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

With the same speed, and similar classic grain characteristics and image quality, could FOMAPAN 400 be a suitable replacement for the much revered Ilford HP5+ or Kodak Tri-X films, just at a much lower cost?
Want to support the channel? Consider buying me a coffee. (I really appreicate the support, thank you!)
www.buymeacoffee.com/aperture...

[@thomasni123]

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

[@noahvonhatten]

Interesting point. I suspected it was actually a slower speed, but wasn’t 100% sure. Thanks! I already started exposing it at 320. I’ll try it at 250.

[@thomasni123]

​@@noahvonhattentry Rodinal stand development! Fomapan is naturally higher contrast so being able to meter at whatever ISO and getting pleasing negatives is really cool.

[@seventeendegree]

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

[@stratocactus]

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

[@noahvonhatten]

That could totally be it.

[@anthonys_expired_film]

A trick I learned to uncurl film after drying is to roll the film against the curl, then place it in the 35mm plastic capsule for 2 hours +/- This flattens the film for easier scanning. I’ve tried Foma 400 too with low contrast results. I think shooting at iso 300 or 200 is a great idea and I will try it soon. Love the video and your jazz music throughout! 👍🏻

[@tonyparatore888]

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

[@23davidian96]

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

[@DavidWilliams7037A]

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

[@noahvonhatten]

I haven't had any issues with the 35mm 400 version, but I've had the odd QC related problem with Fomapan 100.

[@michaelrasmussen3347]

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

[@noahvonhatten]

I’ve been enjoying using Kentmere 400 for the past little while. I’m going to be publishing something about my experiences with it soon.

[@evanduffy1015]

I will say, I’ve pushed K400 to 6400 in Xtol with not terrible results, so go crazy 😂

[@Shelbington]

@@noahvonhatten Looking forward to it! In my experience, Kentmere 100 and 400 are the best budget b&w films with Fomapan 100 following right behind. Just like your experience, I think Fomapan 400 can be great, but it's fussy. It takes development and editing adjustments to get consistently great results with it.

[@bumi5178]

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

[@noahvonhatten]

I did compare the two. I also showed the original lab scans in the video. It’s sharp enough, but not quite up there with HP5+, Tri-X, and the like.

[@damium5]

watching this video meanwhile developing fomapan 400 haha

[@palesmichael]

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

[@noahvonhatten]

Actually, Delta has t-grain, and Tri-X doesn’t. Kodak T-Max is the one with the-grain. Tri-X is much too old for t-grain.

[@palesmichael]

@@noahvonhatten thank you for letting me know

[@mamiyapress]

Doing a review on a Film that has been processed in a Lab is meaningless.

[@noahvonhatten]

Or , from another angle, it’s a review that would allow you to replicate the results I got more easily than any other way.

[@petervanorsouw]

Hi Noah. ​@noahvonhatten I think mamiyapress has a point, and I also see yours. If you develop a film in Rodinal you will get a different result when using say D76 (the standard in film development) I used a lab when I first started out in photography, never again will I bother them again.