Last year, when Foma announced the release of a new film, I’ll admit, I was immediately interested. What drew me into the film is that it was an orthochromatic film and not sensitive to the red end of the visual spectrum. I’ve worked with these films, notably Ilford Ortho+ and Rollei Ortho 25 plus. The trouble with these is that they are slower films, rated at ASA-80 (or ASA-40) and ASA-25, respectively. I’m not one to shy away from slower films, but it can get rather dull and grey here in Ontario during specific points in the year. So, having an Ortho option rated at ASA-400 is an excellent addition. Before you say this is a variation/repackage of the Fomapan 400, I’ve compared the datasheets, and the spectral sensitivities and times differ. For Fomapan 400, the red sensitivity goes almost to 700nm, nearly hitting the new-IR range, while Ortho 400 drops off before it even hits 600nm. This review will only cover the 120 version of the film as that was the only thing available when I acquired the rolls; it has since been released in 35mm.
Film Specs
Manufacturer: Foma
Name: Ortho 400
Type: Orthochromatic B&W
Film Base: Polyester
Film Speed: ASA-400, Latitude: N/A
Formats Available: Medium Format (120) & 135 (35mm)
Roll 01 – Kodak D-76
I had been hoping for slightly better light, but with rain coming fast, I had to shoot under the conditions I could get. Plus, it always helps to review films under multiple lighting conditions. I also added a green filter to the lens, allowing orthochromatic films to get a more panchromatic look. After pulling the negatives out from the tank, I noticed how dense the images were, but there was still enough detail in the pictures. The photos were scanned okay, but getting the details in most shots back took a lot. I also noticed a wild difference between some of the images. This is not Fomapan 400; first off, there is a distinct glow to the images and a lack of dynamic range. I can tell there is no anti-halation layer on the film. The contrast is high, and the photos are sharp, but you have some heavy grain; it is a bit rough but isn’t as bad as I expected, but it adds to that sharpness. These aren’t my favourites, and while I was initially unsure if it was the light or the filter, it has to do with over-developing. Foma gives a range of times; I should have gone with the lower end of the times.
Roll 02 – Ilford Ilfotec HC
No listed times for Ilfotec HC/HC-110 on the official datasheets exist. Instead, I used a parallel processing method to calculate the time for Ilfotec HC. After seeing what happened on the previous roll, I returned to my notes using the lower end of the time range given by the Ortho 400 datasheet. This put the D-76 Stock time at seven minutes, corresponding to Fomapan 100. I settled on a 1+63 dilution and ten-minute time with a 10% reduction to nine minutes to come up with a time. The day I was shooting this roll, it had a hard, high-contrast light, so going with a lower dilution, I planned to knock back any contrast. Sadly, I ended up with some relatively thin negatives, but the negatives looked slightly better after drying overnight. While many were still thin, I could see enough detail in most. Those frames scanned well, and I liked the results; the contrast was still high, but there were some excellent mid-tones along the competent d range. The grain is much better than in D-76, and a glow is still around the highlights.
Roll 03 – Adox Rodinal
Colour me surprised, but these images came out much better than I expected. Because there was only a single Rodinal dilution listed on the datasheet, 1+50, I went for the middle time of the range listed, 10-12 minutes, so I developed for 11 minutes, then dropped to 10 minutes to compensate for the constant rotation. And while some might baulk at using Rodinal and a 400-speed Foma film, trust me on this one. The day I was out exposing the roll I had a nice bright, even light. I also went unfiltered for this role. After pulling the negatives from the tank, I was impressed; these were a lot cleaner than the first two rolls, and a lot of detail was presented. Scanning the roll proved to show off exactly how good these turned out; Ia little longer in the development might have helped, maybe fifteen seconds. There is plenty of contrast here, but it is done well. (You can also see how orthochromatic the film is as the Corvette featured is bright red.) The grain is visible, but the structure is perfect and makes the edges sharp; the Rodinal was essential in getting those sharp negatives.
Roll 04 – Ilford Microphen
I did my best to try and get out on another day with bright, even light, and for the fourth and final roll was much brighter than the third roll, but again, with enough cloud cover to even out the lighting. I went with a green filter but only adjusted my metering by one stop, then developed normally. Because I was using the stock solution of Ilford Microphen, I went with the lower listed development time on the range, which is 8 minutes. Again, I was presented with clean negatives, but there was more density than I expected. The scans were almost like my first roll, although I got more keepers this time. I like the results; they have a lot of potential for good grain, sharpness, and contrast. And you get that lovely glow with some of the shots. But I think the green filter isn’t doing the film any favours. Also, the film doesn’t like the extra push needed with that filter in front of the medium.
Final Thoughts
As I said at the start of this review, the Ortho 400 is different from the Fomapan 400, so don’t treat it like Fomapan; that means go ahead and shoot it at the box speed of ASA-400 (although I love the Fomapan 400 at 400). There is no need to over-expose and pull this film to get excellent results; you need good even light and accuracy in metering; while I used mainly reflective metering, incident metering would have helped. If you develop your black & white film at home, you’ll first notice that if you pre-wash, there is no bright cyan dye to the water when you pour out the pre-wash. This is because Ortho 400 does not have an anti-halation layer. Use this to your advantage as you can lean into the glow that you probably have seen on XRay film, CineStill 800T, and Polypan F. I also noticed that the film itself is slightly thicker than Fomapan films and does have a slight cupping and curling issue. It scans easily enough, however, and I didn’t have too much trouble with my V700, Silverfast 9 SE and Adobe Photoshop CC to get the images where I wanted them. I should have read a bit deeper into the datasheet, as it contained some clues on how to get pictures toofhe place where you want them. Specifically, the characteristics curve section shows three lines for the level of density with the time to get that curve. If I had read them closer, I could have learned early to keep the times lower to get a less dense negative. Ortho 400 likes good light, but it wants consistent and even light to get the best results as it has a limited latitude, maybe half to a complete stop, to get the best results. My favourite developer for this film is with this round is Adox Rodinal, but Microphen is a close second if it wasn’t for that filter. I do think that you could get excellent results with even a more dilute mix of Ilfotec HC/HC-110, going with maybe a Dilution G instead of Dilution H. While I did warm up to the film through this review, I don’t feel that I will be using it again unless I need that orthochromatic look but also need the speed of a 400-speed film. But Ortho 400 is an excellent film stock, and I salute Foma for getting a new film stock that is different from their usual fare out to market.
Further Reading
Don’t just take my word on Foma Ortho 400, you can check out the reviews by other awesome camera reviewers!
Don Goodman-Wilson – Film Review: FOMA Ortho 400
R-Wos – Foma Ortho 400 is Awesome