Fomapan 100

A new chapter in film comparisons, I look at the differences between Kodak Tri-X as our standard and Fomapan 100. All films in these comparisons were shot using the same lighting and position, developed in Kodak D-76 using the manufacturer’s recommended time, and printed on Ilford Classic FB at 11x14 size using the same contrast settings. The printing time varied to cancel any changes in film base fog from film to film. I included the H&D curves for each film to see the individual differences and we look at the overall print, the spectral response of each film, and the grain characteristics.
Channel Merch, Discord, and more:
linktr.ee/The_...
Music by Hooksounds: www.hooksounds...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @thenakedphotographer

[@PlaidDin]

I'm from country where Fomapan is produced. I like them very much, and for 3€ a pop, they're the cheapest here :D In both local art school and later ZČU in Pilsen, I've been taught to overexpose photos one step, as it has been a standard way of shooting stuff for a long time. That might explain the brighter instructions! If you want proof, watch any Czechoslovak movies from 1950's until late 1980's. Everything looks very contrast-y imho.

[@cfabz2023]

This series of videos is super valuable for those trying out films for the first time. It lets me know what to look out for and how to adjust for a desired look and feel. I really like the objectivity and methodology to try to get as close as possible to an apples to apples comparison of two films. Great work!

[@edwardcrosby5034]

Thanks for another great comparison. The overdevelopment may account for increased grain, and higher gamma may give the appearance of graininess. With the hike in film prices, this film has got to be one of the best budget films.

[@marcusjochum]

Oh yeah, thank you Gregory! Been waiting for that one :) Keep up the good work, these videos have become a real reference library for the community!

[@jimwlouavl]

Densitometry is a lost art. Thanks for using it as a tool to precede your print comparison. Great video.

[@epstar83]

Loving this series! I’m a bit of a Fomapan 100 fan in 135 and 4x5. I had an issue with 120 version with backing paper seemingly not being light tight and exposing onto the film. Partly my fault as I was changing film in open daylight. But don’t think I experienced this with any other brand of 120 film.

[@StanColdSaidSo]

I love how you guys keep me oçcupied

[@sebastianbille9010]

Thanks for the great review. I recently got a box of Fomabrom paper and printed the same negative on Ilford MGFB Classic and Fomabrom. I had to use a much harder filter for the Fomabrom paper, but then the results are almost indistinguishable. So a bit harder gamma for printing on Foma paper is probably a good idea. But I could also imagine Foma recommends longer development times to increase film speed a bit.

[@yurymelnikov3644]

This video shows examples of photos taken with the original camera. "TLR Lubitel 2, Lubitel 166U cameras examples of black and white photos" Fomapan 100, D-76, Watch and be amazed!

[@Austinite333]

Foma 100 in HC110. 1-50 5 minutes 15 inversions up front and 6 at the top of each minute. Smooth grain and beautiful tonality.

[@loukashareangas4420]

For anyone interested in Caffenol developement, I had bad results with Caffenol-CM and Fomapan 100, too much fog. Then I added potassium bromide (so it becomes Caffenol-CH) and developed for 15mins as with 400 speed films and results were great!

[@NGC6144]

But, what about the grain? I tried Caffenol-C on HP5 and way too grainy.

[@patrykz7567]

I had and have great results in caffenol CH and CL with Hp5 and foma 100 but foma 400 never did it right. 400is grain and grain. I give on CH 0.4g/litre KBr and for CL 0.7g/litre. But too nail good development i had to do many developments, many failures on the way.

[@loukashareangas4420]

@@NGC6144 I am not sure why my response from last night isn't showing up but I'll repeat it. I am fairly new to developing at home, and for some reason I wanted to start with Caffenol. While I want to do a side by side comparison, at least with rodinal, I haven't done that yet. So all I can say is that Fomapan 100 is less grainy than APX400 in Caffenol, but that by itself doesn't say much...

[@NGC6144]

@@loukashareangas4420 Judging by my results I have come to the conclusion Caffenol is just a waist in comparison to standard developers, plus it stinks like hell.

[@richardsimms251]

Very, very educational video. Thank you for all your time and effort. RS. Canada

[@alekosiecki4094]

The Foma papers have high contrast. Foma normal gradation is hard (high contrast) with Ilford. The Foma soft gradation is Ilford normal gradation. Approximately of course.

[@donyee8970]

I've been using it for years under the Freestyle's brand Arista EDU. It's a beautiful film, but it doesn't do well with reciprocity failure.

[@alanhuntley55]

I've shot hundreds of sheets of Foma 100 and, in my experience, it does build contrast quickly requiring a reduction in development time. And, FWIW, I've printed on a few different stocks of Foma paper and, in general, their paper grades lean toward the contrasty side; for example, what they call "N" (normal) I would rate at a solid grade 3 to nearly 4. Therefore, printing on these papers would require a further reduction in development time.

[@jacekadamczyk2481]

This is a very good film but for medium format cameras. When the grain is not so apparent. I using this film in studio with portraits and it is ready nice for this purpose.

[@raphanusraphanistrum]

Very nice job! Thank you for sharing!

[@jonnoMoto]

Used this in 120 several times. Like it quite a lot in my old TLR. Suits the basic lens well. Unusually for foma I find it has a true box speed in xtol-r.

[@giuseppeg.8461]

Not only in Xtol-R interestingly. Fomadon Excel 1+1, Fomadon P, Fomadon LQN for instance. Box speed, easily. Fantastic film.

[@jsshayes1]

I just wrote a review about this film ha ha. I have been shooting it for a year and love it.

[@50mmnikonainikkor55]

Cheap and fabulous especially for an hobbyist photographer like myself.

[@pulpufictione]

Great information! I've been shooting at 80 and developing for 4 min in Xtol, but I've never been satisfied with the highlight separation. Good to see that you encountered the same issue in another developer. At least the film is consistent 🙂

[@melaninxhalide1165]

I’m curious as to your thoughts on the Fomapan negative itself: Did it dry flat? How curly was it after drying compared to other 35mm films? How flimsy or robust does the negative feel in your hand? Does it scratch easily? Level of dust on the negative compared to other 35mm film? Thank you for doing these tests!

[@gperpetuo]

It dries very flat. It’s a bit fragile. You need to be careful not to scratch it sometimes you get one or two small flaws (dot’s) in the emulsion… Having that said I’ve had HP5 with really bad defects with a complete roll of bad pictures so…

[@jsshayes1]

Drives very flat. not flimsy at all. Feels like any other film. No more dust than other films. I have not had problems with scratching. Been shooting it for three years and love it.

[@hmpeter]

I like the overall looks of Fomapan 100. That it is also cheap is a bonus for 35mm. (Tri-X costing 3 times as much per roll over here.) That aspect gets more important in medium and large format for me. I doubt I would do 4x5 if there was no Foma. Tri-X 320 is 4.4$ a shot if you buy a 50-sheet box, 5.5$ if you buy the small 10 sheet box. Ilford FP4 is about 2.3$ a shot. Fomapan? 70 cents a shot. 60 if I can accept the smaller 9x12cm size. So, I am quite happy I like it as much as I do. ^^

[@ivaa7777JAWA]

Great video

[@karlmatthias2698]

Excellent addition to the series. A good film. Noticed that you didn’t review the color card and sensitivity in this one.

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Thanks! I touched on the spectral part, but since it was identical to Tri-X I didn’t spend much time on it.

[@ninosax87]

Ciao, nella mia produzione di negativi fomapan 100 4x5 ho finito ieri i test e il risultato ottimale per me è : Fomapan 100 ei 100 iso Bellini hydrofen 1+39 5 minuti, agitazione continua il primo minuto poi capovolgimenti 10 secondi ogni 30 secondi. Stampa contatto grado 2 e tutto è perfetto.

[@wv_]

I generally prefer my Fomapan results when developed with Rodinal 50:1

[@StanColdSaidSo]

Awesome

[@kevinalane]

Could you share your development info for Fomapan 100 and your recommendation for a reduced development time? I shoot this film a lot and develop in D-76 1:1. Thank you!

[@nicknick099]

Thanks! Now Foma 200????

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I did that one months ago: kzbin.info/www/bejne/b5q7YX-arJ5gqtE

[@StanColdSaidSo]

Left eye next

[@StanColdSaidSo]

Aweee

[@giannidigirolamo8868]

Hd curves look strange. According to the plots The fomapan 100 is more sensitive with respect to the trix 400.

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

The sensitometer has to use ND filters to reduce the light for different speed films in order to get the curves to start at approximately the same point. That is beyond the scope of this video since I am only comparing curve shape.

[@StanColdSaidSo]

Fade to black

[@StanColdSaidSo]

Of course you're going to come on right after BaNZa

[@StanColdSaidSo]

Other side

[@StanColdSaidSo]

Right eye

[@zhongyao-sc1lj]

Why naked?

[@StanColdSaidSo]

Now neck

[@StanColdSaidSo]

Transform for me

[@StanColdSaidSo]

Just kidding

[@IvarsDayLab]

I like and hate Foma film. From one side it is cheap and looks okay... But I totally hate it because of the gray gradation and flat image compared to Ilford fp4 or TMAX 100.

[@sebastianbille9010]

If your negatives are too flat, increase development time. Foma film is capable of producing very contrasty prints.

[@giuseppeg.8461]

Contrast is a function of development time.