Anyone recognise this film?

I only discovered Foma around 2014 so anything much before than I have no knowledge of as I never saw any in the wild back in the day. I guess my circle was much smaller and the shops I bought film from simply didn't stock anything beyond Kodak/Agfa/Fuji/Ilford with labs usually giving Ferrania (often rebranded) as a free film.

certainly today's Foma 35mm bulk rolls for still photography have no edge markings. Their 2x8mm cine film has no edge markings either. I've shot a lot of both.

Agulliver said:

I only discovered Foma around 2014

Click to expand...

I'd never used B&W film that wasn't Kodak until I came back after a 15 year hiatus in 2003. I had a 9x12 Patent Etui and the only 9x12 films I could find in B&W even then were Foma and Ilford -- and Foma was much less expensive. However, I know Foma has been around for roundly a century, and their film is the best bargain in the business. Some folks hate it due to defects, but I've never seen on on my own Foma films. If you really don't like Foma, Kentmere is similarly priced and made by Harman (Ilford's parent company), but I have lots of good experience with Foma 100 and 400 and almost none with Kentmere to date.

Donald Qualls said:

Occurs to me, it could also be Ferrania -- their recent resurrection started with an ISO 80 B&W film (P30?), derived from the movie stock that was their bread and butter for decades. They were the last company to package 126, and were still making both C-41 and B&W films (the latter for still and cine) through the 1990s.

Click to expand...

That's interesting. The seller bought the loader more than ten years ago so it could quite easily be from the 90s or 2000s. Iso 80 would tie in with what I am shooting at. I shot the first test rolls at 50iso but am currently thinking 25iso maybe worth a try. That would tie in with the films sensitivity loss thanks to the fog. On the subject of rolls, I tried Rodinal 1:25, just on a whim. It emphasized the fog along with everything else I now have a bottle of Fog-Off BZT solution. I am going to try that with EuroHC. Standard HC110 gave me the smooth negatives but I don't need the loss of film speed, it's slow enough as it is. One thing I will say, this 80ft of whatever in a computrol cost me £16. I have learned quite a bit by shooting it and a lot more by talking to you guys. Even if the film is too far gone, it was still £16 well spent

Donald Qualls said:

I'd never used B&W film that wasn't Kodak until I came back after a 15 year hiatus in 2003. I had a 9x12 Patent Etui and the only 9x12 films I could find in B&W even then were Foma and Ilford -- and Foma was much less expensive. However, I know Foma has been around for roundly a century, and their film is the best bargain in the business. Some folks hate it due to defects, but I've never seen on on my own Foma films. If you really don't like Foma, Kentmere is similarly priced and made by Harman (Ilford's parent company), but I have lots of good experience with Foma 100 and 400 and almost none with Kentmere to date.

Click to expand...

I always have 35mm Foma 200 to hand, it is absolutely excellent in 510Pyro. I shoot it at 125 mostly. I also got a part roll of 400 and found it a bit muddy at first, but then I shot it at 200 and developed it in EuroHC. What a gorgeous combination. One thing I love and enjoy embracing with the Foma 400 is it's tendency to halo like mad such an interesting film to shoot. Re Kentmere, 100 & 400 are just ok, but I have found the new 200 to be quite nice. For me It is a better choice for 120. I have had quality issues a few times with foma

Cerebum said:

£16 well spent

Click to expand...

An empty bulk loader in good condition is a decent deal for that money. Free film thrown in to experiment on is a bonus.

Those certainly look like B&H perforations designed for cine camera transport. It should be "short pitch" film; .1866 inches from top of one perf to the top of the next. Printing stock is .1870 inches and is usually KS perfs; the larger, more square perforations.

Kodak has been putting edge numbers and codes on their film since almost the very beginning, so i doubt it is Kodak. Might be old Dupont, or Ferannia negative. Does the unprocessed film have dark grey emulsion or a more creamy yellow look? It could also be a print or intermediate (finegrain) stock but at those exposure rates you used, that's probably unrealistic.

Kino said:

It could also be a print or intermediate (finegrain) stock but at those exposure rates you used, that's probably unrealistic.

Click to expand...

I agree, unlikely it's a release or print film if it gives images at EI 25, never mind 50. The fastest release positive films I know of are ISO equivalent 12, and most are slower than that.

Kino said:

Those certainly look like B&H perforations designed for cine camera transport. It should be "short pitch" film; .1866 inches from top of one perf to the top of the next. Printing stock is .1870 inches and is usually KS perfs; the larger, more square perforations.

Kodak has been putting edge numbers and codes on their film since almost the very beginning, so i doubt it is Kodak. Might be old Dupont, or Ferannia negative. Does the unprocessed film have dark grey emulsion or a more creamy yellow look? It could also be a print or intermediate (finegrain) stock but at those exposure rates you used, that's probably unrealistic

Click to expand...

This is the unexposed film. Does that help?

Unfortunately, the emulsion color isn't conclusive beyond the fact that is probably not an intermediate stock with the integrated film dye to combat refraction.

Perhaps Tasma or Svema? Judging by the suggested date the film was placed in the bulk loader, it might have been one of the last runs from Svema and those tended to be sold here in the USA under generic names by places like Freestyle and independent film sellers. Stocks of Svema were sold long after the closing of the last coating line, so... Who knows?

The fact that it was initially wound wrong reinforces the idea of it being cinema film, as many cameras required the film to be wound EO (emulsion out) rather than EI (Emulsion In).

You will probably never be able to firmly establish who made it unless a stray edge marking suddenly appears somewhere in the roll.

Anyway, just shoot it and have fun!

Kino said:

Perhaps Tasma or Svema? Judging by the suggested date the film was placed in the bulk loader, it might have been one of the last runs from Svema and those tended to be sold here in the USA under generic names by places like Freestyle and independent film sellers.

The fact that it was initially wound wrong reinforces the idea of it being cinema film, as many cameras required the film to be wound EO (emulsion out) rather than EI (Emulsion In).

You will probably never be able to firmly establish who made it unless a stray edge marking suddenly appears somewhere in the roll.

Anyway, just shoot it and have fun!

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I am doing I really enjoy experimenting, so, the fact that it's a complete mystery makes it really worthwhile. I have my 500ml of Fog-Off, that'll last me an age, and I can keep chugging away at minimal cost. It's something of a free ride