120 Film Dangers?

[yessammassey]

Digging through the APUG archive, in 2010 a user (37th Exposure) casually mentioned that Foma 100, "has jammed my Fuji GA645 and the motor hasn't worked right ever since and my new Voigtlander Bessa III just chokes on it"

I received a nice almost-mint black GA645Zi in the mail today. As I was preparing for my inaugural shit-shoot test roll of bushes in my backyard, I reached for a package of Foma 100 to blow through in the search for any major defects with the camera. But something stopped me - a twinge of memory. After some searching, I found the old thread and that quote. I had read something to the same effect, elsewhere, an indeterminate amount of time prior. I'm not sure if it's something I should really worry about, but I wasn't about to jam up and ruin a camera I had just acquired.. Not when there could still be legitimate defects warranting a return. I like to save my camera-destroying screws ups until there's no possible recourse for compensation.

But would loading Foma 100 (or any other Foma film, including the Arista line) really jam it up? I know the GA645Zi uses a sensor to determine the presence of film and backing, so if there's something nonstandard about the weight of the Foma base or backing that might confuse the system, I should probably avoid it...right?

 

[summicron1]

hard to think foma is that different from the others -- my rollei handles it just fine. If you are nervous, don't use it. Plenty of other films out there.

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

Funny you should bring it up, but the first time I tried Foma was 2009 in Thailand. I loaded up the 'blad and started winding the film to the first frame and heard a tearing noise. The backing paper had ripped completely. I didn't try to salvage the roll and also never used my remaining test rolls of Foma. But fast forward to one year ago and I bought some Arista from Freestyle and had no problems with it and even bought a lot more rolls after that.

 

[Chadinko]

I pretty much shoot nothing BUT Arista.edu 100/Foma because the price is really good and I can get it in all formats I shoot. It goes through every camera I have beautifully in all formats -- 35mm, 120, 2.25x3.25 sheet and 4x5 sheet -- and in everything from my Canon EOS bodies to three different roll backs for my miniature Speed Graphics. I've never had it jam or do anything untoward, though in 4x5 I would get pinholes in my emulsion in developing, and so I stopped using stop bath and went to water washes between the developer and fix and that's pretty much solved the problem. I buy the stuff in bulk and go through it very quickly, and I've never had a roll tear or wind funny. I have had a couple of rolls not wind tightly onto the takeup spool but I suspect it was the camera and not the film.

 

[R.Gould]

For many years now I have used nothing but fomapan in 35mm and MF, in everything from folders to Rolleis to Micricord to Bronica, and have yet to have any type of problem, I can't see how it could cause a problem with a fuji or anything else, the backing paper is slightly thicker, but the film is stuck down with the same type of sticky paper as any other film, indeed, if you can't use foma then you could not use Rollei film as they use the same paper/sticky tape as Foma

 

[Ian Grant]

Cameras do suffer failures regardless of what brand of film is used. Having used a few hundred rolls of Foma 120 I can't see why there could possibly be an issue. If there was we'd have heard of it by now.

Ian

 

[Harry Stevens]

Surely if this was a common problem with the film you wouldn't have had to dig back to 2010 to find a mention of it.

 

[Dali]

Don't remember having any trouble with any of my MF cameras loaded with Foma 100... No more trouble than with any brand.

 

[bsdunek]

Foma has always worked fine in my Holgas, Rolleiflex and Mamiya Press. No jamming, tearing or anything. I'm not real happy with the negatives, so I'm not getting any more, but not for any feeding reason.

 

[pdeeh]

Isn't this one of those threads that belongs in the hidden from search engines forum? lest it become Internet lore that Foma destroys cameras?

 

[MattKing]

Isn't this one of those threads that belongs in the hidden from search engines forum? lest it become Internet lore that Foma destroys cameras?

Why don't you "report" it to a moderator, and request either that or at least a change in the thread title?
Just use the "Report Post" link.
Otherwise, the moderators aren't likely to even see your suggestion.

 

[pdeeh]

did it at the same time as posting the comment matt

 

[Chadinko]

I dunno, this thread seems to be going in such a direction that if someone outside were to see it, there would be little doubt that the vast majority of us who use Foma are perfectly happy with it and have had zero issues. I don't know what sort of operator error resulted in the damage to the camera referenced in the OP's original post but it would seem that for the majority of us, worrying about using Foma never even crosses our minds.

Methinks that the OP readeth too much (apologies to Bill Shakespeare).

 

[shutterfinger]

In 2005 I tried some Foma sheet film. I shot it at box speed like I would Kodak or Ilford films. Medium shadows were blank, box speed was way over rated, others on a different site had similar results.
In 2012 I purchased some Arista EDU Ultra in 120 to test some cameras with after repair. Box speed issue gone, preforms well. It is the same thickness as Kodak and Ilford films in the same format. The only thing I see about it is there is a hole in the backing paper at the end of the film that could fog the film if the back has a ruby window in it.
It is now my go to film for camera testing.

 

[Harry Stevens]

Did anybody ever find out why that Foma "hole" was there.

 

[yessammassey]

Thanks for the replies, but I'm really looking for experiences from Fuji cameras with auto film advance. I've never had any problems with Foma or Arista films on any other camera body, in 120 or 135 format. It works wonderfully in any of my fully mechanical medium format cameras, and the 135 format rolls go through my automated, film-sensing point-and-shoots with no issues whatsoever. But I would be suspicious of Fuji. If there was some way they could produce a camera that would make users more likely to buy their film products as opposed to a competitor's, they may have done so. Or, alternatively, maybe Foma isn't as popular in Japan, and so Fuji didn't build compatibility for it into their camera's film sensing system (this is making the huge assumption that there's anything different about it).

I will avoid using Foma products in this camera, as they're relatively rare now (the cameras) and spare parts & component repair services are hard to come by. It's a shame, though. Foma/AristaEDUU 100 is a wonderful product at a great price and produces absolutely gorgeous negatives on 120 film. The 200 and 400 speeds in 135 are my go-to street walkaround films, and I've had a lot of fun experimenting with different developers for all of them.

I see the posters concerned about this thread topping the google search results and becoming a black mark against Foma. Well, I tried using the keywords I had previously to turn up that archived thread, and of course this thread is the top result for me now. Shucks. Guess I'll have to be more careful when trying to craft enticing thread titles in the future. In retrospect it would have made a lot more sense to have Fuji Medium Format somewhere in there too/instead. Oof.

I dunno, this thread seems to be going in such a direction that if someone outside were to see it, there would be little doubt that the vast majority of us who use Foma are perfectly happy with it and have had zero issues. I don't know what sort of operator error resulted in the damage to the camera referenced in the OP's original post but it would seem that for the majority of us, worrying about using Foma never even crosses our minds.
Methinks that the OP readeth too much (apologies to Bill Shakespeare).

Chadinko pauses to proofread his contribution to this thread, then sagely deletes "Posted from my Samsung Galaxy Note S7" before hitting submit.

 

[obviouslygene]

shot 5 rolls of fomapan 100 and 400 each. zero issues in my hasselblad, just some difficulty in pulling the film through my reels sometime.

 

[Chadinko]

Chadinko pauses to proofread his contribution to this thread, then sagely deletes "Posted from my Samsung Galaxy Note S7" before hitting submit.

I'm confused...

 

[shutterfinger]

Arista EDU Ultra ISO400 in 120 format is film .0035 inch thick (3.5mil) the same as Fuji color print films; the backing paper is .004 (4 mil) thick.

You have a camera that you have run a hundred roll of brand X film through and decide to try brand Y film and the camera dies during the roll. It has to be the film that's at fault when in fact the camera would have failed with any brand of film in it due to wear.

Kodak film is .0045 (4.5 mil) inch thick with a .006 (6 mil) inch thick backing paper. I haven't measured any Kodak or Ilford films made in the last year or two. I use a digital caliper to measure the thicknesses with.

Be sure to toss some salt over your shoulder if you spill some milk or change your path if a black cat crosses in front of you.

 

[LAG]

I'm not sure if it's something I should really worry about

...

1. 1

   Digging through ... After some searching ... I had read something to the same effect ...

1. 2

   Methinks that the OP readeth too much (apologies to Bill Shakespeare).

I agree with those who think that the Thread Title is not suitable at all: Reported and ignored

Best

 

[railwayman3]

FWIW, I've used the occasional Foma film in my Yashica 124G with no issues. My "usual" Ilford films have also fine, as have numerous varieties of Kodak, Agfa and Fuji over the years. I was of the impression that there are ISO standards for film dimensions, etc., which should be followed by manufacturers ?