Arista EDU Ultra 400/ Fomapan 120 scratches

I see a 5 year old thread on this issue, of Fomapan/Arista EDU Ultra having scratches. But I don't see a resolution. I've emailed Freestyle and they have not responded.

I am getting scratching all along in a Minolta Autocord. The camera has no problem with other films. Below is a sample; the really confusing scratch is the slanted one with a bent tail, not parallel to film travel direction. As you can see, the scratches start and stop. There are marks along one edge that are continuous, but not shown in this sample.

Is this defective film? A fragile emulsion picking up scratches in the camera? Any ideas? Do I just keep the 10 rolls left for exposure tests, return it to Freestyle? Any suggestions on solving the problem appreciated.

Are you doing the processing are are others? You could always waste a roll and inspect it.

Which way does the film move through your camera? Vertically?

Switch to Kodak or Ilford. If its only happening with the one film, dump it.

I am doing the processing. Simple loading onto stainless reel. No squeegee, no wiping.

The film moves in the direction of the scratches- vertically. If I had the same scratches with other film, I'd know the answer- dust or scratches in the film path. Since I do NOT get scratches with other film, I am not certain if it is faulty film, very soft film, or some other possibility.

Using other film is going to happen. Once I lose a roll or two to tech problems, I usually just move rather than have to worry if a roll will work out. I'm not sure if I complain to Freestyle and get my money back; one of the reasons for this thread. With Fuji Neopan 400 gone, I was curious if the Arista EDU Ultra 400/Fomapan 400 would be a replacement. Looks like it won't be.

Good suggestion to open a fresh roll and study the surface before it goes through the camera.

Thanks for the comments.

Then put it thru and examine it again, but I wouldn't bother processing it.

Dan,

see this recent discussion (a lot to read... no remedy so far):
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

FWIW, I had some scratches like that back when I used it. Mine ran horizontally, which is the film direction in my camera. Now that neopan is gone (grrr!) I will probably switch to tri-x rather than go back to the EDU.Ultra. Although It is a very good looking film when it works out.

hmm. I've been using a lot of the Arista .EDU 100 and 400, through various cameras including an Autocord and haven't noticed an issue with scratches. I'd say to call Freestyle. I had an enlarger bulb pop right when I put it in one time, and they just sent me one out the same day and were really nice about. They have great customer service.

This seems to be a problem similar to the one discussed in the thread that AgX is referring to ((there was a url link here which no longer exists)).

The scratches (on Foma 100-120) reported by me and others in that thread are a bit shorter and seem to have a different spread than yours on Foma 400-120. The cause may be the same though. The issue has been reported to Foma, who say they're working on it. Their response so far, through their Dutch distributor:

"I would like to inform you that we thoroughly investigated the sent samples and we tried to find the cause of resulting defect.
We didn´t find explicit cause in our production process, the defects occur randomly and very rarely.
As the cause appears a combination of our material with certain types of cameras (in some cases only).
One of the causes could be probably some minor impurities, whose rise by cutting wrappers (backpaper)
We made preventive measures to minimalize the possibility of recurrence of defects.
We believe that a coincidence, which caused these problems, wouldn´t negative affect our future cooperation."

and:

"For 120 Roll film: It seems to be that cameras with a tight loading system can have a problem. The scatches are very thin and a lot of people won't even notice them. Hasselblad 500CM, Mamiya RB and Rolleiflex TLR seems to be most sensible [sensitive] for the problem."

It will be useful if you report your problem to Freestyle. The more feedback Foma receives, the more likely they will be able and/or willing to fix this.

The focus is on the backing paper now. Maybe the specification should be changed because the problem of cameras with a tight loading system must be compatible on all films anyhow.

Another minor problem which will be solved is a tighter glue on the self adhesive strip so that they will not open spontanuously on the last part of the film.

Foma is aware about these problems, we just are waiting about an answer about a final solution.
Please give also feedback to Freestyle so that they know how wide the problem is at the moment.

best regards,

Robert

I sent an email to Freestyle and received no response.In fact, I sent two emails to Freestyle and haven't received a response.

I did look at the emulsion of a roll before it went through the camera. I then looked at it afterward. I could see no random or other scratch marks in the emulsion. Maybe they are too fine for the eye with a small magnifier.

So the other thread is 5 years old. In that time, Foma recognizes that the backing paper is too thick and hasn't done anything about it?
[EDIT: my mistake, not reading the dates on the other thread properly. It is only a couple of weeks old]

Of course, it's only a small group of cameras- Hasselblad, Mamiya,and Rolleiflex. Maybe if Foma focuses on a marketing scheme with the Lomo people, they can completely ignore such an unimportant group. I can understand; people who care about quality are such a pain.

And none of this explains the slightly curved scratch with the bent tail that is off-kilter from the film path. Yet the same width and look as the other scratches.

"Another minor problem which will be solved is a tighter glue on the self adhesive strip so that they will not open spontanuously on the last part of the film."

For me and my cameras, the problem with the new self-adhesive leader strip is not the strength of the glue, but the direction of the leader. These get caught in my Rollei and the actual strip gets pulled off of the backing paper and gums up my camera. To prevent this, I unroll the films in the dark, remove the strip, and spool them again before shooting.

The old paper backing of a few years ago was smooth and thin, and the old-style strips worked fine with my camera.

I have contacted Freestyle about this (whom I love, but they claim to have never heard about these problems) and FOMA, too.

I have contacted Freestyle about this (whom I love, but they claim to have never heard about these problems) and FOMA, too.

Click to expand...

It's a known problem and they are working on it. Also here this problem is camera dependent but before with the old style strips there was never a problem.

That it can work (self adhesive strip) you can see on the Fuji films. It's a nice feature but it should work without any problem. Otherwise better have the old solution. Maybe a reason Ilford never changed it

As Bob has stated many times, don't expect to use Foma "in a professional grade camera or handle the film while wet" and not have scratches.

Mike

Not handle the film while wet..... Well, dang, there goes the idea of weaving a shower curtain out of the rolls, since they don't seem to be worth anything for actual photography.

Hi all. I'm new to APUG and am sending a test post. At the same time I love Foma films for the beautiful Old World look. I can have my shots look like something from one of the old European masters just by switching film (technically anyway, I'd never have their artistic ability). BUT why do I still prefer Kodak, Ilford, etc.? Besides emulsion defects Foma 120 film has jammed my Fuji GA645 and the motor hasn't worked right ever since and my new Voigtlander Bessa III just chokes on it. As for Lomography, my Diana Plus just ate it (literally, only works with Fuji's nice super smooth backing paper) so I don't think Foma has it aimed at the bottom of the market as suggested. Never using Foma in 120 again. What a loss. 35mm Foma is another matter. Never had a problem with the quality. It dries perfectly flat and runs smoother than Kodak in my Voigtlander R3M. Supposedly 35mm film is easier to manufacture?

It must be the backing paper. Well, I've heard that the base color is different between the 120 and the 35mm, pointing to a different material?

I just ran a roll through a Yashica D,which hadn't shown up on the 'not in this model!!' list for Fomapan. Still scratches. Not as many as the Minolta Autocord, but enough to put me off for good. The remaining rolls will either go back to Freestyle or be used only for testing. I've seen enough, and just can't trust the film.

By the way, I just tried a roll of the ADOX CHS 100 in 120- very nice tones! From Freestyle. If you can deal with the 100 ISO, worth a shot. Very fragile emulsion when developing, but not coming out scratched to heck by the cameras.

I really love Shanghai GP3 in 120, I havent had any problems with defects, scratches etc in my RB67, except for the one time I pushed it to 3200, tonality wise, came out excellent, nothing to gripe about, but had some odd random blotchy kinda marks on it, possibly from the backing paper, not sure if it was just that one roll with defects, or if it would occur again if I pushed to 3200.

V500 scan:
3200:
http://i39.tinypic.com/2cyh8hy.jpg

400:
http://i39.tinypic.com/24fbfbp.jpg

the base color is different between the 120 and the 35mm, pointing to a different material?

Click to expand...

Indeed 120 roll film is based om Polyester, 35mm on Tri-Acetate which is also mentioned in the data sheets.

How is that new Adox/Efke film in 120? I've always used the 35mm versions with no problems. I gave up on the 120 after getting several bad rolls from the same brick back in the 1990's. Two rolls were not properly spooled right from the pack and the third had no sealing tape so the roll was unraveled as soon as I tore open the foil. I tossed all three assuming that they were already fogged by not being wound tightly from the start. That was the last Efke 120 I ever bought. I'm hoping the new Efke or Adox stuff has had the quality problems fixed. Does anyone know? I'm tired of getting one bad roll after another. I really should just stay with Kodak, Ilford, whatever but none of the big Western firms make film like the old school Eastern European stuff. The price I pay for say Kodak film is not just in money but very boring looking prints. That astonishing gray scale I get from Eastern European film is something I can't live without. I shot my sister's wedding on Fomapan and even the real pro was amazed at the prints (Xtol and straight printed at a custom lab). Maybe Kodak or Ilford might resurrect one of their old school films (Super XX, FP3?) so we can have that classic film without the classic quality control (or lack of)? That Foma and Efke are still in business in this digital age shows there's a market for this sort of thing. I've read on APUG that you can get any result you want from any film just by changing your developing, printing regime. I didn't have to do a thing but switch film brands to get that set of grays that I particularly like. I might even get that Efke look out of TMax but really, I have to work full time 6 days a week to pay for my photo stuff, so where am I going to get all that extra time to figure out what changes I need to make to my regime which I've not changed in 20 years?

A couple of posts back in this thread is an image from me using the ADOX CHS 100. I have only shot one roll of it so far. I didn't notice any spooling, tape, etc. problems. The other two rolls I have seem fine on the exterior. They are packed in individual black plastic cases with a flip lid; the web site says something about the PET base piping light too easily so be sure to keep them in subdued light and the black plastic cases.

Based on that one roll, I ordered 20 more rolls. If I do run into problems, I will start a new thread.

The only problem I had was some emulsion moving around. They say that the film is more fragile when wet than newer film stocks, and they recommend a hardener. I blame the emulsion problems on this roll to me being sloppy and unaware. It was only one frame on the outer end; I probably grabbed it to unspool or such.

Dan Daniel said:

With Fuji Neopan 400 gone, I was curious if the Arista EDU Ultra 400/Fomapan 400 would be a replacement. Looks like it won't be.

Click to expand...

If you were looking for Arista.EDU Ultra 400 as a replacement for Neopan 400, no it's not. Discounting any suspect QC issues, the two films aren't even in the same league. Neopan was/is a first rate film in every way you can measure. Fine grain, true speed, nice flat clear support - all good stuff. Arista.EDU Ultra 400 is quite different. I've tried using it a box speed and it's not so good until you downrate it to about 250. It's kinda curly, but not terribly so; and the grain is about what you'd expect to see from a 400 speed film from the late 1960's through the early '80's. It's not particularly sharp nor is it fast. What it is is inexpensive, and that's what I like about it. I don't care if I can't get box speed from it. Don't really need it that often when I'm shooting medium format. Grain? I'm not worried about that too much either. I don't print very large so the grain penalty isn't apparent. When I do want a negative for printing large, I'll use a film more suited to the task like Tri-X or TMY-2. For casual street shooting, the Arista.EDU Ultra is fine for me.

Has anyone else noticed this small change to the packaging?

fschifano said:

For casual street shooting, the Arista.EDU Ultra is fine for me.

Click to expand...

I'd agree with in all aspects.

Except for the scratches. That is the killer for me. The scratching. If I find a camera that doesn't cause scratching, I will probably use the Arista EDU Ultra 400 for fun street shooting just as you say.

No idea what the yellow triangle means on the new boxes.