Rolf-Werner
Well, I never... I haven’t checked in here for a while. Weren’t there still AdOX films available last autumn? I ordered some Ultra400 back then, for example. The negatives are lying here... Now it seems they’re no longer part of the range. Anyway, medium format,
?
While I’m at it: how do the Foma 100 and 200 compare to the FP4+, and how does the Foma 400 compare to the HP 5? I’m not familiar with Foma films yet, but I know Ilford very well.
?
Thanks for your thoughts.
?
(I’m asking because I want to stock up for my summer holiday; it’s mainly landscapes and houses :) )
?
Rolf
Wolf_XL
...it’s quite simple – you get what you pay for... Well, with medium format it’s not quite as bad, but the Ilfords are in a league of their own...
Rolf-Werner
Hmm... so the Foma is 'worse' just because of a 1-euro difference in price? Or how am I supposed to interpret that? ;) I've read your post three times, but I still can't quite make head nor tail of it...
AntiLynd
Hmm... so the Foma is 'worse' just because of a 1-euro difference in price?
No, not *because of*. Correlation does not imply causation. What we meant, Wolf, is that in this case the price difference reflects the difference in quality quite well.
Olivinyl
Hi Rolf,
ADOX films are still available – the Silvermax and the CHS 100 II, at least in 35mm format.
I assume you’re looking for 120 film… unfortunately, the range at ADOX doesn’t look too great at the moment… but I’m sure it will improve…
In my opinion, the Foma films are a bit of a niche product. The 100 and 400 are classic films, whilst the 200 is something along the lines of Sigma/T-Grain.
In terms of emulsion, these films can be a bit fussy or temperamental. However, I haven’t had any problems with scratches or emulsion defects so far. The films tend to overdevelop very quickly from Zone 7 onwards if developed ‘uncontrollably’ according to the instructions. The films also do not achieve the stated speed.
I have tested the films with Rodinal, Xtol and D74 / RHS DC, measured them and tried to keep the curve straight.
I had the best results with D74. A49 seems to me to be ideal for these films, but I haven’t tested it.
The Foma Classic 100 comes in at just under 64 ASA for me, the Foma 200 Creative at a good 80–100 ASA and the Foma 400 Action at just under 250 ASA.
Once you’ve fine-tuned the development process for your favourite developer, you’ll find affordable films that work well but shouldn’t be directly compared with the competition. They’re just somehow different – but somehow lovely...
My favourite is the Foma Classic 100 in Rodinal 1+50. It’s not an AGFA APX 100, nor is it an ADOX CHS 100... it’s something in between, or something like that – but it’ll never be a Tmax, Acros or FP4+!
Best wishes, Oliver
Photux
What’s the story with this – ADOX: PAN 25 120 roll film, out of stock, expected to be available on 23 July 2014? It sounds a bit contradictory...
AchimBauer
Hi Photux,
It’s still the 22nd of July today, but I’ve just ordered a batch – they were in stock,
but I wonder if that’s any good??
I’m referring to Rolf-Werner, of course – why a size 25 when he’s looking for a size 400? But maybe it’ll be a new experience for him.
Regards, Achim
Rolf-Werner
Thank you very much for your varied responses.
€
How would you describe the FP4 to someone who isn’t familiar with it?
€
I had no idea that Ilford films were so special. For me, the FP4 comes across as a bit of a mixed bag: under overcast skies or in shaded areas, it tends to produce rather flat, dull images. In sunlight, the shadows tend to get washed out, though that might also be because I like to play around with filters that boost the contrast a bit. But in the shadows, this has no effect at all with the FP4; other films still show some reaction there. (The HP5, on the other hand, was generally flat for me even 30 years ago, whether with or without a filter.) To me, the FP4 has always seemed more like a guarantee of sharp contrasts, and my latest shots in the autumn confirmed that again.
€
I should clarify: I have lots of shots with strong highlights and weak shadows, so little gradation in the mid-tones. You’ve seen them; I’d scanned a few and asked about the prints (actually a different topic, but looking at them again now, it reacted exactly as it used to).
€
In my Sturm und Drang days :) I liked taking shots with strong contrasts; to me, that looked ‘fresher’ – so FP4 with a red filter and printed with a gradient of 4 or 5... Well, one gets older, and these days I usually prefer well-defined images with plenty of grey tones.
€
And if I go along with Oliver’s advice, the Foma probably can’t handle that, so I might have problems with the highlights, right?
€
I’m not really looking for a 400, but 25 would be too slow for me; I don’t always have a tripod with me. On the other hand, it’s an appealing option, especially when there’s both stillness and movement in the frame.
€
So, reading all this now, I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m on the safe side with the FP4 if I don’t want to worry too much about development and so on.
€
Have I interpreted that correctly? But I’d still be interested to hear your opinion on the film (as opposed to the others).
€
Rolf
CPD
Hello Rolf,
?
What speed do you use during exposure of FP4+?
?
So far, I’ve had the best results with Microdol-X (no longer available) or Perceptol at a dilution of 1+3. W. Moersch produces a Microdol replica.
?
But D-76/ID11 at ISO 64/19 also produces excellent results with FP4+.
?
The HP5 from 30 years ago doesn’t have much in common with today’s HP5+. However, in my opinion, it shows its best side with Microdol-X/Perceptol 1+3 at a naturally reduced speed. But the HP5+ is robust and can reach its rated sensitivity with D-76/ID11; with Microphen, you can even go beyond that. However, I prefer the Tri-X 400 to its Ilford counterpart.
ultra8
Hi Rolf,
?
What speed do you use for exposure when shooting FP4+?
?
In XTOL 1+1 and 1+2, I achieve 100 ISO with a fairly flat curve (10 minutes / 13 minutes). The grain is very fine and sharp. The more I perform dilution on the XTOL, the greater the level of sharpness in the result.
?
FP4 is a superb film which, when handled correctly, delivers full detail from the shadows right up to the highlights and is easy to enlarge. I still need to test the 1+3 dilution. With many films, this increases speed, enhances acutance and flattens the curve in the highlights. A Delta 100, for example, has a full 125 ASA in XTOL 1+3 (depending on interpretation, whether 0.1 or 0.12 over the fog, one can also assume 160 ASA). The highlights flatten out significantly from Zone VIII and I often forego an adjusted N-1 exposure/development because the negatives are simply easy to enlarge.
pittyman
@Rolf-Werner
I’ve been using Foma films (medium format) for years and am very happy with them. I particularly love the 400 (in Rodinal).
Wonderful grain structure – similar to Tri-X. Foma films are best exposed with one stop more light: the 100
as ISO 50, the 400 as ISO 200. The base is now colourless too, which wasn’t the case in the past. The Foma 100 has an
extreme black shield factor; at long exposures, the 400 is almost identical to Kodak’s Tri-X. I cannot confirm the often-held
view that Foma is a cheap product. The backing paper isn’t quite of the same quality as a Kodak
film, but the residue meets Western standards. I’ve also had
plenty of ‘defects’ with Ilford and Kodak films (from 35mm to sheet films). (Holes in the emulsion)?
Best regards
Dirk
Rolf-Werner
So, from your replies I gather the following assessment:
?
1. The FP4 is a film you can rely on 100% when it comes to grey tones and its response to developers. It’s also very linear, so easy to control.
?
2. The Foma isn’t quite as reliable; it tends to have a curve that rises at the top (highlights) and doesn’t react as predictably to different developers. So it’s more suited to those who like to experiment and people with a penchant for fatalism :)
?
Rolf
Rolf-Werner
@Dirk
?
You’ve really got me curious; I think I’ll order a few and see for myself... I just always like to have a rough idea beforehand of what to expect, and your tip about the f/1 stop is a good one – I’ll give it a go.
?
The only problem is that when you’re on holiday, you can never predict exactly when you’ll come across a scene where it’s important that everything is just right. That’s why, in an ‘emergency’, you have to make do with the film you’ve got in the camera at the time. If I’ve got a few basic pointers in mind, I can react better than if I have to do a bracketed exposure for every shot just to make sure there’s at least one usable negative in the end...
?
Rolf
Rolf-Werner
And another question for anyone here who’s had experience with this: what sort of results would you get if you had exposure according to the package instructions and used standard development (8 minutes in D76 or something similar)?
€
If the Foma films are about one stop underexposed, the highlights should still come out correctly and the shadows should be well-defined. My observation with the FP4+ was that it sits right in the middle, so it’s a bit flat or too mid-toned when there aren’t any strong contrasts in the subject, and tends to be a bit harsh when you use filters to boost strong contrasts.
€
Is that about right?
TR
Hello,
€
What would the result be if you performed exposure according to the instructions on the packet
€
How do you achieve exposure for your film? Do you meter a grey card, take a light reading using a dome in the shade, or do you simply use spot metering with the camera’s built-in light meter? The meter readings will usually
differ.
I suspect many people have poor exposure when photographing their film, without even realising it. The images then often look a bit
heavy, as there is too little shadow detail and the mid-tones are
gloomy.
€
€
and use standard development (8 minutes in D76 or something similar)?
€
Then you would have developed for a specific contrast. Whether this contrast is suitable for
your personal positive process is something you’ll have to find out for yourself. I myself mostly work with ‘split-grade’ in the darkroom, and I prefer hard negatives for this. But if you’re just going to be scanning, you’ll get more enjoyment out of softer negatives.
Rolf-Werner
Hi Thomas,
?
When I use the Rolleiflex, I usually rely on the built-in light meter, at least when I need to work quickly.
?
Otherwise, I also have a handheld light meter – though not a spot meter – which works well too. I use that with the Zeiss Ikon as well, because its built-in light meter is stuck.
?
So – to be honest: I don’t pay attention to a stop or two either way when I’m in a hurry, because you can sort the rest out during development. Unless I’ve got a bit of time to play around with the subject. Then I take the handheld light meter and give some thought to the zones and the approximate effect I want the image to convey. But if necessary, you can also do this roughly with the built-in light meter for exposure; you just have to combine the different values into an overall picture. You then need a baseline value—the film’s speed—to work with, and you need to have some idea of how the film generally reacts.
?
Back when I was still out and about a lot with the Double-8 Bolex, I’d also take a short test film and try out different exposure times and apertures to see how the film reacted. I never managed more than 7 zones; anything below or above that was usually a no-go. You just need to know exactly WHERE. That’s why I asked about the Foma films. So now I know that I need to be careful above Zone 7 (roughly) if that’s important to me. It just depends on the subject... Such blown-out highlights can also look ‘fresh’ if it suits the subject. I’d love to experiment with the Foma films, but I wanted to know roughly what to look out for first.
?
For example, I used the Adox Ultra 400 I mentioned with the manual light meter in the Zeiss Ikon and – because that was the advice here on the forum – set it to 250 ISO. The negatives are considerably more dense than those from the other films (I’ve tried various types, but exposed them all according to the instructions on the packet). But they develop well, the shadows are well defined too, which confirms what you said. Unfortunately, the weather had just changed that day; clouds rolled in and there were no more hard shadows. The light became hazy and flat, and although I used an orange filter to help, the images are generally more emphasised in the mid-tones. You could also say: a bit flat.
?
One more question: what is ‘split grade’? And: yes, I need the negatives for printing, not for scanning. And I prefer harder negatives :)
?
Rolf
AntiLynd
I suspect that many people expose their film too much without even realising it.
For the sake of completeness: many people expose their films sparingly and know exactly what they’re doing — which is why they adjust the development process accordingly. “Expose sparingly, develop generously,” as the old Beutler used to say.
Tandemfahren
To present a statement like that as universally true is rather reckless.
"Know your material and adjust the exposure and development so that it achieves the intended effect" may not sound particularly catchy, but it’s certainly not wrong.
€
Of course you can do that, but you’re then locked into a specific look with flat shadows and, depending on the subject’s contrast, material and development, possibly blown-out highlights.
AntiLynd
You were the one who mentioned ‘universally applicable’ just now. My aim was simply to offer a different perspective on what I consider to be the far too sweeping mantra that ‘anyone who performs exposure for the nominal sensitivity is underexposing by a significant margin’. The approach quoted above is *one* of many possible approaches (and, like any approach, it doesn’t make sense in all circumstances).
Tandemfahren
Well then, we’re on the same page. I just wanted to make that clear, because the way it’s written could be misinterpreted.
And because it seems that a lot of people are underexposing and overdeveloping their shots, simply because that’s what it says on the box, and I’ve got my times from Diddschiddltruh, so that must be right, doesn’t it? That’s why it’s called Truh, isn’t it?
€
Best regards from Frankfurt
