Anyone recognise this film?

[Agulliver]

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.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I only discovered Foma around 2014

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.

 

[Cerebum]

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.

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

 

[Cerebum]

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.

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