Foma 200 - a 'Creative' lament

[Dusty Negative]

Foma 200 -

Your grain was so lovely
Your visage - so soft
Your tones were so subtle
Yet, now you are lost

Alas, all was but facade
Your emulsion - too weak
You are nothing but scratches
One can see in the cheek

 

[Dusty Negative]

I have ten boxes of yours
Sitting idle on a table
And one thing is for sure -
I'll sell them, if I'm able.

 

[Jonno85uk]

Just bought 2 rolls of 120. 1st roll results are already on this site and were awful. Seeing if it likes my TLR better.

 

[Paul Howell]

I shoot a lot of Forma, from 35mm to 6X6, 6X9, and 4X5 with electronic shutters and matrix metering, at box speed, Kowa and Mamiya at 125 with Gossan or Weston meter, developed in a wide rage of developers, D76, Clayton F76+ MCM 100, Edwal 12, Edwal 20, Rodinal, good contrast no issues with scratches. Working print scanned, Foma 200, Clayton F76+ 1:9 9 1/2 printed on Ultrafine Elite, VC G, 2.5. Need to work on contrast, maybe print grade 3, lighten up, and the dust, shame on me. Should have shot with light yellow or green filter. But, none if the issue you seem to have. Over the years I might have been just lucky.

 

[distributed]

@Dusty Negative What a nice way to tell a rant! Considering your name, are the scratches the result of dust on the negative?

Jokes aside, I have observed the same kind of defect with Fomapan 200 in 120 on two different rolls. To rule out my beat up Ikonta as a source of the scratches, I will run one roll through my Rolleiflex. I have also tried one roll of the film in 135. That one seems to be free of issues. Considering other examples of similar scratches on this forum I'd guess they're a pretty systematic problem with the product, at least in 120. It's a shame as otherwise it seems to be a decent film stock.

Is your example shot on 120 film?

 

[FotoD]

I'd guess they're a pretty systematic problem with the product,

Silly me, I thought the problem was whatever caused the scratches?

 

[Dusty Negative]

@Dusty Negative What a nice way to tell a rant! Considering your name, are the scratches the result of dust on the negative?

Jokes aside, I have observed the same kind of defect with Fomapan 200 in 120 on two different rolls. To rule out my beat up Ikonta as a source of the scratches, I will run one roll through my Rolleiflex. I have also tried one roll of the film in 135. That one seems to be free of issues. Considering other examples of similar scratches on this forum I'd guess they're a pretty systematic problem with the product, at least in 120. It's a shame as otherwise it seems to be a decent film stock.

Is your example shot on 120 film?

Yep. 120. :-(

 

[Dusty Negative]

…But, none if the issue you seem to have. Over the years I might have been just lucky.

I’ve searched this and other Forums on the topic, and do see that some folks just seem to have more bad luck than others. It also seems to be the case that Foma 200 *only* has this problem in 120. And, since I rarely shoot 35, and have never shot LF, I’m likely to continue to see this issue.

 

[Don_ih]

Is there resistance on the unexposed side in your camera? Looks like the backing paper may have scraped the emulsion as the film was wound.

 

[Paul Howell]

Too bad Ultrafine eXtreme is out of stock, I shot a lot of it, started with Foma 200, then used Ultrafine eXreme for 35 and 120 for a while, other than lacking an anti-halation backing the grain is good, contrast if fair. nice film. Quality control is excellent, some reports of issues with backing on 120, seemed to be fixed right away. I returned to Foma for my day to day film, living in the desert southwest the lack of an anti-halation backing can be problematic. For travel I use Tmax 400.

 

[Maris]

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.

 

[Dusty Negative]

Those are the most amazing scratches ever.

The ones below the model’s mouth (camera right) look like the Harry Potter scar.

 

[Dusty Negative]

Is there resistance on the unexposed side in your camera? Looks like the backing paper may have scraped the emulsion as the film was wound.

Do you mean like a wrapper offset problem? Wouldn’t that leave traces that were white (in the positive)?

 

[Ernst-Jan]

Just bought 2 rolls of 120. 1st roll results are already on this site and were awful. Seeing if it likes my TLR better.

Foma 200 gave a lot issues when I shot it in my M645, but works fine in my C330. I would give it a try in a TLR.
I guess it's also going to work fine in my Fujica GW690 and gives probles in my RB67.

Foma 200 is a nice film but the emulsion is just too soft. It is a known problem at Foma.

 

[AgX]

This Foma rollfilm scratching is a long time issue:
see here (2010):
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...of-small-scratches-looking-for-culprit.56515/


I myself back then talked to Foma about this, but they refused any outside input.

 

[FotoD]

It's hard to imagine a camera defect or operator error that could achieve this.

Not really. It looks very similar to what you get if the supply spool is jammed, and/or the camera doesn't have smooth, working rollers. Or maybe the end of the roll was scraping the rest of the film when winding onto a film reel.

Sloppy technique and damaged equipment may pass under the radar with some of the more hardened films. But we don't know what camera was used here, if the film path was clean and smooth, if it's got rollers in good shape, what side of the film was scratched, how it was developed, if it was squeegeed, what part of the roll was affected, and so on. Only that the OP is blaming fomapan 200.

 

[AgX]

Easy ways to verify:
-) use same type of film in several rollfilm cameras
-) process the questionable film unexposed without running it through a camera

 

[Klaus_H]

Sloppy technique and damaged equipment may pass under the radar with some of the more hardened films.

It's not the camera it's the film ...
I had two bricks of FOMA 200. I only used 8 films and disposed the rest. All films had been exposed in a Rolleiflex 3.5 F. Five films did not show the scratches, but 3 films did.
The scrached films had been the 2nd, the 5th and the 8th in sequence.
It's not the camera it's the film ...

 

[FotoD]

All films hab been exposed in a Rolleiflex 3.5. Five films did not show the scratches, but 3 films did.
The screched films had been the 2nd, the 5th and the 8th in sequence.
t's not the camera it's the film ...

Well, sometimes there are manufacturing defects with film. But it's hard to rule out everything else if only one camera has been used and the films were processed the same way.

I have observed the same kind of defect with Fomapan 200 in 120 on two different rolls. To rule out my beat up Ikonta as a source of the scratches, I will run one roll through my Rolleiflex.

Sounds like a good idea.

 

[Don_ih]

Do you mean like a wrapper offset problem? Wouldn’t that leave traces that were white (in the positive)?

I mean what @FotoD above also mentioned. If there is too much resistance against advancing, the take-up roll may tighten itself as you turn it, rubbing backing paper against the emulsion (which is soft). Of, if you use a 220 back, there may be too much pressure on the film at the plane and it could get distressed advancing. Just things to investigate.

I've had scratches on Foma film but they've all been my fault. People do get film with defects, though. It's just as likely those scratches were on the film when you loaded it as the camera causing it. And I can't see any way to cause that while developing (although, the end of the film scratching as loading onto a reel seems possible).

What they really remind me of is a defect I get on the last frame of my bulk rolled films sometimes. Adhesive from the numerous times masking tape has been attached to the spool sometimes gets on the emulsion and ends up looking like that. The scratches would need to be on your first shot for that to be a possibility.

 

[AgX]

Do you mean like a wrapper offset problem?

That offset artefact is a chemical interaction. This Foma artefact is not.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Be careful how strong you make your stop bath.

 

[radiant]

i bought pack, ten rolls
never liked the look of it
maybe it is me

 

[Dusty Negative]

Be careful how strong you make your stop bath.

I only use water with film. (Indicator bath with prints, though.)

 

[Dusty Negative]

i bought pack, ten rolls
never liked the look of it
maybe it is me

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.