Fomapan 200

[@markuslarjomaa3122]

Nice to have a true expert to confirm what I've already known: Fomapan 200 is a pretty nice film, especially considering its price/quality ratio (at least in Europe Foma is pretty much the cheapest film around) :). The only thing that keeps me from fully trusting it is that in my experience it scratches super easily. The emulsion, particularly when it's wet, is extremely soft.

[@TrashTheLens]

Yup, I sometimes feel it scratches if you as much as look at it too roughly. But other than that a decent "casual shooter" for me.

[@jonnoMoto]

I've found emulsion scratches/voids are almost guaranteed in 120. Not so bad in 135. Still more common than other films though. Quite a few big threads about it on photrio.

[@Nobody-Nowhere]

I have been using it as my main film, with tmax 400 when i need the max speed... and now when i see these curves, im beginning to think that i know what i'm doing :)

[@haythamfpv]

Where do you buy it? Everything seems to be high priced in eu. I needed a couple of 35mm color film and the overall cheapest option was to get a pack of 3 kodak golds from amazon at €25…..

[@markuslarjomaa3122]

@@haythamfpv Who, me? Well, I pretty much only shoot black&white like this Fomapan here, but some of the best film suppliers I know include Fotoimpex (DE, cheapest color film KODAK Color Plus 200 135-36 5,50€), Macodirect (DE, Fuji Superia 200 135-36 4,75€), Retrocamera (BE, KODAK Color Plus 200 135-36 4,95€). The problem is that these days practically no corner store carries any kind of film for any price. You'll need to buy from specialists, and if you only buy a couple rolls, the shipping costs easily double your order total. Secondly, cheap color film demand is suddenly a lot higher than what the manufacturers can supply = everyone's out of stock and the prices go up. And the manufacturers are (re-)investing in their film production lines, which isn't cheap, and they'll need to earn their investments back which doesn't really translate into super cheap color film in the near future. I'm sorry, but the days of cheap color film available everywhere are long gone. Just shoot b&w :). It's easy to find Fomapan for 4€ and it costs very little to develop it yourself.

[@Nobody-Nowhere]

This is what i have been saying for years, people skip this film too easily because of its 200 iso rating. But its a great film, especially for the price. And rating this at 160iso, makes it great for shooting with color portrait films.

[@zihansong8182]

Foma’s films are literally one of my favorite, they are super cheap hear in China, about 4USD per roll, and their film are somehow longer than Kodak or Ilford’s, I can get about 39 to 40 frames per roll on my Leica M3, or 41 on my Rollei 35.

[@ColHogan-zg2pc]

I've got a question, how popular is film photography in china? I was looking for some photography stores near Beijing and I saw that most of them were digital camera retailers and couldn't find a store which sold film but there were a few of these digital camera stores that had flyers for film photography events in parks and such so it seems like it's there, I just don't know where they get their film from

[@zihansong8182]

@@ColHogan-zg2pc well, idk which city you livin’ so I’d suggest get your film online from Taobao, you can buy films from distributors directly, I believe the biggest film distributor in China is called Jiancheng, they usually have freshest film with lower prices. Getting movie film in China is actually a better deal if you take developing costs into account, ecn2 film and processing is widely available in China, they even have bulk rolled 120 cine film, which are quite rare in the rest of the world.

[@TaylerAleks]

Fomapan 200 shooted as 100 and developed in Pyro HD - very very nice combination

[@mvonwalter6927]

This film and it's price point makes a lot more sense for 120. In 6x6 those precious 12 frames are a lot more cost effective. For 35mm I would want something finer.

[@Austinite333]

Just an FYI. I just developed a roll of Foma pan 200 in W2D2+. I rated the film @ 125 and developed for 7 minutes in a 1-1-50 mix. The results were impressive. s Sharp with fine grain but more important was the beautiful tonality in this staining developer. 7 minutes was perfect for scanning but maybe go 8 for a darkroom print.

[@teyjingwoon]

good stuff. Not everyone like to do and share with community. Appreciate your effort on that.

[@studiosnch]

Currently shooting this film as my "everyday" film alongside Kentmere 100. So far I've developed this in Rodinal (or Parodinal), Microphen, Ilfosol, and Xtol. Out of the 4, Xtol and Microphen seemed to do the best for this film (with Xtol giving better tonality and grain, and Microphen giving amazing contrast, thanks to its ability to add EI values during development), while Ilfosol made it look flat at times, and Rodinal was not just jamming well with it. But these comments are based on my developing methods, temperature, agitation, and even scanning methods. Overall it's a great film to use for everyday shooting and I've got some favorite photos already thanks to this film. But I'll still stick to Delta 100 as my film stock of choice.

[@luc5798]

I had good results with this film exposed at 100 iso and developed with Xtol 1+1, but I prefer the fomapan 100 that I can also expose at 100 iso, and that gives finer grain.

[@cnccontroller]

Thank you, it was interesting! I like Fomapan 100.

[@zhongyao-sc1lj]

how much time did you develp in D76 stock?Did you shot at box speed?

[@silverphotographylife9196]

Very opportune as I have just got a box of 5x7 fomapan 200. Hopefully the sheet film characteristics are the same as the 35mm film.

[@Nobody-Nowhere]

They are, and in sheet film the price/quality ratio of fomapan 200 really outshines any other film.

[@Dom-ny9dt]

The naked man fears no pickpocket

[@Nirvanasiert]

I love this film. It's my favourite, I do it at @200 iso and develop it in perceptol 1+3 14 minutes. = Fine grain and tonal. Thanks

[@jimwlouavl]

Tri-X is hard to beat. PS Just saw that you’re in Ky; I’m in Louisville.

[@ivaa7777JAWA]

Great video

[@TrashTheLens]

It's interesting how, according to the datasheet and my own very unscientific observations, the sensitivity to blues should be a tad lower than to the longer wavelengths, but your results don't seem to confirm that. The prints look like it's the greens and cyans that experience a little dip. I guess I'll need to look closer into that. But anyway, this is my film of choice for casual shooting, i.e. when I want the best value for money rather than the best possible quality.

[@samtt2001]

I know that with C-41 black and white films the different colour layers have different densities that eliminate most of the difference between the spectral sensitivity. For example, Kodak T400CN has a lower blue sensitivity and higher red sensitivity, but during development the blues get denser faster than the reds, balancing all colours to be more or less even. Of course, this doesn't really apply to true black and white, but perhaps, maybe, foma works in a way that allows blues to become a little denser than the spectral sensitivity might suggest.

[@Wiencourager]

Foma 200 is nice in Diafine, I shoot it at box speed.

[@tomredd9025]

Thanks, Naked Photographer. Always find your videos enlightening and well done. Since my family came from Czechoslovakia, I thought I would give Fomapan 200 and 400 a try. Czechs have a reputation of producing some of the highest quality goods. (Disclaimer, we are of Slovak descent but my family members came over when there was still a Czechoslovkia.) The price of the film is really attractive. I bought a 100 foot roll of 35mm Fompan 400 and a 50 count box of 4x5 Fomapan 200. Unfortunately, Fomapan 400 is probably the worst film, I ever used. In the 1960s, our teacher who also was in charge of the camera club, used to buy bulk army surplus 64 ASA film and sell it to the students for a nickel for a 36 exposure roll. It was really out of date but it was good to learn with. That film was far superior to the Fomapan 400, which produces muddy prints and is nowhere near 400 ISO - maybe ISO 200 on a good day if everything, such as temperature, is perfect. As others have pointed out, the film scratches easily and of course is really noticeable on 35mm. I find the 4 X 5 Fomapan 200 to be much better. However, I also noticed the larger grain than Tri X. The film, like Fomapan 400, is only half of the rated ISO, that is 100 ISO. Using my Busch Pressman Model D 4 x 5, I have made some excellent still lifes and group shots. However, since the film is slower than rated, you are not going to get the depth of field in a group shot you would with a true 200 ISO film. With a 4 x 5 press camera, I am using a 135mm lens, which is actually a slightly wide angle for the format, so the depth of field is really shallow to begin with. Moreover, on slow shutter speeds, the reciprocity failure kicks in early at 1/2 second, which is a bit unusual from my experience. The film specs don't help much, so you are pretty much guessing on very slow shutter speeds like 10 seconds. Finally I have taken to developing the 4 x 5 film by inspection in trays. This helps insure a better negative. But don't try to put 2 let alone 4 negatives in a single tray. The negative may well turn out unusable because of scratches. All in all, Fomapan 200, in a larger negative it is worth using but be aware that there may be some frustrations along the way.

[@frequentlycynical642]

I've always liked to start with objective lab measurements by the manufacturer in matters of grain and sharpness. The former is a number called "RMS Granularity" and the latter in lines per mm. Ilford only supplies the latter, not grain numbers.; Tri-X granularity is 17, Foma 200 is 14, same as Eastman 5222 XX. . Rather interesting, to my geek mind, is that Foma 100 is rated 13.5. In practice, no difference. This might be due to the fact that Foma says 200 has some kind of tabular grain technology in it. For a point of comparison, the long departed Plus-X is 10! (RIP) Which is also the number for T-Max 100. As to sharpness, the ratings are Foma 200 110 lines/mm, TX is 100. I doubt is the difference would ever be noticeable outside the lab. Foma 100 is, 110, like the 200. More credence to some t-grains in there. By these metrics, Foma 100 makes no sense. (PX is 125! Considering that native ISO is 125, easily pushed to a real 200 with better starting points that anything on the comparable market. Sigh.) TMY is 200 lines/mm. And then there's the real world outside of the lab, as this video shows. Contradictory evidence? Or, the eye doesn't see grain the way an instrument does? Both? And then there's cost. For someone like me who has never had the luxury of a fat wallet, film costs can matter. Over at Freestyle (customer since 1965!) a roll of TX is $10, $9 at B&H. You can buy the Foma under the Arista name for $6. Quite a difference. It seems to me that the difference would make Foma/Arista 200 worth the time to fine tune in the darkroom for many (budget) users, making it a great candidate for a daily go-to street film. Now, where is PX, ha ha.....Of course, it would be relatively expensive like all Kodak products. Once I get into that pricing territory, I cringe and buy TMY in 100' rolls for its incredible, hands down, no question about it granularity and sharpness.

[@VariTimo]

There seem to be quite a few underdeveloped rolls.

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I used the manufacturer’s time for stock D-76. As I said in this particular video, I know what metric Kodak intends for their development time, a CI of 0.58. I have no idea what metric Foma or other brands intend for their films so it may be properly developed for their intent but it looks lower next to Tri-X, or maybe the times they provide simply aren’t correct. Who knows.

[@jonnoMoto]

@@iNerdier I struggled to get to grips with foma 200 with hc110. Then I tried xtol. It's all I use with it now. Also, Rodinal was not a good Dev for it.

[@MrPeetersmark]

Wasn’t expecting that grain. That’s a bit much if you ask me.

[@TrashTheLens]

You can calm it down to some extent with other, more softer-working developers. But yes, if you want the smoothest image possible, Foma isn't necessarily the way to go.

[@jonnoMoto]

Yeah, it's quite a bit for this speed film but I find xtol-r really tones it down.

[@MrPeetersmark]

@@jonnoMoto I should try that developer. Never used it before but seen a lot about it. I shop fomapan 100 quite a bit and I like it.

[@Nobody-Nowhere]

I dont think thats bad at all, there are no other iso200 b&w films to compare it to.. Trix is actually quite fine grained 400 iso film. All the other traditional 400 iso films have larger grain. So this is about what i would expect from it, larger grain than from iso 100 films.. but still smaller than from non kodak iso 400 film. Even delta 400 has larger grain than on trix. It has finer grain than delta 400, and thats quite good. Its only one stop difference in speed.

[@milodermick2981]

Delta 100 is really better, i just left fomapan 100 and 400 for ilford

[@neilpiper9889]

I just bought 25 sheets of 5x4 Fomapan 200 for £28 from Bristol Cameras here in the UK. Bargain.

[@lukemakayabu4369]

Hi Naked, yet another great video. I'm a grain whore - essentially you are saying with good dev times the results could be superior?