What I learned shooting #11 - FOMAPAN 200 (35mm/120)

Pentax 6x7 -Takumar SMC 105mm f/2.4, Xtol 1:1 at 200.

I think I’ve chickenshitted around this review for three years now - if you’re coming here from instagram, and you’re a long term follower or person I talk to, drop a comment on how long I’ve talked about writing up a general overview of Foma 200.

Fomapan 200 is made by Foma Bohemia - I think that’s apparent from the name. It’s not an expensive film - in fact probably one of the cheapest films on the market. That being said I’d argue none of the Foma films are truly “budget films” - like, they’re not as sharp as newer tech films like modern Tri-X, HP5, or Fuji’s Acros - but they have nice grain (like the quality of grain is nice) and tonality overall - I have heard reports of Foma or the house rebrand - Arista EDU - having some quality control issues - but I’ve actually never run afoul of them, personally. I tend to think of Foma, and Fomapan as being “old tech” which accounts for its relative cheapness - where I tend to think of Kentmere and other Harman private label runs (Agfaphoto APX, Rollei RPX, and Adox CHS - Fotoimpex even outright acknowledges that Kentmere is the same film as those three lines) - as being markedly inferior versions of Ilford HP5+.

Foma 200 is a bit of an odd duck even amongst the normal Foma line - it’s a half delta/tabular grain film (Think Kodak T-MAX, Ilford Delta 100, Fuji ACROS), but with the traditional grain of the other Foma films - so it has that “old” look. Add to that that the film is nominally rated at 200 - though Foma’s Netherlands distributor Fotohuis - pops up on almost any forum that the film is mentioned on and quickly discounts that rating, giving a nominal *actual* speed of 100-160 depending on developer - anyone who shoots the other Foma films will know that’s pretty much par for the course and be more or less unsurprised by that.

I’ve used the emulsion on and off for a few years now - probably at least the three I’ve mentioned here before - maybe longer - so this is probably a broader or less specific “what’d you learn.”

Equipment Used:

(for those who aren’t familiar, or like me demand pretty much every possible vector for variation be revealed):

35mm: Minolta XD11 35mm Camera - MC-PG-x Rokkor 50mm f.1.4, and MD-W Rokkor 24mm f/2.8

Minolta CLE, with the CLE M-Rokkor 40mm f/2, as well as the CLE M-Rokkor 90mm f/4

120: Pentax 6x7 MLU, Takumar SMC 105mm f/2.4, Takumar SMC-II 55mm f/4 - final version, and the Takumar SMC 45mm f/4 - second version.

So, what did I learn shooting: Fomapan 200?

1. Rodinal isn’t an all purpose developer for 100ish iso films. Some of the Fomapan 200 is 35mm, some of this is 120. It should be clearly marked. I didn’t keep a good track of what I developed in (ie writing or noting everything on paper), but after deep frying (honestly, really just developing normally) some in Rodinal at one point - i’ll point it out, don’t worry - I found that Xtol was just a far far better developer for the film. Most of or all of the film was developed in Xtol 1:1, it’s a pretty broad testament to that developer - that being said, I think given the additional negative size of 120, the negatives from Rodinal would be less ugly in MF - though it seems to be the grain itself.

The key learning point here is that rodinal doesn’t work for everything - I mean, given it’s common knowledge that Rodinal is a rough choice for most films over 200, but on paper, one wouldn’t necessarily guess that a film with a rating of 200 box, and colloquially 125-160, or even 100 would look as rough or gross as it does in rodinal.

I’d chalk that up to being a tabular or hybrid tabular grain film, but across the board, I’ve found that against initial first thought, - ie rodinal is old and super low tech, tabular grain is new and shiny - that rodinal gets along well with Delta 100 and original Fujifilm Acros (miss me with that ACROS II shit) - I can’t really speak on T-Max.

Pentax 6x7 MLU - Xtol 1:1, shot at 200 pushed to 400/800

2. Sometimes the colloquial film speed ratings are actually right - or at least they usually are when speaking about the mainline Fomapan films (100,200,400). Most of the time I tend to balk at a lot of the conservative film-speed ratings for black and white emulsions given by the various codgers on the forums - they’re probably not wrong, but I value speed, and I don’t think there’s usually a big enough sharpness loss, to justify knocking at least half a stop if not more off my film’s default rating - typically because I like a ton of contrast, or nice dark black, I tend to overcrank (that’s what I’m calling it now - sorry Johnny Patience) my film where I’ll shoot it at 400 and develop way over to 1600, or 800 to 1600 or 3200, or even just go way out at 1600 or 3200, as the base speed. At any rate given my usual choice of developer (xtol, rodinal) film speed is usually more or less box, or me cranking the shit out of it for fun and profit.

However, in this case, as I noted before Fotohuis is actually correct - Fomapan 200 should probably be shot at 125 or 160, maybe 100, unless you’re doing it for effect. The dark, dark shots here are shot at 200, pushed to 400, or possibly even 800 - I don’t mind the push or the contrast, but like, some of it is a bit too rough for even me.

3. Medium Format (120 film) is better than 35mm. Controversial opinion to most of the other younger folks here, but to any of the adults, you know exactly what I mean. Don’t get me wrong, I have a deep, deep love for 35mm - I think in terms of practicality and daily use, especially for street photography, or projects where resolution doesn’t matter so much as being out and capturing critical moments is the key goal, it’s a much better system. That being said, negative for negative, once you get used to shooting and composing for medium format - because there is a learning curve, perhaps a longer one than one might initially expect - the images from, and negatives that one gets from medium format, just have a certain shine or sharpness, that can’t really be replicated by 35mm images - maybe some zeiss or leica lenses can render as sharp on 35mm as say a 6x45 camera -but I have a really hard time believing they can make the jump to 6x6 or bigger (prove me wrong).

Pentax 6x7 MLU - Takumar 55mm/4 SMC-II - Shot at 160, developed to 200

4. Rangefinders need calibration regularly, and so do their lenses. So, on a bunch of these (the Minolta CLE images), I got lucky because I stopped way down to 8 or further, which let me cheat the focus, however there’s sort of weird focus issues all over the place with a bunch of the images which leads me to believe, rangefinders can go out of calibration after a year, and even the lenses do as well. It gives kind of a neat infrared look - or there’s something else wrong here. I don’t think it entirely negates the examples here though.

5. Commitment to a system does pay benefits - I really like that all my photos look the same with the same system. It gives a better overall feel. I’m sure I’ve groused about this at length back on the Orwo N74+ “What I learned.” Luckily from years of shooting Fomapan 200, and in two formats rather than one,

6. Original Acros has no replacement - I had some film community/camera selling bigshot joke that nobody shot Acros, and that Foma 200 was a fine replacement from Acros three or four odd years back. I think I groused about it on my travelogue about Huntington Beach. I might delete that travelogue, but it’s linked here anyway. He was (is) wrong. He also looked like Varg Vikernes wearing a hawaiian shirt. Take that how you will.

Minolta CLE + Rokkor-M 90mm F/4 , Shot at 160, developed to 200+30%

7. I don’t know why I don’t just shoot HP5+ all the time. Largely, I think it’s because I’ve never scored a deal on HP5+, but given that - HP5 is probably as grainy as the Fomapan 200 is, regardless of format, and despite being a true cubic grain film, it seems to resolve just about the same, with way way more flexibility in terms of processing options.

Going back to systems, it might take some more time to get a really finely dialed in HP5+ system, but it seems like the payout is probably more worth it, - especially given you’re essentially adding two stops on with little to no downside - assuming box speed for hp5 rather than the practical speed of 100ish for Fomapan 200.

8. You can push a 100 iso film to 400. I don’t *love* shooting-to- push 100 ISO film, but it can be done. All the Fairground stuff is shot that way - and it turned out alright. It definitely could’ve used more exposure in some places, but it’s not completely unacceptable. I mean, I guess I technically push Acros (Original) - but at the same time my process is a weird semi-stand thing, so it doesn’t *feel* like pushing.

9. I don’t write these reviews for any kind of deep fulfilment, or because I’m actually trying to be useful to anyone other than myself, it’s mostly to force myself to review my process and photos at length - ie “am I making photos that I want to make,” “are these photos showing enough progress?” “Did this piece of equipment work well for me? Also to boost my SEO presence. Sorry. If you’re reading this, there’s about a 50/50 chance you’ve become accustomed to that.

10. I don’t know why I don’t just commit to shooting HP5+ for all my black and white stuff. I don’t really give a shit one way or another about grain, I want my contrast to be dialable rather than bricked all the time, and more often than not I end up needing the two extra stops, minimum.

Minolta CLE + Rokkor-M 40mm CLE - Shot @ 100, developed to 200+30%

Slipping into actual review territory for a half second:

-- The film is fine, like, I’d probably rather shoot it than t-max, maybe Delta 100. I think it’s a bit neutral toned for me, though the new auto algorithm for Epson Scan 2 is a ton contrastier. That being said - I don’t think Foma 200 is totally right for me - it’s not a bad film overall though, like if you like what you see, and you like the price point, it’s honestly, a solid choice.

If it makes it sound like this film is bad - it really isn’t - both of my actual dedicated travelogue zines were shot on it (in 120 format) - and while I think I’ve improved as a photographer and scan technician since I shot, developed, and scanned the film - I think the film performed perfectly adequate - and I’d probably pick it out over any other 100 iso film currently on the market.

Anyway. Buy a Zine in the Shop. Both Antelope Valley Poppy Reserve and Fairground were shot on Fomapan 200 in 120. I need to pay my bills for the website somehow.

What I learned Shooting #010: Neopan Professional 400 and/or Minolta MD-W Rokkor X 35mm 1.8

I managed to nab a few of bricks of Neopan at my favorite camera store/hoard house in Maine -- I sold a few to an acquaintance (hopefully I can get him to contribute a review/or some input down the line about the Neopan), but kept about twenty five rolls for myself -- accidentally destroyed one roll, and gave one away -- which is a bit on the short end for what I usually test, or at least test and then give a writeup to. On that same trip/visit, I was also offered a Minolta MD-W Rokkor X 35mm 1.8 at a price I couldn’t refuse.

The background: Neopan Professional 400 is (was) a black and white 400 speed film made by Fujifilm. Neopan Professional 400 (or Presto in Japan) was Fuji’s answer to Ilford HP5+ or Kodak Tri-x 400. It’s a fairly neutral, balanced tonal scale balanced film with tons of flex-room. It’s got nice sharp grain, and it’s tonality is a little more on the contrasty side, closer to Tri-X than HP5+ at box speed. I’ve tried scouring the net for data on the film, but there’s not much to be found, if any. There’s a few forum threads, but mostly, it’s as if the film never existed, which is a bit of a shock, as I think it was only discontinued 3-4 years ago. Owing to the fact that photomarket is basically a hoard-house I’m about 90% sure that this batch of film is the same one that I was shooting in high-school, with an expry of 2011 — though I find that black and white film doesn’t really go bad at the same speed as color film does, nor does it go off in nearly as grotesque or terrible ways.

The Rokkor 35mm 1.8 was from the second gen of MD lenses from Minolta specifically designed for the XD series (which you can read more about here) so pretty much perfect for me, because that’s basically the only 35mm camera I shoot. I’ve actually never really shot a 35mm before, or at least not extensively so it was a learning experience.

So what did I learn about Neopan 400 and the Rokkor-W MD-X 35mm 1.8:

Neopan 400 is or was an undeniably great film. It may actually be my favorite 400 speed film that I’ve ever shot, I know I’ve slowly been doing the rounds of extensively testing 400 iso emulsions to work with for my BnW work. This detour might’ve been ultimately the biggest disappointment to date, not because the look is disappointing, but the odds of finding the film again, in a large enough capacity are slim, and I can’t shoot it. It’s a super flexible film, and can actually, truly be shot and developed from 200-3200, at least in Kodak XTOL 1:1. The johnny patience method does work for it, but it doesn’t seem to really need a whole lot of overcompensating to get a decently contrasty performance, at box speed. I’ve broken down a gallery below of the film in Xtol with different iso ratings (all shot on the Minolta XD-11, with the MD-x Rokkor-W 35mm 1.8). I really like the film at base, and at 1600/3200. 800 seems like a bit of an odd trade off, and you might as well reach for 1600 for the extra contrast and grit at that point. Also of note is that the Minolta XD-11 kind of craps out in terms of metering ability right around 3200 at night — and while I’m sure anyone would recommend a handheld meter, if you’re only using a it as a rough guide, you might be better off just shooting at 1600 with it then overdeveloping extra or just knowing if you go one stop under whatever the thing reads

Fuji Neopan 400 Professional shot at box in Xtol 1:1, developed to 20% over the listed development time for 400.

Fuji Neopan 400 Professional shot at 400 and/or 800 in Xtol 1:1, developed to 20% over the listed development time for 800.

Fuji Neopan 400 Professional shot at 1600 in Xtol 1:1, developed to 20% over the listed development time for 1600.

Neopan 400 shot at 1600/3200 and developed to 3200 plus 20% for safety.

The next major finding I had was unrelated to the film -- it was about Xtol. Xtol, despite being the newest commercially available developer from Kodak, still has a fairly old/outdated data sheet - despite it being “updated” in 2018. Most film manufacturers don’t recommend that you develop anything in temperatures over 75ºF or 24º C, but anyway, the Kodak module for Xtol (available from Kodak here) gives development times with temperatures going up to 80ºF. The module also has times for now extinct films like Neopan 400, and Plus-X Pan. I do a lot of push processing, exclusively in Xtol, so knowing that I can use it up while warm, up to at least 80º is a pretty big win, because it helps cut down some pretty steep developing times with HP5+ and Bergger Pancro (rated at 1600-3200) hitting between 30 minutes to an hour in Xtol 1:1, even up at 75º.

Please find below a set of photos shot at 1600ish, and then pushed to 3200 in Xtol @ 80º -- I did shoot these on the Minoltina AL-s -- which doesn’t have a working meter. This is also a loose representation of how flexible Neopan 400 is, and how much you can over/underexpose it. The grain is pretty big/chunky here, but all in, it’s still okay in my book.

Neopan 400 shot at 1600ish developed to 1600ish, In Xtol 1:1 at 80º F for 11 minutes

Likewise my next finding is common knowledge to basically anyone who does a lot of development, but it bears repeating here: Rodinal is just god awful on everything 400 speed and above. I know Bergger Pancro 400 looks good in rodinal but that’s an extreme rarity. It’s particularly awful for Neopan Professional 400. Normally I’m not the guy who notices or particularly cares about grain, but like, shit’s rough and kinda gross. Almost as bad as Kentmere/Harman AGFA APX 400 in Xtol. I know rodinal is pretty finicky, and gets worse at higher temperatures, and with more agitation, but I actually went out of my way to use 68º water, and give the film maybe one or two turns at most every minute, along with only agitating the film for a 30 second period for the first minute, rather than the standard full minute you need with Xtol, or any mainstream developer (I know or have read on unblinking eye that Pyrocat and variants are a lot touchier than Rodinal). The tones are really good, but once you get bigger than say a standard social media post/sized print it’s a little rough on grain.

Fuji Neopan 400 in Rodinal 1:50

Also of note, This was my first extended period shooting a 35mm focal length. I’ve shot some 40mm on the minoltina AL-s but not enough to really dig into it as a daily shooter. Its a good little camera, but it’s not nearly as sturdy or stable as the XD-11. At any rate, 35mm is something I’ve largely avoided, it never seemed like a good fit for me, and I’d gotten really comfortable shooting and composing for a 50mm or a normal -- and on paper a 35mm lens never really seemed “right” or like it would be a good fit for me. That said, when I was able to buy a really nice 35mm (the minolta rokkor -- Minolta MD-W Rokkor X 35mm 1.8 -- at the right price -- about ⅓ the standard market value) I jumped at it, and thought if it didn’t work out I could easily flip the lens for a profit, and it’d be a no harm no foul transaction.

Compared to the 50mm, a 35mm feels a bit like drunk driving -- It’s got buffer everywhere and it just feels out of control, or like I’m spinning out everywhere. After a while, resetting my eyes, it began to feel more natural, and in a lot of cases a really great fit for shooting in an urban environment -- i’ve come to prefer it to shooting a 50mm for a lot of uses -- it’s expansive enough that I don’t have to doublethink or think too much about framing, or moving myself to get the shot I want. That said, I’d still trade some headroom for a little more compression, and like the look of a 40mm a bit more than 35mm, but it’s a minor nitpick. Theoretically 35mm is a wide lens, but in most cases after getting used to it it just feels like a normal with reach — though sometimes the distortion does creep in or get to you. That said, if you like wides, and you like Minolta lenses, especially Minolta Wide Lenses — I’m sure it’d be a great every day shooter for you too.

My only real complaint about the Minolta MD-W Rokkor X 35mm 1.8 is that, as much as you’d think 1.4 wouldn’t be that much different or, like It wouldn’t play out super differently, but starting at 1.8 and then having to jump to 2.8 is not my favorite. I like that on the MC PG-x Rokkor 50mm 1.4 it’s 1.4 then 2, and 2 has a significant jump in depth of field/sharpness. The gripe is fairly small once you factor in the increased DOF by being a wider lens, and the fact that at least the MD-W 35mm is actually really sharp even at 1.8, as you can see in the lowlight/push tests, but still it bugs me a little.

In other weird sidenotes, because this is more a blog than a formal test -- because let’s be honest formal tests are boring, and if you really needed dry facts you’d probably head to APUG or one of the other cranky old man forums to read over data fast, I’ve actually never bothered to use Kodak HC-110. A lot of the reason is that I’ve basically found that Xtol and Rodinal work for me, and do the jobs I need them to do well -- Pushing and clean medium speed film for Xtol and Contrasty, sharp grain development. Everything I’ve ever heard and seen from HC-110 is that it’s good for pushing and it typically makes nice but chunky grain -- but hey, I was clearly wrong about what I’d think about 35mm, so I might be wrong about HC-110. It might actually be up my alley.

The only other musing worth sharing that I can think of is that, after testing it the illford wash process actually works pretty well. A couple of my rolls had really dark bases, and I quickly realized that I wasn’t adequately washing the film by letting a slow stream of water run through the tank. However the ilford wash, 5 inversions of clean water, dump, then 10 with a new set of water, then 20 with another fill, actually did the trick fairly well. Also, my fixer went bad faster than I’m used to -- or I ran more film through it than I typically do, Either way, I’ll probably keep better track next year.

As of right now I have half a roll of Neopan 400 professional left in my camera. It’ll be a disappointment when I can’t shoot it anymore.

Anyway, thanks for reading! If you’ve read any article on here this year, mine or otherwise, I really do appreciate your continued readership and support.

What I learned shooting #11: FOMAPAN 200 (35mm/120)