Arista.edu ultra (foma) iso100 quality control evidence

[ricksplace]

I just got my Rollei back from a full-through cla and thought the film transport was screwed up until I checked the paper backing on the last two rolls of the above film. It seems there are some problems with the start of the film on the paper backing. I took a photo of the two paper backings and posted it on the technical gallery. Note that the start marks are lined up on the two paper backings.

I compared the arista paper backing to ilford and found that the ilford started right between the two tape marks in the picture. Then curiosity got the best of me, and I sacrificed another roll of arista. It started the same place as the ilford.

I like to get 13 frames per roll with my Pentacon Six by starting a little ahead of the start mark. This isn't a safe practice with this film.

When the start marks are lined up for arista and ilford, the frame numbers on the paper backing line up too.

The leader (distance from the tongue to the start mark) for arista is about 1/4" shorter than the ilford.

Sorry about using a digital camera and posting a digital image to this forum. 1000 lashes with a wet noodle for me...

Rick.

 

[eumenius]

Rick,

this kind of flaw is unfortunately not too rare with both Foma and Forte films - I've got eaten away a part of my last frame in the Linhof Super Rollex 6*7 I'm trying to repair now. That was Fortepan 100, and the film was taped maybe 2 cm above the standart + ------- - mark on backing. The every other roll of film from the same batch was consistently taped in place. Who knows, maybe Foma and Forte plants use the same kind of film packing machines, and they slip sometimes? They should improve, because it's so wrong to spoil the imprression of their fine products with such a blunder.

Cheers, Zhenya

 

[ricksplace]

Zhenya -you are right. Every other roll I have used so far seems to be OK.

It is certainly not my intention to denigrate either foma or freestyle. I like this film a lot and will continue to use it. I thought I'd post this in case anyone else finds a similar problem.

I don't want to encourage anyone not to use these products.

Rick.

 

[Max Power]

I'm just starting to use Arista EDU Ultra myself. I'll keep an eye on my own rolls to see what happens.
The results of the first roll I processed impressed me so much, though, that I'd be willing to sacrifice the first frame of every roll to 'counter' the problem.

Kent

 

[Gibran]

Well, this is exactly what I found and posted previously but to state again, not only is the starting arrow sometimes off but I found that the actual film length of a roll of the EDU.ULTRA 100 was about 1" shorter compared to a roll of TXP 120.

 

[gainer]

I.m reminded of my days giving private lessons to beginners on the oboe. The instruments the school systems had for beginners could not be played by a professional. How can anyone be educated on defective film?

 

[eumenius]

Ahem, I know this sort of stuff all too well - I just remember some dummy hand grenades we were learning to throw in school, on war education lessons And those gas masks lacking filters... duh. But this is definitely an another case - both Foma and Forte films are not intended for education only, they're capable of giving stunning images in old style. Not the sharpest and finest-grained images, but still an available real old-kind film. That's the confectioning that suffers sometimes, not the pictorial properties of the films. I just hope that the manufacturers would pay more attention to film packing - after all, their film is not dirt cheap compared to, say, Ilford (about 1/2 price here), and the shoot is usually much more important than a roll of film.

I.m reminded of my days giving private lessons to beginners on the oboe. The instruments the school systems had for beginners could not be played by a professional. How can anyone be educated on defective film?

 

[Bob F.]

A question: does this cause a problem with obtaining 12 shots on a 6x6cm camera, or is it only a problem if you try to squeeze 13 shots out of the roll?

Cheers, Bob.

 

[ricksplace]

I have not lost a frame on a roll of this film yet. The roll that raised my concern was shot in my Rolleiflex T. Unlike the Automat, the Rolleiflex T uses the start line as a reference to load the film. The last frame was right at the end of the film, with maybe 1/16" left. This Rollei usually spaces the 12 frames right in the centre of the strip, with an equal amount of blank film at the start and the end. Since I had just received the Rollei back from a full-through cla, my first thought was that the film transport was faulty. The cla was done by a reputable company, so I checked the film before contacting the company (Kominek). The cla was very well done.

Incidentally, I have used this film (once) in my Pentacon Six tl and everything worked fine. 13 frames on the strip.

I need to reiterate -I think it is great film and I will continue to use it. There have been some posts lately about some problems that sounded similar, so I thought I would post my findings. As Zhenya said, this problem sometimes occurs with european films. IMHO, we should count ourselves fortunate that these films are available, and enjoy them while we can.

 

[Changeling1]

Sending the wrong message!

"I need to reiterate -I think it is great film and I will continue to use it. There have been some posts lately about some problems that sounded similar, so I thought I would post my findings. As Zhenya said, this problem sometimes occurs with european films. IMHO, we should count ourselves fortunate that these films are available, and enjoy them while we can."

Ricksplace-
Accepting 2nd rate film or paper from any company just because they are nice enough to make film and/or paper is a mistake. This will simply tell whatever company who's slacking in the QC department that they can get away with it. IMHO, if a company can't make perfect film or paper they should either correct the problem(s) immediately or get out of the business.

Personally, I'll stick with the winners for the time being- Fuji, Ilford, Kodak,
and Bergger as I want to reward with my business those companies who have provided excellent products over a great expanse of time.

Let's not allow the current panic sweeping through the analog photography world be an excuse to accept less than first quality films and paper. Nothing will kill off analog photography faster than the lack of first rate materials to work with.

 

[Gibran]

I have to agree with Ricksplace on one point here. This film, Foma or EDU.ULTRA 100, is a very good film. Better than both Plus X and FP4plus in my opinion as far as tonal and grain charecteristics, at least in my recent testing when developed in Rodinal 1:64. It's not a simple matter to just shoot Kodak or Ilford if your looking for a certain look. That said, I will not use it again until this issue is fixed. It seems to be confined to the 100 EDU.ULTRA as I have shot a lot of the EDU.ULTRA 200 that does not have this starting arrow problem(though it is still shorter than other major films). When shooting with 6x9, there is a real risk of loosing that last frame with it either going off the end OR being damaged in handling.

 

[ricksplace]

IMHO, if a company can't make perfect film or paper they should either correct the problem(s) immediately or get out of the business.

I think this is a little harsh.
If this were true, none of us would be driving!

 

[lloydlim]

I guess this is where the use of a Russian Iskra makes sense. It has a winding system that senses the actual start of the film and disregards the markings on the paper.

Using Arista.EDU Ultra on my Pentax 67 shows the same problem sometimes, so I've gotten into the habit of taking only 8 shots on the 67m disregarding the first and last frames. Given the cost of this film, losing 2 frames out of 10 is acceptable to me.

 

[eumenius]

Well, that's your opinion - if it's safer for you to stick to major manufacturers, just do it. If you don't need any extra options available with those cheap European substandart films, Ilford or Fuji would be a good choice for you. I would still use Forte and Foma because I like the result I obtain with these films, but that doesn't imply that their QC department shouldn't straighten up.

Zhenya

Ricksplace-
Accepting 2nd rate film or paper from any company just because they are nice enough to make film and/or paper is a mistake. This will simply tell whatever company who's slacking in the QC department that they can get away with it. IMHO, if a company can't make perfect film or paper they should either correct the problem(s) immediately or get out of the business.

Personally, I'll stick with the winners for the time being- Fuji, Ilford, Kodak,
and Bergger as I want to reward with my business those companies who have provided excellent products over a great expanse of time.

Let's not allow the current panic sweeping through the analog photography world be an excuse to accept less than first quality films and paper. Nothing will kill off analog photography faster than the lack of first rate materials to work with.

 

[Max Power]

Ricksplace-
Accepting 2nd rate film or paper from any company just because they are nice enough to make film and/or paper is a mistake. This will simply tell whatever company who's slacking in the QC department that they can get away with it. IMHO, if a company can't make perfect film or paper they should either correct the problem(s) immediately or get out of the business.

Personally, I'll stick with the winners for the time being- Fuji, Ilford, Kodak,
and Bergger as I want to reward with my business those companies who have provided excellent products over a great expanse of time.

Let's not allow the current panic sweeping through the analog photography world be an excuse to accept less than first quality films and paper. Nothing will kill off analog photography faster than the lack of first rate materials to work with.

FWIW, in my own case, this is not the situation. Truth of the matter is that I bought some on a lark to see what it was like. I wasn't getting what I wanted out of either APX 100 or FP4+. My first results are in, and according to my preferences for grain, contrast, tonailty etc, Fomapan 100 wins hands down.

Are there QC problems? Maybe; I haven't run into any myself, but will be on the lookout. That said, at $1.20USD a roll, and with the stunning results I get from it, I'm willing to sacrifice one frame on a 15 frame roll.

It's not panic, it's not misplaced gratefulness; I'm willing to put up with the problem for a film that gives me what I like.

Just my $0.02

Kent

 

[stevew4567]

I woke up very early this morning to catch some 'good' light, drove 20 miles to capture a scene I'd scoped out earlier, and began shooting. Halfway through the roll of arista.edu ultra 200 (120 size), I noticed that the film was getting tighter while advancing. I finished the roll closer to home, and by this time knew that the film wasn't advancing correctly. Sure enough, I had a fanfolded roll when I opened the back. I shot two previous rolls without issues, and was pleased with the results, but never again.

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

I've had some issues with the foma 400 in my pentax 645. I'll have to manually advance the film using the emergency thumbwheel and open the camera/insert in a darkened room just to be sure that it's completely rewound.

On my last roll I noticed salt and pepper like specks seemingly in the emulsion. I was pretty disappointed, having been spoiled by Kodak quality control I guess. On some rolls, the film index intrudes into the image area. I still can't get used to the film base color. Wouldn't it interfere with VC papers?

All in all, I love the price and I like the film. Sorry for the blabbering OT post, i've just been going through the same experience.

 

[nworth]

I've often wondered why my Pentax 645 only gave 15 frames per roll instead of the expected 16. With Kodak and Ilford film, there is always enough extra film for another frame and then some. Now I know. Not all manufacturers are so generous.

 

[Max Power]

I've often wondered why my Pentax 645 only gave 15 frames per roll instead of the expected 16. With Kodak and Ilford film, there is always enough extra film for another frame and then some. Now I know. Not all manufacturers are so generous.

I wonder if it's a case of inconsistent film length or is it a question of the camera? The reason I ask is because on my Mamiya 645, with Fomapan 100, I can get a 16th frame in.

Just wondering aloud,
Kent

 

[nworth]

I wonder if it's a case of inconsistent film length or is it a question of the camera? The reason I ask is because on my Mamiya 645, with Fomapan 100, I can get a 16th frame in.

Just wondering aloud,
Kent

I suspect both.

 

[Max Power]

Sure enough, I had a fanfolded roll when I opened the back.

Just for my own education, what is a 'fanfolded roll'?

Thanks,
Kent

 

[vetal-vetal]

Foma in Pentax 645

On one of Russian Pentax forums I found that Foma uses conductive paper back. Somebody couldn't figure why it wouldn't advance in 645, and finally measured it with voltmeter. All of the major manufacturers use non-conductive paper backing for their films. I am very disappointed with this finding since I enjoy Foma's tonality a great deal. Maybe there's a way around it? I'm not sure.

 

[Arelia99]

Ditto Max's question, What's fanfolding?

Just wondering!

Nancy

 

[3Dfan]

I think he means folded back and forth like on a paper fan or a bellows. It happens sometimes when paper gets bunched up in mechanical parts.

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

Sorry for replying to an older post but...

I use the Foma 100 and 400 in my Pentax 645. I do have problems with the 400 in the Pentax 645. Mainly at the end of the roll, the frame counter will keep increasing and it will not rewind. I have to put the camera in a changing bag to rewind it by hand.

The 400 sometimes doesn't load, but the 100 loads every time. Both have issues with rewinding at the end of the roll. I've _never_ had this problem with any other film. I do like the 100..