Fomapan200 is gorgeously the worst film ever…let me explain.

I’ve been using film for the last two decades and I’ve developed thousands of rolls, mixed the classic developers, experimented, used all the gorgeous medium format cameras that you can dream of, so I think I might be somehow relevant in what I am about to say. Fomapan 200 is one of the most beautiful stock option yet I will never use it again in my life until its serious quality issues are fixed for good.

Why I fell in love in the first place

Let me first start by saying what is good about it: as all the products from Foma, it has a quite nostalgic and old style look that bring an interesting punch on the negatives. These are probably not the easiest to print (contrast is usually quite high), they require condenser enlargers to add the crispness you may lack from the lower resolving power (it is said Foma200 used both traditional and tabular grain but the Tmax, Delta or Acros are on another league), the real speed is usually far from the one announced on the box, and are the curliest ones when dried up. But when you consider how cheap they are, you easily forgive and want to use them.

Below are three examples of how the film can shine when all the planets are aligned. It cannot out-resolve the spectacular performances of the Zeiss Planar 80mm on the Hasselblad shot or the SMC 105mm 2.4 on the Pentax67 portrait, nonetheless you can easily think these are taken with a TriX or HP5. (the first is developed in Rodinal 1+100, the other two in XTOL 1+1).

And now, the bad news

I tried hard…I gave it another chance multiple times, but I have to face it: the quality control of the production chain of Foma film is really bad (not to say it’s completely s…it). 120 format seems the worst of it all, with scratches and emulsion inconsistencies in many cases. Large format and 135 are usually a safer bet, although tiny issues may be found from time to time.

While I think Fomapan400 and Fomapan100 are still acceptable (given the price tag), where things get nasty is with the 200 and images are simply not usable.

Full disclosure: I keep my film in the fridge as I’ve always done with other brands, and whenever I need to use it I take it out hours before loading the camera. I also tried to store it at normal temperature in a dry place, but the results were the same. I’ve used different Hasselblad backs, I loaded a Mamiya RZ67, a Pentax67 and a Pentacon Six…nothing seem to change the outcome that you will see down below. I souped my films in XTOL, D76, Rodinal in the hope of better luck. Useless to say that on all the shootings I did I also used other films, and the same chemicals, and I never had a problem whatsoever. That is why I decided to stop wasting my money.

I contacted Foma last year and they referred to a quite curious paragraph in their datasheet, namely the fact that some medium format cameras may introduce the issues due their mechanics:

FOMAPAN 200 Creative emulsion contains T-crystals providing high resolution and very low granularity of the film. Relating to this it may emerge its higher sensitivity to mechanical strain mainly during movement of the rollfilm throughout some middle-format cameras. That may result in occurrence of desensitization records on developed negative. Within first usage of FOMAPAN 200 Creative type 120 it is recommended to test its compatibility with the particular camera.

Quite honestly, I am extremely doubtful that it might be the cause, and in that case I wonder which cameras should be used as I think I am quite lucky when it comes to choosing a tool to take pictures.

---

Exhibit 1

Vertical line in random positions of the frame (Pentax 67, XTOL 1+1)

Exhibit 2

Same roll as previous, vertical lines (Pentax 67, XTOL 1+1)

Exhibit 3

Same roll as previous, many straight and curved lines (Pentax 67, XTOL 1+1)

Exhibit 4

Individual lines, packed lines and rain-like marks (Hasselblad 501CM, D76 1+1)

Exhibit 5

Horizontal packed lines on the edge of the frame (Hasselblad 501CM, D76 1+1)

Exhibit 6

Same as previous (Hasselblad 501CM, D76 1+1)

Exhibit 7

Multiple rain-like marks across the frame (Pentax 67, XTOL 1+1)

Exhibit 8

Multiple rain-like marks across the frame (Pentacon Six, D76 1+1)

Exhibit 9

Multiple rain-like marks across the frame and vertical lines (Pentax 67, D76 1+1)

Exhibit 11

Heavily backlit photo showing multiple rain-like marks across the frame and vertical lines (Pentax 67, D76 1+1)

Exhibit 12

Multiple rain-like marks across the frame and vertical lines (Hasselblad 501CM, Rodinal 1+50)

Exhibit 13

Multiple rain-like marks across the frame and vertical lines (Hasselblad 501CM, Rodinal 1+50)

A thousand rolls after…

The title is a bit exaggerated as I did not reach one thousand rolls developed by me (still a couple of dozens) yet I felt it was time to take some numbers and do some analysis (all in all that is what I do for a living). Even though I’ve been playing with film photography since 2007-2008 (not to mention the fact that I’ve used film cameras as a teenager), it was only around 2013 that I stopped sending my film to a lab and decided to play with chemicals.

This post (which is boring in many ways) is just a recap of what I’ve been doing and what I’ve been drawn to…most of the times based on my artistic preferences, sometimes given the crazy price that some brands are asking these days (Kodak, Fuji…I’m talking to you!).

First things first…what do I usually shoot?

It should not be a surprise that Ilford takes the lead. There are many reasons for that: this company has a true longlasting love for the film community and has managed to keep its offering quite consistent and with a reasinable price given the high standards. At the very beginning I used to pick HP5+ as a cheap option to its main alternative TriX but with time I came to realise how perfect this film is in many ways. Very versatile, you can pull it at 200 or push it at 3200 iso, develop it in XTOL or Rodinal…the results are always fantastic. It is true that it might not have the most beautiful look but there is a reason why when I have to choose, one time out of three I pick it up.

The second most used option is another Ilford film, Delta 400. Technically speaking it is far superior to the Plus series (Tabular grain vs Cubic grain) and in some cases it really shines. The look is not too cynical (as you might get with Tmax400) and the contrast is fantastic when pushed at 800 iso.

When you don’t see in the graph is why I did not shoot more of some other options…I would love to go back and use TriX (there is indeed something magic) as well as Fuji Acros 100 (in terms of beauty of tones and grain I believe the best of them all), but I can’t justify paying 2x or 3x the price of other brands. You might be fooled by the numbers of Tmax400…most of those rolls are in 35mm where I simply believe there is nothing as good as that film.

The moment all techies have been waiting for: the cameras

It is true that the photo is made by the photographer…and the look is made by the film…yet I believe the tool used is important as well. Not necessarily on the final quality, as even though there are differences between the glass of a Zeiss glass for 6×6 and a Nikkor for 35mm, this is less important than you might think. On the other hand I realise that I take different pictures with different cameras, hence the choice is not completely useless.

Again no surprise here, Hasselblad V-series cameras are the ones I would choose should I have to go to a desert island. I started with the 500CM and eventually moved to a 501CM to leverage the Acute Matte screen and better focus (I’m indeed getting older). The sound of a rewind crank is one of the sexiest sound you can hear and composing on the ground glass is pure joy (although there are better options like the screen of a Mamiya RZ67).

Recently I’ve been enjoying also the 6×7 format, especially for portrait and with vertical orientation. The Pentax 67 is not a fantastic camera but its 105mm f2.4 is probably the best lens out there. Too bad it is quite complicated to focus perfectly (that’s why the Mamiya RZ67 is reducing the gap quite quickly), I still love the combo.

In 35mm the FM2n is a pure joy to use, and while the results are often not as good as I expect (I know, being used to medium format my standards are quite high) I tend to use it quite frequently especially when traveling.

How to cook all these?

I admit I did not experiment that much when it comes to developers choice. I started with Ilford DD-X but while it was really great, I quickly abandoned it given the high price per roll. I tend to use XTOL (roughly 50% of the time) and D76 (roughly 25% of the time) almost exclusively: the first is without any doubt the best overall developer as it is cheap, extremely easy to mix, quite environment-friendly and gives excellent results with all films (expect Bergger Pancro 400 where don’t know why but D76 is way better). When I’m in the mood, I also enjoy Rodinal, especially in stand development.

Final thoughts

Well…not sure what to take from all of this? Developing film is tedious, slow, un-efficient…yet I kind of like the wait and the mechanical process…and that’s why I think I’ll keep doing it for a long time.

David and Goliath

Comparing brands is probably one of the worst way to excel in a given craft and most of the time it is just a tedious exercise. Debating whether a Rolex is better than a IWC, or if a Lamborghini over-performs compared to a Ferrari usually leaves the reviewer with a totally subjective conclusion; yet I must admit that the exercise is sometimes quite funny. It was quite clear in my mind that, immediately after being offered the possibility to use a Leica camera for some days during the summer, my idea was to test it against what has become my go-to camera for street candid photography.

The web is full of comparisons between the red dot rangefinder luxury brand and its Japanese robust counterpart, and most of the times it is a M6 vs FM2 battle which is exactly what we are going to explore here (you guessed it, David is the FM2 and Goliath is the M6…and if you know the history you already realised where my preference goes).

Photographers – idiots, of which there are so many – say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great photographs.”
That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest.

Andreas Feininger

Without further ado, let’s go to the actual outcome of my personal comparison: I will list here the aspects I’ve found worth mentioning and should be taken into account when pondering the purchase of one or the other. Practically speaking I shot two rolls of film with the Leica M6 (1 roll of Ilford Delta 100 in D76 1+1 and 1 roll of Kodak Tmax400 in XTOL 1+1) in Capo d’Orlando, Sicily (a place I know very well) and two rolls of the same type in Palermo (my birthplace). I didn’t want to shoot the same picture twice as it would have been such a boring exercise and pixel peeping is not really my thing. Regarding the two cameras, the Nikon is a FM2n (the latest model) which I almost exclusively paired with a Carl Zeiss ZF.2 35mm f2 Distagon; the Leica was a M6 TTL version (0,72x viewfinder) coupled with a Summicron-C 40mm f2 and a Voigtländer 35mm f2.5 Color Skopar.

The things I dislike on the Leica

• What am I shooting?
  There is no way to know what film is loaded as there is no way to keep a tag of the film (like pretty much all film cameras) or to see through a small window like in recent models from many brands
• Avoid wasting frames
  No lock mechanism means you can store your camera in the bag and (quite easily) click the shutter to take blank images without realising it.
• Save battery life
  You must put the lens on B mode (or avoid loading the shutter) in order to prevent the meter to work.
• 1/1000 max speed? Seriously?
  I was extremely surprised to realise the max shutter speed was 1/1000th of a second. That means is is impossible to shoot on a sunny day with fast lenses at wide aperture and with fast (or pushed) film stocks. I don’t pretend to go as high as 1/4000th as the FM2n…but 1/1000th is the same speed of my Pentax67…I don’t get it.
• What are my setting?
  There is no indication of the current aperture and shutter speed on the viewfinder.
• Should I sell my liver?
  The price is ridiculous. Nothing more to say. For a fraction of the price you can get a Voigtländer Bessa (better framelines options), or a Contax G1/G2 (with autofocus, parallax correction and incredible lenses).

The things I missed on the Leica and that I have on the Nikon

• Where is the double exposure feature?
  I used only a couple of times on the Nikon…but it is nice to know you can use it
• Long exposure?
  Unless I plug a long cable release, there is no way to avoid vibrations as a self timer is missing.

The things you must consider before buying a Leica

• Think twice before choosing a model
  Depending on your focal lengths preference (wide, normal or long lenses) you might need to choose a specific viewfinder magnification (0.58 vs 0.72 vs 0.85). But what if you like to shoot 35mm for street and do some tight portrait with a 85mm? The Leica solution is: buy two bodies!!!
• Compose with some approximation
  While rangefinder people tend to say that composition is improved, I must disagree here. It is true that you can see what is coming into the frame but the frame-lines are just an approximation of what will be in the final image (to be fair, most SLR have a 90% coverage as well but at least they don’t have any parallax error)

Where Leica shines

• Pure photography
  Shooting a Leica will put you in a hunting mode even more than a film SLR. You set your settings and start looking for patterns and framing options more than with other systems. I can see why it is so highly appreciated by street photographers
• Build quality
  Yes, the quality if fantastic. A Nikon is probably 90% as good as a Leica from this standpoint, but Leica has an edge.
• Glass quality
  I haven’t seen the mystical Leica look (but being used to Carl Zeiss glass I am probably a bit more demanding), so I simply trust the judgement of those who say that these are the best 35mm lenses money can buy (let’s put aside the 45mm f2 for the Contax G system which seems even better)

---

In conclusion, I don’t think I will buy a Leica system (at least not at this price tag). The overall experience has been interesting and refreshing in its simplicity, but being used to complex DSLR well before upgrading to film, I don’t find myself lost in the settings of the FM2.

The rangefinder system is interesting for its size, but I would consider a Contax G1/G2 or a Bessa camera first as these are clearly superior bodies (and the latter can mount Leica lenses as well).

• 

• 

---

Some images taken this summer will speak probably more than many words to show what the two cameras are capable of (at least when used by me).

Stuck for two hours under the worst thunderstorm I’ve ever experienced in Palermo, I managed to shoot this as I was having my 85mm with me (I usually mount only the 35mm or the 28mm). This would not have been possible with a Leica as critical focusing with a 0.72 magnification viewfinder and low available light would have make it really hard

• 

• 

• 

You can be stealthy even with a Nikon and a quite big glass like the Distagon 35mm f2…people don’t necessarily notice you

Pure sharpness from edge to edge, fantastic contrast…again with a Nikon camera

You can surely be stealthy with a Nikon….but with a Leica things are even better. I think I was 30 or 40cm away from the guy and I managed to check the focus with no problems without being noticed.

Another example of how easy it is to come closer. This time I also managed to find the right framing.

When you nail the focus at close distance, the bokeh you can get from those little lenses is quite nice (here the Summicron-C, the cheapest Leica lens you can buy)