pagina con buena info.
@tedcrosby9361 nailed it. I am on my second tin of fomapan 200. I always shoot it between ei 125-160 & recently started using FX-39. The film works beautifully in ID-11 but I don't like powder developers particularly (shelf life issues). I use steel developing cans and love them. The single spool one only uses 240ml of liquid which was a problem with HC110 until I tried the lesser known dilution D (1:39). This gave me a 6:30 dev time and the 6ml minimum jollop I needed. The negatives were nice and contrasty. (By all accounts any dev times below 5mins are to be avoided, so 1:31 doesn't really work and 1:63 doesn't give me the 6ml in the small tank). As for FX-39, this is the one for me. 1:9, 10mins at 20°c it is gorgeous. It's an acutance dev so it enhances the grain a bit but that's fine. The thing to remember is it is £50 for 30m. HP4, XP2 etc are £100 & T-max is £200. You can get tremendous results from the foma and its cost allows you to shoot freely. Just don't expect it to be like ilford delta
Hello Roger, interesting video, I buy Fomapan 200 both in coils and 120 reels, I also have scratch problems, especially when I shoot with my Holga, I think it is because the emulsion is too soft. I live in the south of Spain and in summer when I put the film in the development spiral, it sticks.
I have shot Fomapan 100 200 and 400 with very good results and usually buy in 100ft rolls. Im loading them in old Leica cassettes where the film cant be scratched by any form of light seals on the cassette
What developer do you use? My experience with foma is also the low contrast, flat look...
@@analoogje with 100 & 200 I use Rodinal. I’m not as frequent with 400 but then I use Xtol
My last trip with Foma200 was Rodinal. Good results.
@@FuzzboxRIP thanks for your answer!
Hi Roger, have used fomapan 200 in 35mm and 120 never have problems with the 120 ,I bulk load the 35mm all ways give the felt a gentle wipe with a tooth brush and a blower also give the loader the same, never had lines but sometimes get a few spots, out of interest I always shoot with a orange filter which seems to help with the sky's.
It's made me be more careful bulk loading. As I havn't had this for a long time you forget to clean before.
I usually have scratches like that when the 30’ roll is lose inside the bulk loader
i use the fomapan 100 in 4x5 sheet film good price about £44 for 50 sheets.
I used to have a lot of trouble with scratches when I bulk loaded my film. I threw away the cassettes after three uses; I rolled the film extra slowly onto the cassette; I even bought a different bulk loader (the kind without the felt light seal). Still, I would occasionally get a long horizontal scratch across the film. Multiple frames ruined (dammit!). Finally. I gave up and went back to pre-rolled film. Problem went away. But my wallet went empty. So now (glutton for punishment) I'm thinking of going back to bulk-loading. Wish me luck!
Good luck! 🎉
Just eliminate any possibilities of scratches like what I am having to do with the rest of this tin
Roger, Roger from Australia here. I have been delevoping my own Fomapan for 10 years or so, never had any scratches. 120 and 35mm bulk loaded. Maybe you got a Monday morning tin.
I hope not Roger! Soon see!
I had similar problems with 35mm Fomapan 200. Some rolls had a lot of scratches and also missing pieces in the emulsion. After looking at everything I'm pretty sure that is wasn't me.Other rolls from the brick were fine and the 120 films I had we fine too. I bought it a few months ago so maybe it was just a bad production run (defect canning machine?).
I have kinda gone right off Fomapan - I did buy a lot of it about 5-6 years ago (still have some lurking in my freezer but cant bring myself to use it) and was a bit pissed off with the multiple emulsion defects (including from the factory scratches) that seemed to be par for the course with it, so I went with kentmere stock which didn't seem to suffer in the same way and was much more reliable.
I love foma 200 at 20• 12 minutes rodinal 1+50, amazin, agitation 10s each minute
What a legend. Great job, Boss!
Thanks!
The end of the video reminded me of Dave Angel from The Fast Show.
I have narrowed down the film to just a few ones that I know that have worked well for me in the past. My experimenting with film is over it it too expensive.
I just delay couple of developer\fixer because of a strange problem: on extremely slow film like ilford panf+50 or adox25iso on the developed negative there are hundreds of small white dots, that not seen by bare eye, but on the positive scans looks black and awful. With 100iso+ film that problem disappears. And after i mix different type of dev\fix, i finaly can sucessivly develop my panf+50.
Hi Roger ...all I can say is that you have a very intereting toe curve ( ok then tonality - or lack of mid range ) this would be a good film for fashion...no need to return to the drawing board ...I will go dumpster diving again for your discarded prints
Fomapan 200 in D23 1+1 one shot is an extraordinary combo. There are some fascinating examples on Flickr, and on the Photrio forum, which is likely where this youtuber found inspiration for this video (without of course acknowledging any of these resources). Fomapan 200 in 35mm is fine, not as prone to scratches as its 120 counterpart, so the scratches seen here are likely the consequence of bulk loading or mishandling or heavy handed squeegeeing.
I had a couple of rolls 120 size ON one roll developed in a 2 bath developer it came out all blotchy but on another rol done in 510 Pyro came out well I have never used it in 35mm
O
@@theoldfilmbloke Peter good to see you here! Big fan of your posts over on talkphotography! You must try Foma in 35mm I'm sure you'd like it!
I'll send you a few rolls Pete.
Have watched your prior videos using a Mamiya RB67. I have one and use it less now that I have a 645 pro tl that is easily a walk around camera. But I then picked up a nikon f5, huge camera, but didn't like the focus confirmation in the top right viewfinder, hard to see, easy to lose. F100 better, but now, the f6 has if bright in the center of the view finder because I like to use manual focus zeiss glass as you did here. 35 is sharp, the 85 gorgeous bokeh, the 100 crazy sharp and does my film scanning as well as portraits with 2 or 3 people. I can easily pull a 16" digital print from it, and now, with topaz gigapixel, I expect even larger.
F6 is an awesome camera and yes the Zeiss lenses are brilliantly sharp.
Have exactly the same issue, hundreds of little black dots and scratches. But only with 200 in medium format. Exactly the same development techniques with 100 ISO. and 400 ISO no problem there, only the 200 ISO.
you shot during a cloudy day, do you think that this film could be better in a sunny day ?
Definitely.
Hi Roger. I shoot it at 200 and develop in adox adonol 1+25 like you did before, but for five minutes. Not so many rolls yet, but I like the result.
Br Ronnie
The scans look low res.. Its hard to tell what they look like, if they are sharp.
I bought a few rolls each of Fomapan 100, 200, & 400 in 120 format - mainly because of the low price, but then started to hear of the emulsion issues with the 200 speed. So of course that’s the film I loaded first into my Mamiya RB67 and a Bronica SQ. I’ve taken the photos but haven’t developed the film yet.
I’m realizing now that if I’m not mistaken, the cautionary tales of the Fomapan 200 that I’ve heard have all been from you.. I can’t think of anyone else who’s brought it up or mentioned any difference between the emulsions of the various speed Fomapan films. I’ll be very careful when handling it during development and I’ll hope for no scratches or emulsion abnormalities. I enjoy your videos as always sir! Cheers!
FWIW I too have experienced scratched Fomapan 200 I bought bulk loaded by store. And scratched Double X, so poor bulk loading practices will most likely be at fault
Nice images! I quit using Agfa because of grain and ease of scratching!
I once read that adding a tea spoonful of sodium chloride to D23 get you similar the Perceptol. So that is what I have done. I don't use them sufficiently to know if it makes a difference (FP4+).
Interesting! Thanks
Having only recently started with my own darkroom, I am getting more of an appreciation for how this is done.
That said, my tendency to be a bit clinical in testing is stepping up and if you're going to test different developers you'll want to have the same scene be the reference (a colour checker is a good get mainly for the greys on the one side.) Especially when trying to tame highlights.
Very timely video, Roger.
Like you, I haven't shot much Foma, and I just got a 100 foot roll. Haven't shot any of it yet.
I was making mental notes as I watched. I'm looking forward to more about your adventures with this film.
Oh, and good luck with finding the cause of the scratches.
Thanks Mike
Another great video Rodger, One reason I don't bulk roll, is the chances of problems arrising using the same canisters over and over again. Why dont't you try and use a brand new cannister and a older well used cannister and see if the scratches appear, a couple of short 12 exposure rolls, and compare them.
Next trip I will be very cautious when loading! I'm hoping it's me
Someone has to do a factory tour at Fomapan facility. It's 2h drive from where I live, but they are busy people and don't practice opening the factory doors to strangers. Maybe a UA-camr like you could approach them :) I can help with commute and travelling tips in Czech Republic.
Thank you. Maybe one day!
I suggest you to try also Fomapan 100 and to try it also @50, haven't tried yet, but people say it's nice. I shoot foma 100 as 100 and sometimes it gets just to use a little contrast filters when developing and it looks very nice.
I haven't tried Fomapan but I have suffered from scratched negatives when I used bulk film long ago. In my case it was FP4 and I was spooling it into cassettes by hand, not using a loader. The scratches were from " invisible" bits of dirt in the felt light traps of the cassettes and I have never used bulk film since. Like you I regard a negative with scratches as ruined and I want to be able to rely on the film being able to deliver a good print without having to try and repeat the picture. To me bulk film is not worth the cost saving if I end up with spoiled prints.
If you feel that the Foma in D23 is too contrasty how about reducing development by 10 - 20% and over-exposing it by a stop and see if you prefer it, rather than going straight over to Pyro, to reduce the variables.
I suspect it was the cassette giving me the scratch! I'll stick with my D23 and find a balance for the film that I like Bill
My only real experience with 200 in 135 came out under exposed so I’m not sure…. Of the foma line I’ve found the most pleasing and got the best results from 100
In bright midday sunlight I over expose & under develop (slow)b&w print film.
I am done with Fomapan 200 in 120 and 4X5. Its cheaper than FP4 plus,but its always a gamble. To be fair, I didnt have any issues with the 100.
Have you ever tried the Fomapan 100R B/W slide film? I'd love fiddling around with this rather exotic kind of film...
I've never tried IR film. I know Foma have one.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss It's not an IR film, just panchromatic reversal...
The little black imperfections can be caused by a stop bath that is too acidic. With Foma, it’s better to use a water stop.
No stop. Just water Adrian
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss bummer. I usually see that with Foma with an acidic stop bath, but water doesn't usually have that. I guess you got a batch that has issues.
Foma 200 Is AN eccellent film. I usually develop It With d76 1+1 for 6 minutes.
I've been just satisfied with the results I get using stock XTOL and shooting it at ISO 200. But there are a lot of people around the internet that say that the true speed of this is ISO 160. I haven't yet tried it at that speed, but I have a feeling I would like it more than box speed. So maybe try ISO 160?
Fomapan seems to be very temperamental when it comes to pushing and somewhat pulling. I've shot Fomapan 100 at box speed and at ISO 80 and there was definitely a noticeable difference. I liked it a little more at 100, but at 80 there was a more even tonality. I got decent results pulling Fomapan 400 to ISO 260 in the past as well.
1) Have you tried going Leitz Two Bath Dev? If you are making D23 you could just cut back on the dev time a bit (to 4 mins?) then move it straight to a second bath of 15g/l Sodium Carbonate for 3 minutes. That might stop the highlights blocking. It might be worth a punt as you only have to buy some Sodium Carbonate (anhydrous) if you haven't got any. Not tried it with Foma 200 but works OK with Foma 100. Delta 400 didn't like it! I tend to use Ilfotec HC at the moment though so I'm not too familiar with it.
2) Is the dust and scratches from squeegeeing your film? I guess the Isle of White has pretty hard water. I used to develop in Bristol and then Reading and I always remember the pain of drying marks or scratches from squeegeeing. Now I'm in Edinburgh with lovely soft water. You could move to Yorkshire or do a final rinse in distilled water - anything but the dreaded squeegee!
3) All the best people are called Roger
I'll look into that Roger. Thanks. I don't use a squeegee. I think the scratches were from the cassette. I've been careful since and no scratches. I use just tap water for washing and hang the negs in the bathroom to dry naturally.
Roger , I coincidentally bought 200 creative about the same time as yourself and shot it on one of those mental bright Australian winter mornings with a red filter....looks to be sorted on the neg front.....maybe it doesn't stand up to the slate grey British sky, needing the sun to give shadow to the subject matter and consequently that bringing out the best of the contrast of the qualities of the film ....I was shooting geological rock formations up on the scarp and also ferns so wasn't really utilising heaps of the sky , again maybe it works better more localised to subject matter opposed to big landscape vista's?
processed in PERCEPTOL STOCK
I think it didn't like the green so much Andy. Lighting was a bit flat too! More experiments. As long as it's not full of imperfections
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss yes it looked a lack lustre day for sure, the book shop sign came out really well.
Would you consider scanning the negatives of the corn and editing them on the computer to clone out the scratches and then give them to the farmer? Or, will you go back again with a different film and recreate the images?
No I will go back Wendy. On a brighter day!
I've just been through your catalogue of reviews but I can't find one on the Nikon F2 (unless I missed it). I've got the F2AS with a 55mm f1.2 lens and I'd love to see what you think of this system. :)
I have had use of the Nikon F2. Not enough to review but it is a lovely system and a joy to shoot
I've done fomapan 200 and 510 pyro many times and when scanned its a very nice clean, contrasty and fine grain image. How well that will transfer in the dark room I'm not sure but curious to see
Afaik the scratches tend to happen before development. So loader, film canister or camera might cause those? If you find out where they come from a follow up video would be nice. Also, I guess you could digitize the scratched negatives, photoshop them and get a b&w print for the farmer? 👍
I'll just shoot again on a brighter day I think
Hello Rodger, not good, your having issues with Fomopan 200. For the last 2 years, all i use is Fomapan , both 120 & 35mm. I have never tried bulk film. For 35mm , I use the pre-loaded canisters. Most the time, I use only ISO 400, as I am a bit lazy , at my old age . Never had any issues with scratches , on 35mm, using only 23 cameras. Medium format, same . For high contrast scenes, I usually have Yellow-green or red filter in my bag . I'd be checking the film loader and/or cassettes. I develop with D-76 or Ilford Ilfosol-3 (1:9) Let us know what you discover . Ken
Cheers Ken
One roll at 200 ISO developed in D76 has give me an underexposed roll about one stop. So I think 200 iso is not a correct sensibility. I think about 125 ISO would be better. I prefer to stay with HP5 or TRI-X.
Your catwalking skills are on point. Remember this if the photography stuff goes down the pan! 🤣
I practice lol
Please let me ask :
Which ISO should i choose with the Fomapan 200 ?
( I don't develop for myself, i send my films always to a lab ).
Which ISO/ASA can you recommend ?
Analog photography is too much work to risk using cheap film. You waste $ trying to make it work. I just buy the quality film, learn it, and develop consistency. Nice channel. Love the 'exposure' to variety that you provide.
Hi Roger!
Being a Foma customer for more than 10 years I must say that Fomapan 200 and 400 doesn't add anything to my photography. The gem is Fomapan 100 with a classic emulsion that's possible to push to iso 800 with good results and the best is that I develop in Rodinal 1+100, semistand 1 h, regardless of how I've shot the film (iso100-800)! I've never had good results with FP 200 or 400, (the claimed film speed is just rubbish) unless I expose them @ 100 resp 200. As for now I can get a 120 roll of FP 100 for 4,75 Euro if I buy a 10-pack directly from Foma's web shop, and that is the best price for a 120 film roll you can get (I'm mainly into MF and LF). Sorry for brexit, I guess that you have to pay extra customs and VAT fees (+25-30%?) when buying from the Czech republic (as will I when buying stuff from the UK, so sad...).
Happy shooting and printing from Sweden/Johan
The tin was just over £50
I wonder if he would have booted you off the property if he thought that was a digital camera instead of the last of the killer film SLRs ?
Good stuff
He didn't have a clue what I was shooting
Where are you getting the scratches from, then. Loader, camera or in processing?
I don't know. I am suspecting the film cassette had minute crap on the velvet.
Developed in W2D2+ Pyro/Metol the tonality can be beautiful. The problem for me is the curl. Loading 6 frames in a film holder is like trying to uncurl one of those cheap New Years Eve party blower thingies.
@austinite333 let it hang longer with a weight while drying and you wont have that issue anymore.
I’ve found that foam’s 4x5 film is a bit better in terms of quality.
What was wrong with using the gate behind you as a ladder?
It was too far Steve. You can see some drums next to the gate. I looked at those but they were iron! Heavy
Awesome video mate! I don't really know about processing film but I would think that maybe some grit or dirt is inside the foam leader? Dunna know... One question on the other end of things, I've noticed lately that when you shoot your vids in BW there like the same in contrast as the photos when you insert them into the timeline in post. What kind of editing program are you using to edit you awesomely funny vids? Cheers!
FCP. I correct the video footage contrast
I don't (and wouldn't) shoot Foma exclusively, but it's certainly in my regular rotation. The 200 gave me a couple of my favorite shots, though I use D76. Might be your dev is why your negs are so flat - they're a bit underdeveloped.
Yes I knocked a minute off the dev time here.
I had similar issues with Fomapan 200 a couple of weeks ago - a roll from 100 years the anniversary edition. I shot during rain, and I thought it was my fault. Good to hear it was maybe not 100%% me.
Fomapan 200 is a tough nut to crack! I enjoy it in D-23, but I just developed a roll in Fomadon LQN, which is supposed to be the dedicated developer. Scans coming next week! Great shots all the same despite the imperfections.
Thanks Alex
Fomapan 200 is OK OE cassettes BUT leave well alone in bulk version. !00ft rolls are horrendous - scratches and horrible blemishes on the film . Tried 120 and that was even worse full of black spots all over the film. Such a shame that the film has so many coating imperfections because as a photographic film it is really nice BUT I just can't handle the problems. The 100 and 400 though are both excellent films without any issues. For 100 ISO Fomapan try this :- 18 minutes in D76 1:3 with agitation 10 secs every minute. The results are absolutely brilliant with hardly any grain and really nice negatives.
I like how it looks but can't get on with how easily it scratches, even with minimal handling. It's even worse in 120.
overexpsed ‘ then get Fined or jailed for indeent exposure’ as your not using a Ligh meter - on hand . 🤚
I shot a good few rolls of foma when I started. I noticed when I scanned the negatives the images looked really muddy. Details in the shadows and highlights not the best.Still the cheapest out there but massive difference in price lately. Like all film I suppose. Also noticed those imperfections on my negatives
Why iso 100 and not 200 box speed?
Foma films are always practically shot half of their stated ISO because of their characteristics. In my experience only when Fomapan 200 is developed in Microphen (compensating developer from Ilford typically used when pushing film) can you shooot the film at box speed, otherwise a rule of thumb is to shoot it at EI 100 (for my developer and style of developing, I can shoot EI 160 with this film).
@@studiosnch On "The Naked Photographer" channel he has tested all Fomapan films and have concluded the following:
Fomapan 100: EI 100
Fomapan 200: EI 160
Fomapan 400: EI 250
@@michaelrasmussen3347 Yes this is correct. In my experiments Fomapan 200 usually plays nice at EI 125 to 160, and currently I'm shooting Fomapan 100 which I rated at EI 64 (when developed with Rollei Supergrain) to EI 80 (using Bellini Eco Film, which is basically liquid Xtol).
@@studiosnch Do you develop it with the standard EI 200 speed or do you develop it as an EI 160 speed film?
@@michaelrasmussen3347 I expose it at EI 160 and develop at ISO 200. Basically I used John Finch's (Pictorial Planet) method of determining effective film speed with your developer and dev'ing method.
Fomapan has a nice, retro soft look, I find it really benefits from having lots of light. I find Kentmere 400 better for sharpness and contrast, it has more of a modern look and is almost the same price as Foma. I think the quality control on Fomapan may not be quite as good, so I'll probably stick to Kentmere as my budget b&w.
I quite like Foma 200 in D23. Worth trying higher dillutions too though yep I almost always used 510-Pyro with Foma 200. In part because it supposedly helps to harden the emulsion to help avoid scratches. I quite like Foma 200. It has an interesting look to it and sometimes it surprises me. But I only shoot it in sheets, in part because that helps minimize imperfections and avoids the pitfalls of trying to bulkroll the super soft emulsion.
Another emulsion that drives me a bit crazy is Rollei IR 400. It can be absolutely gorgeous in sheets but it's on a super thin base and often seems to have pinholes. I just kinda accept the imperfections there for the privilege of getting to do IR photography. I've tried Svema FN64 to see if it might be a suitable replacement. It's base is _slightly_ thicker but it has even more manufacturing defects.
Oh well! If I wanna shoot something I expect to be perfect, I'll bust out some TMX or HP5 :)
ha ha exactly Tim. Delta/Tmax for those special occasions.
Try 510-Pyro! I shoot at bit of Foma 200 (my favorite fomapan) and have developed in both rodinal and pyro. I have to say the pyro gives good results and tonality, kind of like you show in the video. No scratches or blemishes as I have noticed thus far but as shown, your mileage may vary.