I looked my old scans (phthyi!) of Kentmere 400 and sure that is grainy. More grainier than Foma 200 for sure!
That’s the problem. I really like the look of the film. Grain!! If Kentmere made a 120 film I would try that, but alas.
Those are the most amazing scratches ever. If you look really closely at the actual shape and size of the scratches they are all the same; replicas of each other. It's hard to imagine a camera defect or operator error that could achieve this.
It looks like a problem in the confectioning and packaging of this film.
It's not the camera it's the film ...
I think it is probably a combination of both. This film is very susceptible to pressure marks and scratches, but in my experiences marks like that aren't already on the film when you get it.
Those are the most amazing scratches ever. If you look really closely at the actual shape and size of the scratches they are all the same; replicas of each other. It's hard to imagine a camera defect or operator error that could achieve this.
It looks like a problem in the confectioning and packaging of this film.
Shown is a photo of an enlargement of roughly the top quarter of a 6x4.5 negative.
If this is actually something that has been observed by many users over a long period of time, and if gross user mishandling can be ruled out, then I would simply avoid these films.
These are my freshest "scratches" on Foma 200 to date. Shown is a photo of an enlargement of roughly the top quarter of a 6x4.5 negative. I, too, would be interested to learn what I would need to change in my processing of Foma films to avoid the phenomenon
It's quite interesting that there are 10 year old threads here that describe what looks to me to be the same problem. Allegedly Foma were working on the issue. Yet here we are, 10 years later, with the same issue and none the wiser as to how to avoid it with Foma films.
View attachment 277424
I would simply avoid these films. I doubt there is anything they do which a conventional Ilford film can’t.
This is still a picture taken with the beat up Ikonta. The other roll has 2 more exposures until full, so we're only speaking weeks until I will have a negative
Btw, a fair number of users here mention the straight line curve of Fomapan 200. I understand what that means sensitometrically, but not image-wise. What would be examples of visible differences between a straight line film and say e.g. FP4+? In what cases would it be advantageous to choose a straight line film?
Ok, but if you end up with garbage, unprintable negatives you're probably better off spending zero.
What is the orientation of the winding direction in the camera relative to the picture? I.e., does the camera wind vertically or horizontally?
What I mean is that although you save money buying Foma vs Ilford, Foma isn't really an option if the negatives are ruined.
People tend to see what they want to see, or what someone else told them to see etc.
or that all foma film is crap as soon as someone with a beat up folder gets some scratches, that is getting a bit tiresome.
What is getting tiresome to me is that speaking about defects gets me labeled as a Foma hater and evidence is discarded as being from that one isolated case where someone obviously messed up.
I’ll say again, if these artifacts are not the result of unreasonably careless user handling, it is not a film worth using.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?