Is this the best budget B&W film? // Fomapan 400 Review

[@David_GarciaMontero]

Some people reject some film stocks just because 'it looks too grainy' but I think 'the grain' it's one of too many aspects from film photography that I love!... and Foma gives me that

[@jasonandrews7355]

Agreed. I don't need grain overload, but if super clean images are important to me, I usually shoot digital anyways :)

[@KyleMcDougall]

For sure. To each their own. I like both. TMAX and this Foma 400 are two nice contrasting options for me.

[@adrianhlina401]

It also largely depends on the processing, doesn't it?

[@olaf_industries]

agree 100%

[@David_GarciaMontero]

@@adrianhlina401 yes, actually the process it's crucial

[@jankubat2694]

I have a roll of Foma in my fridge at all times, but on the other hand, I used to live in Hradec Králové, where they make it.

[@aantonic]

i like their bw photopapers, especialy pearl one, find it better then ilford ones.

[@LaViejaConsolada]

foma paper is amazing. I'm in love with the fomaspeed 311.

[@stuarthunt926]

Foma 200 has quickly become my favorite bnw stock, it handles over and under exposure extremely well and the highlights are on point

[@KyleMcDougall]

Have you shot with Fomapan 400? Did you like it? Or do you have another go-to budget option?

[@melotron91]

I've been using it in 35mm for a while and recently started using the 120. It's a very decent movie for what i need and it's forgiving with beginners. It's good to have options to choose from (and 3ish $ for a roll is a great price too :D )

[@KNURKonesur]

I used Fomapan 400 for years back in Poland, but now living in the UK it's not as cheap compared to Ilford HP5+ which I mostly use now.

[@theoldcameraguy]

I’ve been shooting Fomapan 400 in my Holga for the Frugal Film Project this year - Loving it!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Nice! Yeah. I’ve really been enjoying it. The cheap price is just a bonus. Would shoot it regardless.

[@melotron91]

And I've learned my lesson, as long as I have the Fomapan option in the stores, I'll never get Arista Edu/ Lomo Lady Grey or Earl Grey :))

[@TheStockwell]

I originally bought Foma just to test vintage cameras. It's become the only film I use. I suppose it's for the reasons you point out. The results LOOK like they were shot on film. It doesn't have the impossibly smooth, CGI image quality I associate with Disney animation. End of story. ☺

[@gabriele.valensisi]

Foma 35mm films don't have anti-halo layer; 120 and large format have a green anti-halo layer. That's the cause of the glow in the highlight. You can see it when using pre-bath with water: developing 35mm it is clean, while with 120 and 4x5 it is green.

[@frankfurtflow9148]

Personally love 100 the most, super crisp smooth fotos, and can be shot up to 3 steps

[@ldstirling]

Fomapan 100 developed in 1:50 Rodinal is one of my favorites.

[@MKVD]

A word of warning on Foma 200 in 120. The emulsion is different from 100 or 400 and it scratches REALLY EASILY. You have to be really careful with it, some cameras just absolutely destroy it. But the other speeds are completely fine.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Good to know. Thanks for the heads up!

[@TrashTheLens]

I haven't shot enough of 100 or 400 to say one way or the other, but my experience with 200 confirms yours - it is definitely very prone to scratches. Not just the 120, but 135 too.

[@jonnoMoto]

Yeah. The 120 200 did not like my Bronica etrs back. Scratches and holes in the emulsion throughout. I knew it was fragile as I'd shot over 50ft of 35mm before trying 120.

[@uncanny_bassman]

True. However, I find Fomapan 200, especially with an orange filter, is a hard to beat summer film for 35mm and 120 film and certainly easier to wrestle than Fomapan 400.

[@themoolag]

@@jonnoMoto so don't use the 220 back on the iso200?

[@KNURKonesur]

It all depends on where you live. In Poland we used to have Fomapan super cheap cause the factory is just a couple hundred miles away and doing one bigger order for multiple friends got you free shipping. In the UK it's not the case anymore and Fomapan is almost as expensive (sometimes more expensive) than Ilford HP5+ or some Rollei films.

[@KyleMcDougall]

All depends where you buy it I guess. £3.75 is what I paid, which is one of the cheapest I've found.

[@therealblurrybarber]

I wish that were the case for Kodak! I live nearby the Kodak factory and have yet to see any kind of local discount in Rochester

[@KNURKonesur]

@@therealblurrybarber the thing is we bought film directly from the factory shop back then, that's why it was cheaper. No local shop had any discounts on Foma. Ever.

[@lensman5762]

This is exactly what I commented on above. The prices have gone up quite considerably and it no longer represents value for money TBH. Given the choice between the FP4+ and either the 100 or the 200, the choice is clear.

[@Shoot-Film]

Good to know you discovered the virtues of Foma. I’ve completed an extensive testing with Foma, limited to 5x4 200 ISO at present. Results from my workflow, I’ve concluded my best results being actual EI 80 ISO when developed in Ilford DDX 1:4 dilution (one shot) @ 68` I’ve also concluded a data set for reciprocity failure up to 8 minutes with excellent results making Foma 200 a great alt stock for large format users. Should you be interested, I can let you have them and share them with your fans if you wish. I’ve always been a big HP5 fan, but the beautiful creamy tones and virtual lack of noticeable grain from 5x4 stock has converted me, not to mention the price at half that of HP5. Always enjoy your videos 👍🏻.

[@GiuseppeDeGiorgi]

I shot a roll of It recently during a really sunny day at sea, and I repeated to myself "Why did I brought b&w and not colour?". After seeing the results It was completely worth it. Really love its look

[@julianaframe4200]

Fomapan, aka Arista EDU Ultra, aka Holga brand film, aka Kosmo Foto Mono, aka Lomography Kino. It's all the same film.

[@LaughingStock_]

Yes, but the others are rebranded.

[@Utkarsh_A]

Bought this film as a test film as well for a 6x7 camera I was given to use but hadn't been used for years so I bought this as it was the cheapest and it instantly became one of my favorite BW films. Their "Retro look" film is nice too

[@AleksUsovich]

I've personally shot plenty of Fomapan 400 and 200 in a Zeiss Nettar 6x6 and have had pretty good experiences with it. I love the look that it produces when underexposed 0.5-1 stop and developed with Rodinal which looks like a milder JCH StreetPan in terms of tone and grain. The gripes I have with it are more annoying than a problem with the film, but as others have stated it scratches super easy even when being super careful and attracts dust more that tons of other films. I developed both Tri-x and Fomapan at the same time and they were in the exact room drying but Fomapan had so much more dust get stuck on the negative. Additionally, all the Fomapan 120s that I've shot seem to curl significantly making scanning it quite a chore. The 35mms's don't seem to curl as bad. Overall, I enjoy the film for some shots around town or for testing new flashbulbs or flashcubes but still prefer Ilford Delta 100, Tri-X, or T-Max for maximum quality.

[@mateorucki3775]

Do you shoot Fomapan 400 normally or do you set the ISO lower at your camera?

[@NJPurling]

The advice to shoot at 200 was sound. Comes right from someone who read the Foma Tech Sheet for the film. The first time I shot this film was with the tail end of some bulk Agfapan 400S. The Agfa was not 400 either & I treated the two as the same 200 ASA & processed in Rodinal dil 1:50 for 11 min. In 35mm more grain than a bag of sugar! I have to say it probably wouldn't fare well against Kentmere 400 or Ilford HP5. The first rolls I shot in Leeds of the gritty cityscapes were as good an intro to the film as you could hope for.

[@VintageInsightPhotography]

I’ve not shot the 400, but I did run a roll of 200 through my Kodak Brownie Hawkeye and my Kalimar 660. Really enjoyed it.

[@csorgotom]

Did you rate it at 200 or 100?

[@VintageInsightPhotography]

@@csorgotom 200. No harm in rating it at 100. ISO 100 would most likely give better shadow detail. In my experience, it’s usually beneficial to overexpose film by a stop in low contrast lighting.

[@AlexLuyckxPhoto]

Big fan of Fomapan 400! I do mainly shoot it at ASA-200, and when I do shoot it at ASA-400, then a developer like DD-X or Acufine will render it wonderfully! Love the grain structure, sharpness, and that latitude!

[@TrashTheLens]

I agree, DD-X is a nice fit. Although it feels a bit awkward to use such a cheap film with such an expensive developer. For this reason I once tried doing stand dev DD-X in 1+9 and the results were usable, but with quite a dense base+fog.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I was definitely happy with how it turned out with DD-X.

[@agylub]

Fomapan 100 in Perceptol is amazing. Negs look thin but print beautifully. In Oz Tri X is $12 Fomapan is $8

[@burntoutelectronics]

Yes the price difference in Australia for me is $7.50 for foma while tri-x is $13.50 for 120. And that’s best price for tri-x

[@herovandiejen1479]

I've been using foma 400 now for a couple of years also rolled from a bulk roll making it the cheapest b&w film by far. One thing I've loved doing with fomapan 400 is using stand development with the fomadon, which is fomapans version of Rodinal or R09, at a 200:1 dilution. It really works well with this film and can bring out even more shadow detail than standard development. It also means I can push fomapan 400 to 1600 and still get quite a lot of shadow detail especially in post. You can also scan it the way you would say tri-x and get that really grainy and contrasty look that the classic tri-x photos from the 60s and 70s have. Such an easy film to work with and it leaves plenty of room to get creative, lets he honest if I bulk load it myself a roll costs me a little over 2 euros and with stand development and all the chemicals combined each roll plus development costs me less then 2,50 euro. Can't really go wrong there!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Nice! May be bulk loading this one in the future.

[@herovandiejen1479]

@@KyleMcDougall I'm excited to see your results in future videos and your exposure latitude experiments! It's great to know there's always a bulk loader with film ready no matter what and with the 30 meter fomapan roll being so cheap and you seeming to like fomapan 400 just as much as I do I think it's a great choice to always have some laying around

[@8andre3]

For 35mm, the Fomapan 200 is a bit better than the 400 in my opinion. A lot of people enjoy the 100 as well

[@buyaport]

True!

[@MD-en3zm]

How grainy is the 100?

[@8andre3]

@@MD-en3zm depends on the developer you use, but it's a very clean film. Not grainy at all

[@janbraunig9327]

fomapan is definitely one of my favorite b&w films!

[@johngskewes]

Thank you Kyle. Fomapan is great film. I use the 200 in my UNDO 6X9 pinhole, and do stand development. I use the 100 in my Miranda D/Soligor 1:1.9. In the case of the Miranda/Soligor, the results are nothing short of soulful - and it is consistent.

[@ldstirling]

The only downside to Fomapan films IMO is the horrible reciprocity failure. I love Fomapan 100 in my Noon 6x6 pinhole but any exposure beyond 1 second requires massive compensation. So, in a pinhole camera, every exposure needs massive compensation.

[@johngskewes]

@@ldstirling ...I use Foma 200 in my pinhole and stand develop in Rodinal. Because I am not 100% sure where correct exposure is, STAND evens that out. The result are very nice.

[@_stefkas_]

Love Foma 400 in my Mamiya C220. 200ASA in Fomadon Excel (czech Xtol...) I'd call it a 1960s look....

[@thebeautyofeternity]

I just started shooting Fomapan recently - 100 and 200 so far - and developed it yesterday so your video has come at a perfect time! I will definitely buy some 400 to try out. I haven't scanned anything yet but from the looks of the negatives, I'm super happy :D Foma does really seem like the perfect budget b&w film !

[@KyleMcDougall]

Nice! I still have to try the slower speeds. Probably going to order some shortly. I'm sure you'll enjoy the 400.

[@TheWillRogers]

The Fomapan 400 was the 120 film I wanted to use when doing my tests with a Kodak Tourist but I was lazy and went with expensive films. A roll of portra painted with light leaks and a roll of Ektar dedicated to throwaway shots. Hopfully my local shop starts carrying the film so I can impulse buy it. I still have to ship it out to get it developed since they only develop C-41.

[@TrashTheLens]

I bulk-load and shoot Fomapan 200 and I like it. I particularly enjoy Fomapan's spectral response - being less sensitive in the shorter wavelengths. Their films are by far the cheapest here, and besides, I like the idea of supporting my neighbors. ;) Foma makes nice emulsions. The low-cost aspect of their films boils down to quality control which isn't as good as in the more expensive brands, so you might end up with some emulsion defects from time to time. But they seem to have improved over the last few years. Regarding the halation, their 120 and 135 films differ greatly, which is easily noticeable during development. The 120 films wash off this deep green dye, which is the anti-halation layer. 135 doesn't do that.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Ahh, interesting. Had a few people mention that about the difference between the sizes. So far I haven't had any issues with quality control. I'm about six or seven rolls in. Fingers crossed. Still need to try some of the slower versions as well.

[@shawnhinton68]

I've shot this in 200 speed, 35mm and loved the results.

[@adambiskupski-wideo-prezen9233]

It’s not only the best budget film but the best film of all!😎

[@panelsandbars]

Have never heard of this stock before, but the images you captured were fantastic. I’m very tempted to grab some!

[@csorgotom]

It's quite popular here in Central-Eastern Europe. It's made in the Czech Republic so it's much cheaper than Ilford or Kodak B&W

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks! Definitely give it a shot.

[@gianmarcomaioli]

My go-to when it comes to testing a new camera. Always enjoy Foma400, although I must admit that developing it in Rodinal have sometimes gave me quite strong acutance, which enhances the grain a tad too much. Still, a great “cheap” film stock.

[@lensman5762]

Never used the 400. I have used the 100 and the 200 in all formats. The 200 is the easiest one to work with. This does not mean that the 200 is a film for the novice. The 100 is quite difficult to control. I have over 40 years of experience in film photography. The prices of these films have also gone up considerably in recent weeks here in the UK , but they are still much cheaper than the Kodak offerings. I have also encountered emulsion problems with both the 100 and the 200 in both 120 and 4X5 formats. I have a new batch of the 200 in 120 and if they exhibit the same problems, that would be the end of my dealings with Fomapan.

[@malypavel25]

Foma is based in my region, making me so proud ❤️

[@beankurt]

I started B&W film with Fomapan, the "feel" just draws me to this film stock, 30+ rolls and going~

[@russellspeight5175]

100 and 200 are the strong points in the lineup - 100 is great with HC110 and 200 works well with ID11. The weak point with foma films is the emulsion - very prone to scratching. As mentioned below, the price point is no longer substantially different to Ilford in the UK, but yes a small saving can be made.I didnt get on with 400 and I'll pay that little bit extra for Ilford HP5 every time.

[@brycepinson8641]

I used foma 400 (arista edu 400) to learn 4x5 because it was cheap. But I keep it around because of its vintage and classic look.

[@JHurrenPhotography]

I bought a 100' roll of this. Looking forward to seeing the results. Exciting you reviewed it!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Nice, I'm sure you'll enjoy!

[@johanvanvliet9043]

I just start photography with role and a Yashica 635 they recommended this film as beginner. But its prommesing if i see you pictures. I got the 120mm rolls B&W 400. Thanks for the upload and like your channel.

[@troykazlauskas2792]

I would definitely recommend the Kentmere. It’s what I started shooting on when I first shot film about 5 years ago. A comparison from kentmere to the fomapan would be cool too.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I'm sure I'll check it out in the future. Cheers.

[@Alex-RealApplebees]

Kentmere Pan 100 is actually my go-to b/w film. Its cheap and easy to work with either in the darkroom or in digital scans.

[@lensman5762]

I have tried the Kentmere 100 in Spur Acurol-N. The results are pretty impressive.

[@tomredd9025]

Fired up my old darkroom and bought a 100 ft roll of Fomapan 400. It is the most frustrating film I ever used. Also did not like the images. People talk about the retro feel of the film, but I used to shoot Tri X and back in the day (1960s). No comparison. Tri X had lots of grain but boy were the photos dramatic with lots of "pop." To me Fomapan 400 looks 'muddy." Thankfully, finally ran of the 100 ft roll of Fomapan and tried Kentmere 400. What a revelation. The film was actually box speed and not the 160 ISO Fomapan 400 really is. Negatives have excellent latitude and decent grain. I am a Kentmere 400 believer. The fun is back in photography for me!

[@AxelEckenberger]

Foma is my default stock (100 for 120 and 4x5 and 400 for 35mm) as it is not so expensive it does not make you cringe each time you press the shutter - especially when shooting 4x5. Both the 100 and 400 speed films have the unique (classic?) look you describe and both emulsions have been around for some time. I heard that the 200 speed film has a somewhat different characteristic because it is a newer development. I can’t remember shooting the 200, but it is stocked and I certainly will do it soon. The exposure latitude is about 3-4 stops up and 1 stop down and I also pushed it to 1600, although the grain gets quite pronounced then (with Rodinal 1+50). However, I recently developed a roll shot at different speeds (400, 800 and 1600 developed semi-stand in Rodinal 1+100) and this seems to have had a positive effect on the grain but resulted in flat images (expected). One thing to note though is that the reciprocity failue effect is quite extreme on these films. As mentioned by you the specified speed is often not reached, but as far as I know this is a factor that can be attributed to a certain film/developer combination. Foma recommends Fomadon LQN - a phenidone-hydroquinone developer - that is rumoured to achieve full speed on the Fomapan films (haven’t tested it myself). Furthermore, Foma also produces a good range of black and white papers that also will not break the bank. Additionally, on the cost saving side: If you have a large order, it might be cheaper to order at Foma’s web shop directly, although the higher shipping costs have to be taken into account - and for the UK possible tolls. For me Foma is a great brand that - because it doesn’t not charge premium prices - is often put into the budget sector. However, the quality of their films and papers does usually exceed those of other brands in this sector, while other more premium brands fall short in comparison.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Great info, thanks! I’ll be trying out the 200 as well shortly. Looking forward to seeing what it’s like.

[@noisiboi7308]

I bought three for a tenner last year in Amazon just to give it a go, gave probably repeated that purchase five or six times since then. Great stock.

[@mileschun143]

If you like the halation of Foma, you could achieve some of the same effect with stand development. Then you could use your "go-to" TMAX with all of its perks, but with the halation look added by (lack of) the developer agitation.

[@berkeleygang1834]

Well, Ilfotec DD-X is a fine grain developer. So now I'm wondering if Rodinal would bring the 120 version up to your expectations. Perhaps 1:25 dilution rather than 1:50? So many film/developer combinations - even after the "death" of film. :D Really appreciate your comments about this film. I'll probably have to try it out myself now.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Definitely worth giving a try. Glad you enjoyed!

[@giorgiomontanaro]

As I saw the VW Beatle at the beginning I liked this Video! I'm gonna buy this film for my camera! Thank you!

[@KyleMcDougall]

You're welcome. Cheers.

[@KratasCRAFT]

Foma is the default budget option in central Europe, where it costs 2 USD per roll, if you bulk load.

[@SinaFarhat]

I like your analysic level of testing films! :) Keep up the good work!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thank you.

[@eugenekutz7626]

I used to shoot Fomapan 200 and 400 in 120 format a lot. I always liked the tones and its latitude. But! Very often I got a lot of small tiny holes on emulsion, which turned out as black dots on scans, sometimes looked like black rain on final image. First, i thought it was my development process or the camera scratches. But once I switched to Kodak and Ilford I've never seen such a defect anymore with the same camera and development/scanning processes. This was a key factor to give up shooting Foma as a major film stock.

[@KyleMcDougall]

That’s too bad. Haven’t run into those issues yet and I’m hoping I don’t!

[@daviddavidd9883]

Kyle reveal some state secrets please. Metering, film developer and other bits I can squeeze out of you. Nice images, sure is a change from seeing a model striking the same pose as the other thousands of crooked neck models.

[@nazahamed5860]

just now came across news saying ILFORD is gonna increase their prices on all their films including Kentmeres, my BW films in my fridge is receeding and after watching this, i ordered a dozen of fomapans. btw, great shots kyle 👍

[@jasonandrews7355]

This is great to know! I'm sitting on a pretty hefty supply of Delta that was given to me by a friend, but once I'm through that, I'll probably give this a shot. It's certainly more in my price range.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers, Jason. Definitely worth trying out.

[@davidzaruba9501]

It would be nice if you made video about another fomapan bw film stock. Like 100, 200 and so on. ☺

[@KyleMcDougall]

I'll definitely be checking them out in the future.

[@therealblurrybarber]

In my opinion the rest of the fomapan lineup doesn't hold a candle to foma 400. Especially in 35mm this is the case. I absolutely love foma 400 in 35mm. One of my favorite film stocks at any price point. Punchy, grainy, classic looking, absolutely beautiful and my style all the way. Great video! Keep em coming!

[@АлексейДолидович-ц9г]

Actually the first film I've ever shot! Great perfomer considering it's price

[@ThePhotoDept]

great video! do you think that maybe the lack of the similar character in the 120 version vs 35mm is more down to lenses than the stock itself? I was looking at your examples and the specular highlights and specific little characteristics remind me of things I find when shooting my Olympus XA. That lens is pretty unique and I feel like it imparts its own look on whatever I shoot. either way, fantastic review and I'm really interested in trying it.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks man. Could be a mix of both? This film is definitely known for halation issues in 35mm. Actually just had someone message me as well saying that the 120 version is slightly different when it comes to the anti halation.

[@ThePhotoDept]

@@KyleMcDougall oh interested. im gonna have to pick some up.

[@Fabzsoundmedia]

Great vid as usual Kyle, thanks!! 🙏🏻

[@marksummers5504]

Strangely the exact same film, but labeled as Arista EDU Ultra B&W films, are about $0.08-$0.15 a roll cheaper. They are made in the Czech Republic and I’ve not noticed any differences in the film and developing. They are wonderful B&W films that are plenty sharp.

[@jespersichlau4343]

My go to B&W film is the Agfa APX 400 which I think is great for the price and delivers a nice gritty image without too much noise.

[@eatfrog]

It's rerolled Kentmere 400, just FYI. Agfa went bankrupt a long time ago.

[@jespersichlau4343]

@@eatfrog oh I didn’t know. But it’s still my favourite.

[@TheWill108]

It’s funny Kodak spent all this R&D on the very thing people now love about this film, namely the highlight halos which gave birth to the “anti-halation base”. Possibly the reason some find Fomapan thinner than some other films.

[@sbarronmd]

One day, would like your opinion on ultrafine finesse (not extreme)

[@brineb58]

I have become a fan of Arista Edu film which is basically rebranded Fomapan!!! I use either 100 or 200 in my Holgas!!!

Uhhh loved the look, I will definitely try some Fomapan, thank you for all the amazing tips man 👏🏼

[@KyleMcDougall]

All good. Enjoy!

[@MarkHickford]

I've shot it in 120 and 4x5 and it is very surprising in terms of quality. I know 4x5 photographers who shoot only Foma 400 in sheet film because it's such good value. The 100 speed is also lovely in 120 and 4x5 (I've never used Foma in 35mm). The only issue with Fomapan film is if you decide to take long exposure shots. The reciprocity failure on all the speeds is a lot worse than the likes of Ilford. It's not a deal-breaker, but just a bit of a pain.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yeah, I'm very curious to try it in 4x5. You definitely can't beat the price!

[@pclayto3]

One problem with Fomapan in 135, is the lack of DX coding on the cassettes. I just bought 10 rolls with the intention of testing some automated P&S cameras.

[@giopope85]

Put a sticker on the cassette

[@Murgoh]

I've recently tried Fomapan 400 in 35mm, 120 and 4x5. In medium and large format it's ok as the grain is relatively smaller but in 35mm I find it a little too "gritty" for my taste for most pictures. Of course this is, as you said, a matter of personal preference, I mostly like a little smoother look. Also I seem to need to overexpose 1 or 2 stops to get decent density, especially in 4x5. Maybe partially because a fault of my old selenium light meter but on the other hand the same meter gives ok exposures with HP5+. I think I'll use the rest of my rolls of 35 and 120 in my vintage cameras (a Soviet Zorki 4 and an Agfa box camera) for "lo-fi" fun stuff (in the box camera it gives a really "antique" look, in Zorki it's kind of harsh, gritty and contrasty which suits some pictures) and go back to HP5+ for more "serious" shooting as the price difference in those formats is small. In 4x6 I'd really like to make Fomapan work for me as in that format HP5+ is more than twice the price so I'd like to use Foma especially as I'm still learning large format so I'm bound to waste some film (just today I somehow managed to scratch one negative in development). I also have some Fomapan 200 (in 35mm and 120) and 100 (in 4x5) which I haven't tried yet so maybe I'll like them better.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Nice! Yeah, I've yet to try the 4x5 with this film, but I think I'll be giving it a shot as well. The difference between the film sizes is interesting. Just like you, I enjoy the look of 35mm, especially paired with older optics. I'll be shooting some through a Zeiss Werra tomorrow.

[@alfredbassDP]

daaaammmnnnn it looks awesome!! thanks for this video. i´m excited to try it!

[@twistedl2009]

Definitely have to shop around for film prices in the UK, it’s way more expensive in a lot of places online. Will definitely look to give it a go.

[@okok72277]

Analogue wonderland usually has prices a lot cheaper than anywhere else. For example, most places online or in store sell cinestill for £18 or so, but analogue wonderland sell it for £13 or so (and West Yorkshire cameras in Leeds sell 35mm for £13, but don't sell medium format)

[@gueorgui29]

I love foma as well. I shoot with it a lot. currently running with a 100 iso film.. but ISO 200 proved very capable as well

[@MD-en3zm]

In Europe, you can get the Fomapan bulk rolls of 165 or so feet (50m) for ~60. It’s crazy cheap. They won’t ship to the US though. That works out to something like $2 per 36 exp roll.

[@comeradecoyote]

It's a very sound budget film. Sure it's not the sharpest. And their graphic design on their normal packaging is not great. But it's the best bargain, especially for 120. Also the differences between the medium format/LF and the 35 version, is the larger format version has a water soluble green anti-halation layer, whereas the 35mm has only the film base anti halation layer. This is partly why the larger format versions are somewhat sharper.

[@RohkopfMS]

Could you review Bergger Pancro 400? Would love to hear your thoughts about this film stock!

[@KyleMcDougall]

It’s on the list. Cheers.

[@ldstirling]

Have you considered Ultrafine Extreme 100 or 400? Comes in 35mm and 120, with 100 foot bulk rolls of 35mm. Prices are $4.29 USD for single 35mm 36 exp, $4.99 USD for single 120 roll, and $49.95 USD for bulk roll of 35mm.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Never actually heard of it until posting this video and having some people mention it.

[@scarrick2011]

just shot a roll of this, looking forward to getting the results back!

[@stevenpam]

Thanks for the nice review, Kyle. Just ordering a lens from Kamerastore and I spotted that this is cheap... gonna chuck a roll or three in my cart and give it a try!

[@KyleMcDougall]

No problem, Steven! I’m sure you’ll enjoy it.

[@MurrayLivingston]

The way it renders highlights is super interesting! Almost looks like a B&W 800T - I expect it might produce some amazing night photos... May have to give it a go myself.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Definitely worth trying, Murray.

[@wallywo7392]

Hi enjoyed this, I'd like to see how it's processed. I'd like to give it a go but I havent got a clue. Thanks again!!

[@mamiyapress]

Coincidentally I bought 6 rolls of Fomapan today, 100, 200 and 400.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Nice, enjoy!

[@63MacGuy]

Great review! I think it may too grainy for weddings / portraits. I'm also looking at HP5 and Tri-X 400. Cost is an issue since I will be shooting 10+ rolls at a wedding.

[@tomasrett745]

Great video as always Kyle! I'm from the Czech Republic and this is my go-to film stock for 35mm as it's cheap (well, one of the cheapest you can get here) and gives very nice results as you said. I've shot bunch of it in 120 as well but I don't enjoy it that much compared to the 35mm version (it's still good though!). On the other hand, the 200 ASA version in 120 gives you a more contrasty look and seems pretty neat to me (for the price). Thanks for all the videos so far!

[@KyleMcDougall]

I definitely plan on trying out the 200. Cheers!

[@samvholt]

The name "Leaky III" does not bode well for that boat...Looks like a great film stock, especially for the price! Great video Kyle.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Haha, yeah no kidding!

[@RichardStroffolino]

With the medium format not quite hitting the same, I get the same thing with HP5 @ 1600. Love it in 35 but loses a lot of its character on the bigger negative. Thanks for highlighting Foma 400, Kentmere is good for a neutral image, but doesn't have the same character.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers, Rich. Yeah, haven’t shot Kentmere but I think I’ll be sticking with this.

[@donyee8970]

I used this film for years and I like the retro look of it. However, it has horrible reciprocity failure. I use replenished HC-110. The anti-halation dyes will make your developer green. Just minor points.

[@noahdanielstephens8037]

Love this! The shot at 12:38 hit me hard.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks, Noah.

[@noahdanielstephens8037]

@@KyleMcDougall of course man! Super grateful for your channel, you’ve helped me in so many ways.

[@wcwendychapman]

You images make me think this film would make for nice street images in 35mm and rated at 200 as you did. It would render the cities like London and New York in a timeless way.

[@hb4834]

Is fomapan 200 just rebranded arista edu? Had Fomapan on the box, Arista Ultra 200 on developed negatives? 120 format

[@vogelnoot1000]

Very crisp film, nice tones, on the contrastier side, but most importantly: very soft film, makes it 100 times easyer to spool compared to kodak!

[@filipecostapt6427]

Fomapan film is great, but you need to try Fomapan 200, has a bit more contrast

[@KyleMcDougall]

I'll be trying some of the other speeds I'm sure.

[@jacovanlith5082]

Some photographer wrote on Fomapan 400: "The exposure latitude is about 3-4 stops up and 1 stop down and I also pushed it to 1600" " That is impossible. I would like to see the prints made from the tormentated film.

[@micheleren1534]

I'm shooting with Kodak TRI-X 400 (I use a Leica M6) and the grain is perhaps even more present than with this FOMAPAN 400. I almost take a couple of rolls and try it. If it gives me results similar to the TRI-X I will have found a way to save money.

[@GreenlifeFin]

I would like to see the unedited results in LR too. Now you show the results with your edits. I think I will test this film.

[@LeDibeau]

Also in Austria a lot of the few B&W photographers prefer the fomapan. Not only because it is very cheap but mainly it is just plain uncomplkicated.

[@WesleyVerhoevePhotography]

Alright, you sold me on it! Will try that this week.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Definitely worth trying out, Wesley!

[@giopope85]

Hi Kyle! Love the vid, but Especially the 35mm version seems to me totally lacking in shadow detail. Was it intentional?

[@MrRoflHamster]

It's always crazy to me how much detail you get on a screen when shooting 120.

[@studiojege287]

Cool video, thanks for the insights! Would you shoot the iso400 at 200?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yep, I usually do.

[@studiojege287]

@@KyleMcDougall Thanks, will try!

[@lukasprokop3641]

I am using Foma 100 just because we have a plenty of this stock in Czech Republic...obviously :D ...but I push it to 1600 ISO and I got great results. Nice stock and really budget friendly even for lowlight situations. :)

[@luc5798]

Fomapan 100 @1600 iso? Euh... Do you still have greys or just black and white? 😅

[@davidgifford8112]

Find Foma 400 gives a little too much grain for my liking but I agree that is provides a “classic” look that I enjoy when I’m using a very old 120 camera.

[@BokBokBuGok123]

Do you use colored filters when shooting b&w? If not, I'm curious why.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Not yet. Just something I haven’t experimented with yet. Although I do have some here.

[@rancidkippa4589]

Just out of curiousity, you didn't happen to shoot some of those photos in Hastings/St Leonards?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yep. Good eye!

[@rancidkippa4589]

@@KyleMcDougall Nice! I instantly recognised the Cadets Academy surrounded by beach huts, and the RX registration on the boats looked familiar

[@paulharding7282]

Shooting it now in a Pentax 17 half frame

[@johnstarke7319]

It might be too late to get a real answer now here, but I wonder how well fomopan performs when pushed.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Sorry, John. Not something I've ever done.

[@luc5798]

I really like the 35mm Fomapan 100@50 with xtol 1+2. I live in France but I buy from the factory website. 30,5m is about 44€, so 44/19=2,31€ for a 36 exp film. Ilford films are 3 times more expensive... I used to buy 30,5m of Ilford films for about 60€, now it’s 120€! 😮 Without Foma I would have had to stop photography...

[@mgman6000]

Idk where you got your film but it's $9.00 a roll with anywhere from $15 to $40 shipping the last rolls of HP5 I bought a couple of months ago was $7.60 at my local store