Fomapan 400

[@JoshPricePlus]

What a service to the film community these videos are! Must have taken ages to put together and cost a fair bit - really appreciate it.

[@tim_butcher]

I like this series, Gregory. Thanks. Your finding of this film actually being ISO 250, isn’t a surprise to me. When I started out, some very experienced photographers advised me to do film speed tests to understand how different films perform in my different cameras. So now I know to shoot HP5+ at a quarter stop under what I’ll process it at. A lot of new photographers could benefit from this sort of content - good job!

[@Photo_Cyclist]

Hi, I'm new to film photography and home development, and I'm starting right with HP5+. So, does what you said mean that, if I'm always going to develop it for a 400 ASA, I will have to set my camera at 350 ASA while shooting? Thanks 🙇🏼

[@tim_butcher]

@@Photo_Cyclist no. The speed you rate your film at will depend on many variables. So, because you are just beginning, shoot at ISO 400 (box speed) and see if you like the results. Later, after you’ve practiced, read more and talked to other photographers, you might try working out the speed(s) you want to shoot at and how you want your film developed for certain conditions. For now, just have fun shooting film :)

[@lagaguga]

Foma do publish nice development curves in their official datasheets. It's definitely worth a look. More film manufactures should include these. Even with speed enhancing developers like MICROPHEN the speed of Fomapan 400 does not go above 320 ISO. But as long as you keep that in mind it's a great film. Thanks for the videos. I really like your approach.

[@Photo_Cyclist]

Hi, does this all means that, using Forma 400 I'll have to set the camera at 250 instead of the box speed? Or that I'll have to develop it at 250? Or both? I'm sorry I'm new to film photography and home development 😅

[@nicknick099]

@@Photo_Cyclist camera 250 iso, develop for 400 iso.

[@ribsy]

Great info! Nice to understand what is going on under the hood

[@LaViejaConsolada]

another one here waiting for foma 200! thanks for the video, again very valuable information with an enlargement as a keystone.

[@mathiash5000]

This is such a good series, thank you for this! I've had a lot of trouble with terrible curly Fomapan back in the day - so curly that it's unscannable without ANR glass, and even then it was fiddly - but I hear from friends shooting it that they don't have the same experience. This, combined with your glorious research on the film have encouraged me to order a pile of fresh rolls of Foma 400. Thanks again!

[@ThePhotographyMinimalist]

Your video's on film comparisons are very valuable to me. I have been comparing your results and conclusions with the results in the video's on my youtube channel and I am on the same page. Great to see your Fomapan 400 video as I have been using this film stock many times over the recent months. Fomapan 200 is one of my favourites!

[@Nijensikkens]

I should Foma 400 a lot, and you can shoot it at iso 400 if you develop it in Fomadon LQN.

[@JeffWernerIthacaNY]

I love Fomapan 400, but just as you said I usually meter it at 200 instead of 400. The different color response is a bonus, I think; it seems like you get results similar to using a yellow filter or something like that. Given its low price, I'm happy to see that it held its own in your test!

[@Nobody-Nowhere]

Good point that its not a 400 iso film. Never liked foma 400, as its so grainy. But you made it work quite well. That smoothed out look is what i have also seen, it has the old school 30s portrait look. Not a big fan of it. This is growing up to be a really valuable resource, comparing all b&w films in controlled manner. And especially as you are skipping scanning, as that's how people usually evaluate films... straight through some horrible epson auto "tune" software. And then claim its the films look. Waiting for that fomapan 200!

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

That's exactly why I'm doing this series, I never felt the comparisons were objective enough, or they were "vs." with an intended winner. I don't think there is a winning film, just different films.

[@Nobody-Nowhere]

@@TheNakedPhotographer Exactly, there are some really nice cheap films out there. If you know what you are doing, you can usually make any film work for you. One btw would be Shanghai GP3 400 if you are going through iso 400 films.

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

It’s part of this series, just not published yet

[@Nobody-Nowhere]

@@TheNakedPhotographer Nice! Looking forward to that. Oh, and that french film... Bergger 400, there is really not much information about that out there. I have no idea if its rebranded or a real film.

[@sebastianbille9010]

@@Nobody-Nowhere Bergger film is made by Inoviscoat in Germany. Inoviscoat designs the film, makes the emulsion and coats it. However, this specific emulsion is only sold to Bergger. You cannot get it under different names.

[@rmrfboy]

right before you said "fujifilm acros", i was thinking about how similar it is (I use the fuji acros extensively). i'll try to give fomapan a go and see if i like it because i really like how acros render skin. thanks for sharing this video! its very informational.

[@SilntObsvr]

I love Fomapan -- both the 100 and 400. Unlike some, I like the results (including shadow detail) when shot at box speed and developed to the manufacturer's recommendation. It also has the very serious advantage of being one of the least costly films around -- in the Freestyle Photo rebranded Arista .EDU Ultra box, it's literally the least expensive film I can buy (in the United States, anyway), barely sneaking in under Photo Warehouse's Ultrafine Extreme house brand. Bulk load it in 35mm, and you can shoot 36 exposures for around three bucks. That's fresh film, not "expired 1998, but has been stored cold" from eBay.

[@munkieluva]

Very informative. Appreciate the commitment to detail

[@brycepinson8641]

I've not used it in small formats but in 4x5. Like you I learned to meter it at ISO 250. I never did any real testing but that seemed about right to me. The grain is probably a lot in small formats but can actually be handy in 4x5 to create a classic look. The dark cyans I find useful for landscapes.

[@jonnoMoto]

The grain is a bit much for 35mm in HC and Rodinal (unsurprisingly). Found it to be much more pleasing in xtol.

[@lensman5762]

No surprises there regarding the speed of the film. All Foma fims seem to be over rated by 2/3 ~1 full stop on the box. Great review of the film as usual. Thank you.

[@auerx9596]

Funny, exactly what I'm developing this morning!

[@AtlantaTerry]

Hey, I just looked at your store where you are offering some very creative T shirts, pullovers, etc. I was surprised you don't have any dark cloths for view camera users.

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I use a service and am limited to the products they offer, otherwise I would have lab aprons too.

[@kayhanshaghaghi9597]

I have been using this film for a few years now exclusively on 8x10. The blocked shadows are the main problem so to speak. Even rating this film at 250, you need to be very careful for the darkest shadows in the frame and to meter for them correctly. Also in 8x10 the film has a tendency to come out muddy. The development needs extra time and agitation to get the proper tonal separation ( this is again the case when the lighting is flat)

[@davyboyo]

I've heard about the extended red sensitivity. Apparently with an ir filter this can be shot at iso 3-6 and used as an ir film. Fun!

[@classicalemotion]

Best film on the market today, to me comparing quality-price. On your prints Fomapan looks to me a bit more natural.

[@antonmorrison]

thanks a lot for making this series! feels like each and every film works great for different tasks. this one delivers great smooth portraits, works fine with flooded cyan lighting. but you can't really shoot street with it. no volume, and better be tri x or tmax 400 will keep on testing!

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I’m glad it’s useful

[@Murgoh]

Good to know it's slower than advertised, I've been wondering what's wrong with my exposures as they have been slightly under with this film. I'll have to give it a little more light then.

[@DBWilliamsFilm36]

Thank you. As for the price of the film and performance it look very good. Please can you explain how you work out the speed in a video..

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I use a sensitometer to expose a step wedge on the film and then a densitometer to read the resulting densities. All the curves and speeds are calculated using the methods in Kodak's Sensitometry Workbook.

[@emotown1]

@@TheNakedPhotographer How do you know you've given the film the perfect amount of development in order to evaluate it using the sensitometer? My methods are more rough and ready: I just use box speed and gradually fine-tune development time until I'm getting decent (but not excessive) shadow detail in my prints, say, with 95% of my shots (in-camera exposure is never always dead on accurate; call it pilot error if you will) being printable. Having established a good working development time, if I'm then getting too much grain and contrast (especially contrast - I have a condenser enlarger so it gets tricky work with too contrasty a negative!) I'll go back to the drawing board with a lower working ISO and less development. Anyway, it's all about sharing these days, so I thought I'd share that. But my question remains. Stay safe.

[@Flying4Film]

Thank you so much for doing these videos. They are truly appreciated by me and many others. In the case of Fomapan, would using a blue filter help at all when it comes to making the cyans appear a little brighter in landscape?

[@alasdairdougall7868]

Fomapan is one of my stock films. It has a lovely tonal range and quite forgiving.

[@matyldaeaton836]

How did you pull the film if it was a 250 speed? I can't find any informations on pulling foam-an 200 & 400

[@squeller1]

Yes, it’s 250 iso. In 35mm I’m shooting at box speed but in mf or lf I’m rating as 250. Great result from 35mm

[@BillSmith1]

I love shooting Fomapan 400, in HC110 B, Xtol and D76 1+1, it's pretty much a 250 ISO film nothing wrong with that. If processed in Tmax developer 1+4, Fomapan 400 becomes an almost box speed film from my exerpeince (joys of compensating developers). The big draw for Fomapan 400 for me is it looks like 1970s Tri-X.

[@nicknick099]

Looking forward to fomapan 200 ! 👍

[@nikedelman]

Great comparison!

[@neilfulcher9298]

OK I'm very late to this party. I've started using this film, and I have it commercially developed. It's perhaps not as good as Tri-X pan, but in the UK at least, it's less than half the cost. You pay your money make your choice, or you get what you pay for. delete whichever you don't agree with! Foma produce a complete range of Photo chemicals and Photo papers. It would be interesting to see how the final print looks using these. I've always though of ISO with B&W film as a product of developer used, developing technique used, and development time used. Maybe I've missed something, but how did you work out it's "actual" ISO.

[@jameslane3846]

Thanks Greg, been testing Fomapan 400 for development times in Ichor, amazing developer that is! Makes film grain so tight and fine yet razor sharp

[@jonnoMoto]

Found it to be 250 as well. Both in xtol and HC. Rodinal needed a bit more exposure at 200.

[@LeytonC]

Great video!! Thank you.

[@johnwhaler2328]

Excellent video, do you think the larger grain is due to manufacturers under exposure and over development ?

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

No, I think it’s due to how the manufacturer forms their silver crystals and ripens the emulsion.

[@GONZOFAM7]

Learning here. So I should set the ASA to 250 rather than 400 in my camera. Develop as 250 too or at 400? Thanks.

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Yes for the camera part, develop for 400. Adjust as necessary

[@GONZOFAM7]

@@TheNakedPhotographer thank you Mr. Naked.

[@ggaffrey8573]

Would you suggest a pull development at 250 asa

[@crispijnvansas]

Thanks for the review! Wonder if this characteristics also count for the retro film

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

If you mean Foma's Retropan film, I will have a separate video on that

[@alexeymalyshev8945]

Amazing content!

[@danem2215]

I like Foma, although its tonal range leaves a lot to be desired. I suspect that's just me shooting it at box speed.

[@boeju1]

Do you have any experience with Fomaspeed paper?

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

No

[@ccoppola82]

The absolute best resource for film photographers is right here! Seems for the budget film, the Kentmere 400 is the objectively better film. So, the question becomes...is tri x or HP5+ worth the price over the kentmere if I want to standardize a film to shoot for a year? Also, any tips on getting Kodak films to dry flat??

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Kentmere is fine if you don’t mind grain. Tri-X renders tones more to my taste than HP5, but they are both fine films. As for curl, I shoot sheet film so I can’t help you there.

[@sabscientists2528]

i wonder, if we can match the sensitivity of the film to colour with a colour grade, would you be able to alter the colour enough that we can mimic how the filmstock sees the world in colour?

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking, you want to know if we could put a filter in front of the lens to make the film match how the eye sees color?

[@codysergeant1486]

Yes you would, its called trichroming

[@GraemeSimpsonPhotography]

I like Fomapan. It's super cheap (in the UK) so is great for just doing test rolls or playing about. It's nice in 120 and the 100 is clean but not too contrasty on 4x5

[@flavioserci6046]

I've just developed my first roll exposed at 400 iso and developed in d76 stock 7 minutes in roll machine. All the roll is underexposed and underdeveloped.

[@MichaelCarter]

Yummy. I liked that Tri-X

[@1989Goodspeed]

Well Foma have been around since 1921… Which means they turn 100yares old this yare.

[@Streetswich]

There was never any rave

[@bwc1976]

Going to pass on this film because it's not true to box speed when so many other 400's were. Looking forward to seeing if Foma 100 and 200 are also slower than they say.

[@luc5798]

Fomapan 100 ok at iso 100, but better if you overexpose it a little bit... Fomapan 200 is more a 100-125 iso film.

[@tomredd9025]

As a retiree, I thought I would save a few dollars and try Foma 400 instead of Tri X, which has been my favorite film since I got my first Exakta when I was high school in 1965. To be honest, I have been disappointed. First, Foma 400 in my mind does not look at all like vintage Tri X. Tri X images, even in the 1960s, have always been clear and crisp. Moreover, Foma IS NOT a 400 ISO film as the video relates It is 200 or there about. Moreover, the grain is not near as good as Tri X. There seems to be what I call a "muddiness" to the film. The images don't "pop out" at you like Tri X. I also bought some Foma Creative 200 in 4x5 inch. I like it better, especially the price, but it is still about half the box speed, a 100 ISO rather than the 200 ISO. If Foma, starts to produce the film with a more accurate film speed and with better contrast, I might consider it in the future. But for now I am going to try Kentmere.

[@tomredd9025]

Thankfully, finished recently the 100ft. roll of Fomapan 400. Bought a 100ft. roll of Kentmere 400 on the strength of your review of it. What a revelation. Kentmere 400 is a very decent film. It is actually box speed and the grain isn't half bad. The latitude seems quite good. World of difference from Fomapan 400. After months of frustration with Fomapan 400, Kentmere 400 just put the "fun" back into photography!

[@flutgraben13]

The little money you safe (at least in Europe) with Fomapan film isn't really worth it. Shooting only 35 mm where every grain counts, even Kentmere 100/400 is much better. Papers from Foma are great and I use them for printing. But Foma film is a no-go for me.

[@cameronwilson8561]

I actually tried fibre based Foma paper the other day for the first time. I was very impressed with the results. I'll definitely go back for more

[@Nobody-Nowhere]

@@cameronwilson8561 They also have some really nice special papers, at their prices they are worth a try. Also, their warmtone developer is nice especially combined with their fomatone papers, if you want something a bit toned.