Fomapan and Arista.

[This child]

Just noticed these films in the B&H website.
Has anyone used them recently and how did they perform?

There is one thread that I noticed, dated during 2006 and
another dated 2009.

 

[IanG]

Iv'e used Foma films for over 15 tears, they are very good, I don't like the 400 but Fomapan 100 & 200 are excellent. You do need to tame their contrast, I shoot both the 100 & 200 at half their box speed, development also needs reducing by around 25% compared to other films.

Foma are probably the second largest manufacture of B&W film now, Ilford have dominated the market for decades, Kodak's share has shrunk

Ian

 

[zulu42]

I'm almost through 100' of Arista 200 b&w. The look of the film is okay to me but it is very fragile. The negatives scratch and break easily so I probably won't buy it again..

 

[limr]

I put a roll of Arista 200 through a Mamiya C330. Seemed to handle dynamic range pretty well:


rs Buddha head by limrodrigues, on Flickr

I have also shot Fomapan. It's been a while so I can't remember what its quirks were. (Yashica D)


rs Ballet by limrodrigues, on Flickr

 

[webestang64]

Fomapan, Arista and Kentmere are budget films aimed at the beginner/student. Of the three Fomapan has the better scans/prints I have seen that has come through the lab I work at.

For me personally nothing beats Ilford or Kodak, maybe Fuji Neopan.

 

[IanG]

I'm almost through 100' of Arista 200 b&w. The look of the film is okay to me but it is very fragile. The negatives scratch and break easily so I probably won't buy it again..

Fomapan, Arista and Kentmere are budget films aimed at the beginner/student. Of the three Fomapan has the better scans/prints I have seen that has come through the lab I work at.

For me personally nothing beats Ilford or Kodak, maybe Fuji Neopan.

Fomapan 100 & 200 are both excellent films and capable of equalling the qualities of Ilford and Kodak films, while cheaper than Ilford I wouldn't call it Budget film, As for Kodak I'll never buy another of their films they have priced themselves out of the market.

Yes Foma films aren't as well hardened as Ilford and Kodak's, Fuji Acros uses Whale gelatin and is softer. But in reality Foma films have far better hardening than older Kodak films in the 1960's, or Ilford FP3 and HP3 the films I cut my teeth on ex UK Military/Government surplus.

Ian

 

[webestang64]

I would have to agree with IanG, Foma is say Buick to Arista/Kentmere's Chevy. Ilford being the Caddy.....LOL

 

[This child]

Iv'e used Foma films for over 15 tears, they are very good, I don't like the 400 but Fomapan 100 & 200 are excellent. You do need to tame their contrast, I shoot both the 100 & 200 at half their box speed, development also needs reducing by around 25% compared to other films.

Foma are probably the second largest manufacture of B&W film now, Ilford have dominated the market for decades, Kodak's share has shrunk

Ian

Thanks. I send my film to The Darkroom