Foma 200 - a 'Creative' lament

[distributed]

I do shoot a fair amount of 120, and I've always wondered-- for those with changing bags, how do you keep the bags from beating up the emulsion as you load the film onto a reel?

I hold the reel in the air with both hands, thumbs near the feeding lips (is this the right word?) of my Paterson spool while ratcheting. The spool is dangling from the already wound film, maybe the backing paper is touching the bottom of the bag. Whenever I feel the flanges of the spool with the sides of the lower part of my thumbs, it's time to pull down spool a bit. With the index finger of one hand I make sure the backing paper goes back and down, not coming near the spools. This way, the film is always protected by backing paper, in the air or on the reel, with air around it. Note the emulsion side is towards the inside of the spool.

 

[Jonno85uk]

for those with changing bags, how do you keep the bags from beating up the emulsion as you load the film onto a reel?

I don't separate the backing paper from the film before spooling. It gradually gets separated whilst the film is spooled on. Emulsion never touches the bag.

 

[gone]

I've been shooting Foma 100, 200 and 400 films lately in 35mm size. The 100 I know from years past as relabeled Arista EDU 100. Never had a problem w/ it or the other two films. The emulsions seem to be a little fragile, but again, I've shot dozens of rolls of the 100 w/o any issues. The 200 apparently needs to be developed or shot differently, but I need to do more testing w/ it.

 

[Dusty Negative]

On the sample picture, the film is wound horizontally and it is moving right to left. In other words, the thicker end of the defects are towards the loose end of the film.

So, this is an interesting line of analysis. I just developed a roll of The Film in Question which I shot with my Pentax 6x7. The original Lament was written following a particularly scratched-up roll I shot on a Mamiya RB67. Unfortunately, the roll from the Pentax also shows similar scratches. I’ll scan a frame and upload it here soon.

So - it’s not the camera.

But - could it still be the user, to wit, moi? One thing I have begun questioning is my winding inside a dark bag. I noted this time that I wind with the film resting on the bottom (per gravity) of the bag. *Could the winding and concomitant friction against the bag itself be the cause of these scratches?* I’m still skeptical — wouldn’t the side experiencing friction against the bag be the NON-emulsion side, i.e. the side facing OUTWARD on the reel?

 

[Dusty Negative]

I hold the reel in the air with both hands, thumbs near the feeding lips (is this the right word?) of my Paterson spool while ratcheting. The spool is dangling from the already wound film, maybe the backing paper is touching the bottom of the bag. Whenever I feel the flanges of the spool with the sides of the lower part of my thumbs, it's time to pull down spool a bit. With the index finger of one hand I make sure the backing paper goes back and down, not coming near the spools. This way, the film is always protected by backing paper, in the air or on the reel, with air around it. Note the emulsion side is towards the inside of the spool.

I somehow missed this post, and did not reference it in my post immediately supra, but this is exactly what I am now questioning. Perhaps the film is dragging against the changing bag. But, again, wouldn’t it be the NON emulsion side doing the dragging and potential scratching?

 

[Klaus_H]

I think the scratches are "produced" while manufactoring the 120 roll. If the film is not rolled up tightly and is "re-stretched" at the end of rolling, these scratches are caused by the backing paper. Years ago I was able to reproduce this error with Rollei Superpan films, which are also packaged at FOMA.

It's not the camera, it's the film ...​

 

[richyd]

From Foma last summer.

"From our side we have to inform that the unfavourable marks are caused by interaction of metal mechanics of the camera with our more sensitive emulsion layer of FOMAPAN 200. We recommend to our clients to use another camera/s and polish thoroughly the metal parts of the camera which are in direct contact with the film to reduce partially these defects."

 

[gone]

From Foma last summer.

"From our side we have to inform that the unfavourable marks are caused by interaction of metal mechanics of the camera with our more sensitive emulsion layer of FOMAPAN 200. We recommend to our clients to use another camera/s and polish thoroughly the metal parts of the camera which are in direct contact with the film to reduce partially these defects."

There it is. The only thing to do is try that and see what happens, or go w/ Drew's 100% solution, one which I decided to do w/ Kodak. There's other photography products out there. 35mm is all I'm currently using, but if I decided to pick up a folder or TLR I wouldn't use the 200 from what I'm reading here. At least Foma responded w/ their idea of the problem.

Things didn't go this way when I called the US distributor of Ultrafine films some years ago to complain about frame numbers on my 120 negatives. The gal who answered the phone was nice and said "Oh, let me get (insert name here that I forgot)". The Big Kahuna came to the phone, listened to my problems, then said "Excuse me" and left, never to be heard from again! I waited 20 minutes before hanging up and deciding this was a Mickey Mouse operation that I could live without.

Shazam, end of problem. Life is short, enjoy it.

 

[Dusty Negative]

From Foma last summer.

"From our side we have to inform that the unfavourable marks are caused by interaction of metal mechanics of the camera with our more sensitive emulsion layer of FOMAPAN 200. We recommend to our clients to use another camera/s and polish thoroughly the metal parts of the camera which are in direct contact with the film to reduce partially these defects."

Interesting that I’m seeing the same marks after using the film in both a Mamiya RB67 and a Pentax 6x7, which have entirely different spooling mechanisms. I’m still fixin’ to do a very slow and careful rolling in the changing bag to (try to) rule that out.

If that effects no change, I’ll take Momus’ advice and just move on. I will do so with a puckered face and with some choice epithets, as I really do like this film.

 

[FotoD]

For instance in this voluminous thread, the issue was had with a range of cameras and kinds of processing: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...of-small-scratches-looking-for-culprit.56515/.

This is how Foma responded 11 years ago, in the thread that was quoted earlier:

"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)."

And this is what the guy having the problems said:

"I am reluctant to jump to conclusions, but it seems like the scratches are caused by a certain mechanical action on the film such as it occurs inside a camera.
[...]
I sent 6 of my scratched Foma 100-120 negatives to Silverprint [...] and Shane has taken a look at my negatives. I phoned him afterwards. He believes that the problem comes into existence in-camera, which is the consensus in this thread as well I believe."

Hope you find the problem!

 

[gone]

So I'm not really in this particular discussion-- I shoot Foma 400, but only in sheet film. I do shoot a fair amount of 120, and I've always wondered-- for those with changing bags, how do you keep the bags from beating up the emulsion as you load the film onto a reel? The marks that are being shown, if they're in the direction the film was wound on the reel, look like drag marks.

This is one reason I got a tent. And why I'm considering building a changing box that isn't quite as awkward to use as the PhotoFlex tent.

My solution was to tape up the one window in the bathroom. Then take the tank and film and set it on a small tray w/ legs. Also grab a blanket and folding chair. Shut the door, hang the blanket over it on 2 screws set into the top of the door frame, and it's dark as heck in there. Wow, this is so much nicer than a change bag or tent.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

Not ignoring the potential for this to be an in camera issue, but much as I like this film, if I had to load reels in a changing bag I'd probably choose something with a more robust emulsion.

 

[AgX]

From Foma last summer.

"From our side we have to inform that the unfavourable marks are caused by interaction of metal mechanics of the camera with our more sensitive emulsion layer of FOMAPAN 200. We recommend to our clients to use another camera/s and polish thoroughly the metal parts of the camera which are in direct contact with the film to reduce partially these defects."

How can one roller, let alone different ones from sevaral models of cameras all produce the same uniform artefact?

In such case all rollers must have got the same, even surface roughness (as from turning) and corrosion cannot be of effect.

 

[PittP]

sevaral models of cameras all produce the same uniform artefact

It seems: The scratches are very short and not evenly distributed across the film (perpendicular to the transport direction), however quite contiguous across the length of the film. To be verified.
How smooth and clean is the backing paper on the outside = the side that touches the emulsion?
At least my 120-film cameras have one or two "springs" that keep the film on the feeding spool, and may tighten it a bit in the beginning. Are the lines of scratches along the areas where these "springs" may touch the film?
Foma 120 films don't seem to be consistently wound, some appear quite tight, sometimes they're fairly loose on the spool.
Speculation: The tight spools were particularly loosely wound, and then re-tightened by hand in the factory: In this process the backing paper can scratch the soft emulsion, and it would likely be most prominent in the first frames of the film, and where a hand has been holding the roll. May be? A similar action can occur in camera, when a fairly loosely would film is transported, notably in the twisted ways of a magazine, or the feeding spool has a bit of resistance (... to help keeping the film tight and flat)?, the above "springs" may add to this effect by pressing lightly on film and paper.
Thus I'm wondering if the scratches originate from the backing paper scratching over the emulsion side of the film, either in the factory, or in camera, or from manual tightening of the exposed spool.
I would rule out such defects from handling in a changing bag.

 

[AgX]

I already rejected the rollers as cause 11 years ago.

 

[AgX]

It seems: The scratches are very short and not evenly distributed across the film (perpendicular to the transport direction), however quite contiguous across the length of the film. To be verified.

Thus I'm wondering if the scratches originate from the backing paper scratching over the emulsion side of the film, either in the factory, or in camera, or from manual tightening of the exposed spool.

You are contradictng yourself here. Scratches perpendicular to the film transport direction can neither be caused by the rollers, nor by tightening the film on its spool...