Sometimes it can seem that by law, photographers in southeast England, with a few days holiday, have to make a pilgrimage to Dungeness. You’re so likely to bump into another photographer it’s very difficult to make images that feel original and I didn’t achieve that here. However, it’s always worth trying, which is how I found myself in, probably, the most COVID-safe environment in this crowded corner of the country on one of the windiest days in early May. Nevertheless, it was refreshing to have a change of scene.
It also gave me an excellent opportunity to test a new-to-me, black and white film, Fomapan 400. I’ve been shooting film on and off for over 40 years (I started young, honestly), but for the image rather than experimentation, so I’ve been relatively unadventurous in what film stocks I’ve used. I tend to find a combination I like and stick to it.
At first, that was Ilford films combined with a Paterson developer, I think; I can’t remember how I settled on that combination; it was probably whatever was recommended in the local camera shop. Then there was my Neopan period, a film loved and one I’d still be shooting today if Fuji hadn’t discontinued it in 2013. I still have five rolls in my fridge I just can’t bring myself to use. Since then it’s been Kodak Tri-X or T-Max 400 developed in Kodak’s HC-110.
However, the price of Kodak stock seems to be increasing weekly. So I was interested to see how Fomapan, which is at less than half the cost of Tri-X, performed. I’d read that Fomapan 400 is thought more of a 200, or iso 320 film than 400, so I rated this at iso 200 which seemed to work well. The sky was fairly close to 18% grey most of the day, so there was little chance of blowing any highlights. I was using my Nikon F2 and the film was developed at home using HC-110 dilution B.
The Fomapan is certainly grainier than Tri-X but not excessively so and still sharp. I’ve seen it can exhibit a strange haloing effect on some highlights, although that was never going to be much of a concern on this particular day.
The landscape of Dungeness seems to suit that gritty-grainier look well; I like it more than I expected. Kodak prices, in particular, vary from one supplier to another, but as I write this Analogue Wonderland are selling Fomapan 400 for £4, Tri-X is £9.75 and T-Max 400 is £10.50. With that difference, it seems crazy not to give it a further test. I’ve ordered another five rolls and I’ll see how it fits with the other shots on an ongoing project.
I would be interested in hearing your recommendations on cheaper black & white stocks? Have you used Fomapan 400? Did you like it? Is there something else I should be considering?
As always, stay safe out there.
You can see more of my work on my website or Instagram.
Share this post:
Comments
Marius I. on 5 frames with Fomapan 400 in a Nikon F2 in Dungeness, Kent – By Nigel Rumsey
Comment posted: 23/06/2021
I see it as a gritty black and white film, more rough compared to the professional, clean, glossy magazine emulsions.
Comment posted: 23/06/2021
Juan on 5 frames with Fomapan 400 in a Nikon F2 in Dungeness, Kent – By Nigel Rumsey
Comment posted: 23/06/2021
Comment posted: 23/06/2021
Tobias Eriksson on 5 frames with Fomapan 400 in a Nikon F2 in Dungeness, Kent – By Nigel Rumsey
Comment posted: 23/06/2021
I have used Fomapan 400 for several years and have nothing but good to say. As you mention, it can take overexposure very well, as well as some stops under too. Also it is very accomodating when developed in caffenol - my preferred developer - which Kodak films are certainly not. Fomapan films do not curl particularly so are easy to mount to scan and handle. The negs are not as thin as the flimsy Ilford negs that I've come across.
Comment posted: 23/06/2021
andy on 5 frames with Fomapan 400 in a Nikon F2 in Dungeness, Kent – By Nigel Rumsey
Comment posted: 23/06/2021
I use Fomapan Films since I startet analog photography again in 2018; I use 60% Foma 100, 10% Foma 400 and 20% Foma 200-120.
I didn't know the manufacturer before, but because of the prices I switched to the and mostly satisfied with the results - the 400 film is nice and sharp. Price-performance ratio is definitely top. Andy
Comment posted: 23/06/2021
Andrea Bevacqua on 5 frames with Fomapan 400 in a Nikon F2 in Dungeness, Kent – By Nigel Rumsey
Comment posted: 23/06/2021
I quite like the Foma brand to be honest. As you said, at those prices, would be stupid not giving it a go.
I think that the downside of Foma in general is that is very prone to scratches, so in development it requires more care.
I prefer to use Foma 100 or 200 and eventually push those to get a bit more contrast. I prefer those because they are a bit less grainy. I found the grain of Foma 400 not very nice. Ilford of Kodak grain is more pleasant at my eyes.
But this is my taste.
If you bulk load, I would buy a roll and experiment. Is even cheaper this way.
Btw, beautiful pictures ????
Andrea
Comment posted: 23/06/2021
Jean-François Bonnin on 5 frames with Fomapan 400 in a Nikon F2 in Dungeness, Kent – By Nigel Rumsey
Comment posted: 23/06/2021
Excellent value for money : HP5 , Tri-X and some others are too costly now.
FOMAPAN ISO 400, exposed ISO 320.
Ilford ID 11 / Kodak D 76 / Foma Fomadon P W37 / D76 Formulary kit
Dilution 1 1
Time 10' 45 to 11 '30 (68°F / 20°C) depending on weather conditions.
Il also use FOMA's 100 and 200 ISO. Got fed up of their RETROPAN.
Great pictures, Nigel !
Comment posted: 23/06/2021
Comment posted: 23/06/2021
Jack on 5 frames with Fomapan 400 in a Nikon F2 in Dungeness, Kent – By Nigel Rumsey
Comment posted: 23/06/2021
John Squillace on 5 frames with Fomapan 400 in a Nikon F2 in Dungeness, Kent – By Nigel Rumsey
Comment posted: 24/06/2021
Comment posted: 24/06/2021
Andrew L on 5 frames with Fomapan 400 in a Nikon F2 in Dungeness, Kent – By Nigel Rumsey
Comment posted: 24/06/2021
Daniel Castelli on 5 frames with Fomapan 400 in a Nikon F2 in Dungeness, Kent – By Nigel Rumsey
Comment posted: 24/06/2021
Great posting. I love the classic F2 in black. I once read that it's considered the finest, all mechanical SLR ever produced.
Of all your shots, the surf fishing is the one that I like the most. A nice, graphic-like composition.
I never tried Foma 400, but I gave Foma 200 a try a few years ago. It never made much of an impression on me.
But since your question was about using inexpensive films, here are my thoughts: just before the damnpandemic hit us hard here in the United States, I put together a bulk loading kit. I use HP-5 (developed in ID-11.) Not so much for cost savings, but to customize roll length. As we faced lockdown orders and minimum travel, I found it easier to load a 12 or 16 exposure roll. I could expose the roll during the space of one day. I know that the shorter roll used as much developer as a 36 exposure roll, but the convenience of fast turn around while staying put outweighed the cost. Chemical cost was/is fairly stable. Once Ilford products became more available, I was taken aback by the price increases. I'm retired and on a fixed income, so the task of bulk loading film was now cost effective.
Now, I've just ordered some Kentmere 400 from B&H Photo. It's a bit less expensive than HP-5/36. I've wanted to try it for some time now.
-Dan
Comment posted: 24/06/2021
Wouter Willemse on 5 frames with Fomapan 400 in a Nikon F2 in Dungeness, Kent – By Nigel Rumsey
Comment posted: 24/06/2021
I do like Fomapan 100 a lot, and Fomapan 200 has its attraction too, but the 400 film for me doesn't stand out enough.
Yet to try Kentmere 400 for a more economic alternative, but the biggest problem is just that HP5 works so damned well.
Rock on 5 frames with Fomapan 400 in a Nikon F2 in Dungeness, Kent – By Nigel Rumsey
Comment posted: 24/06/2021
Kodachromeguy on 5 frames with Fomapan 400 in a Nikon F2 in Dungeness, Kent – By Nigel Rumsey
Comment posted: 24/06/2021
Option: try the current Tri-X also and see how it differs.
Comment posted: 24/06/2021
Kamil on 5 frames with Fomapan 400 in a Nikon F2 in Dungeness, Kent – By Nigel Rumsey
Comment posted: 12/05/2023
I’ve also heard that the whole range 100-400 is a stop over rated, but maybe that’s because this film looks pretty good pushed and is meant to be one stop over indexed and over developed, who knows.