Foma 400 is now my go to film

[jaeae]

Foma films in 135 format are fun until you make 30x40cm (11" x 15") size enlargements and find out how scratched the negatives really are. No other film has this level scratching problems..

I too have had a lot of scratch problems with the 400. Last three rolls all had a long scratch/serpentine line going almost all the film length along the emulsion side. All were shot on different cameras. Last time I developed it I made sure the film did not touch anything while loading to dev reel etc, still it had such line. Interestingly, I tried re-washing the negatives carefully between my fingers and managed to rub the scratch/line away from 90% of the frames

 

[radiant]

I have not seen this issue - and my favorite printing paper is 30x40cm. Are you using Fomapan from 17m/30m rolls?

Yes. I've had the scratches on pre-rolled films and on sheet films too. Actually not that much on 120 if I recall!

99% of scratching issues on films are end user handling error - which is one of the reasons Ilford etc have gone to much stronger hardening for their BW materials.

Of course those are user caused scratches. But somehow other films doesn't have scratches at all. Makes me wonder. I'm very careful with films, no squeegee, no any kind of touching on wet emulsion etc. I know I have caused the scratches (or many of my cameras) but still .. it is just ridicilous.

When making 30x40 enlargements the scratches dont need to be even big ones. Just those "hair" scratches which you can see only by examining carefully.

I have made 20/16 exhibition prints from Fomapan 200 and 400, not recently, and no scratches or other problems, this from 35mm negatives,

Good for you.

 

[Mesabound]

I also like Fomapan quite a bit. Here is 100 at 5x7 in Pyrocat HD

 

[Lachlan Young]

Yes. I've had the scratches on pre-rolled films and on sheet films too. Actually not that much on 120 if I recall!
Of course those are user caused scratches. But somehow other films doesn't have scratches at all. Makes me wonder. I'm very careful with films, no squeegee, no any kind of touching on wet emulsion etc. I know I have caused the scratches (or many of my cameras) but still .. it is just ridicilous.
When making 30x40 enlargements the scratches dont need to be even big ones. Just those "hair" scratches which you can see only by examining carefully.

What you're describing is not dissimilar to what you'll often see on even well processed professional films from the 1950s/ 60s from Kodak, Ilford etc when subjected to high quality scanning - I think the problem is that different people have very variable qualitative definitions - and what someone who grew up with a generation of films susceptible to marking might regard as acceptable may be rather different from those of us who started with the current highly hardened films from Ilford etc. People tended to have less compunction about spotting & knifing the paper emulsion in that era to clean up these problems - it's also interesting to compare how much these marks can show up on scanning (even with fairly diffuse sources) & be rather more suppressed at moderate darkroom print sizes with a diffusion enlarger. I think some of it may also have to do with the what & how of film handling at the packaging stages too - and how dust/ microscopic waste is kept away from the film surface at the cutting steps.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I've been using the Foma 200 (as sold by Freestyle under the Arista.EDU Ultra label) in large format. Of course, in 5x7 or bigger, grain is a non-issue. I process the Fomapan 200 in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100, 8 minutes at 75F (23.8C) and expose it at ISO 100. All of the Fomapan films are borderline orthochromatic - they're marginally sensitive in the red portion of the spectrum, so throwing a red filter on them will seriously affect your exposure compensation. Foma makes(made?) a T-grain 200 speed film but it had a distinct name - I think it was T200 Creative or somesuch. From what I've seen of the 400, if you like grain, you'll love it. If you don't like grain, you'll hate it.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I've been using the Foma 200 (as sold by Freestyle under the Arista.EDU Ultra label) in large format. Of course, in 5x7 or bigger, grain is a non-issue. I process the Fomapan 200 in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100, 8 minutes at 75F (23.8C) and expose it at ISO 100. All of the Fomapan films are borderline orthochromatic - they're marginally sensitive in the red portion of the spectrum, so throwing a red filter on them will seriously affect your exposure compensation. Foma makes(made?) a T-grain 200 speed film but it had a distinct name - I think it was T200 Creative or somesuch. From what I've seen of the 400, if you like grain, you'll love it. If you don't like grain, you'll hate it.

T200 and Fomapan 200 are one & the same.

 

[pentaxuser]

I too have had a lot of scratch problems with the 400. Last three rolls all had a long scratch/serpentine line going almost all the film length along the emulsion side. All were shot on different cameras. Last time I developed it I made sure the film did not touch anything while loading to dev reel etc, still it had such line. Interestingly, I tried re-washing the negatives carefully between my fingers and managed to rub the scratch/line away from 90% of the frames

When you washed the film between your fingers, was this a plain water wash? If so, then can you say how 90% of the scratch lines were rubbed away? I had always thought that a scratch line is in fact a gouge in the emulsion which can be filled( nose grease is often quoted as the best filler) but was not one that could simply be rubbed away by fingers and plain water?

To rub away a scratch/gouge don't you have to be able to rub enough of the higher surface either side of the scratch to bring it level with the scratc? Can fingers do this and if they can, then can it be done without affecting the undamaged emulsion such that a genuine repair takes place?

To everyone else who has experienced scratches on Foma, what has been your experience of being able to rub away scratches by this kind of method?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[cjbecker]

I have some foma 200 4x5 drying right now that have scratches all over them. Once they dry I will test with some nose grease. Printed small 5x7 the scratched don't really show up under a diffusion enlarger but printed at 11x14, the scratches are very bad. Bad enough, I might just go back to hp5. I have never got scratches like this with hp5.

 

[Paul Howell]

I've shot Foma on and on for what, 25 or so years, an occasional scratches on a few sheets of 4X5, likely my own doing putting into steel hangers for developing, never an issue with 120 or 35mm. Only reason I stopped using Foma was I hated the blue base of their old 120, and the curl, printed fine, but I had trouble judging contrast once developed fixed and dried. What I like about Foma is that I can get Foma 200 in all formates from 35mm to 4X5, only negative is no DX coding.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

T200 and Fomapan 200 are one & the same.

they had two different films - one a semi-T-Grain film, one a traditional grain film. Fomapan 200/Arista.EDU Ultra 200 are the non-T-grain film.

 

[Helge]

they had two different films - one a semi-T-Grain film, one a traditional grain film. Fomapan 200/Arista.EDU Ultra 200 are the non-T-grain film.

From the Foma site:

“It is the film of new generation, making full use of outstanding properties of hexagonal core/shell tabular silver halide grains.”
​

https://www.foma.cz/en/catalogue-fomapan-200-creative-detail-271

Might be outdated though.
The site is only slightly above average for smaller manufacturers. That’s to say pretty terrible. Full of spelling and typing errors and bad graphical design.

Also: https://www.flickr.com/groups/foma/discuss/72157600068522209/

 

[removedacct3]

What you're describing is not dissimilar to what you'll often see on even well processed professional films from the 1950s/ 60s from Kodak, Ilford etc when subjected to high quality scanning - I think the problem is that different people have very variable qualitative definitions - and what someone who grew up with a generation of films susceptible to marking might regard as acceptable may be rather different from those of us who started with the current highly hardened films from Ilford etc. ... .

That is an interesting point. Always considered emulsion hardness as a given and not as an area where improvements could be made.

 

[Lachlan Young]

From the Foma site:

“It is the film of new generation, making full use of outstanding properties of hexagonal core/shell tabular silver halide grains.”
​

​

It hasn't changed over the years in fundamental structure - it's still a high aspect ratio grain structure made by controlled crystal growth methods - indeed Foma's own edge marking template seems to still sometimes call it T200. Removal of the 'T' from the name seems to have been a marketing choice after some other companies weren't terribly happy about it seemingly calling itself 'T-grain' to customers in a hurry.

 

[Helge]

​

It hasn't changed over the years in fundamental structure - it's still a high aspect ratio grain structure made by controlled crystal growth methods - indeed Foma's own edge marking template seems to still sometimes call it T200. Removal of the 'T' from the name seems to have been a marketing choice after some other companies weren't terribly happy about it seemingly calling itself 'T-grain' to customers in a hurry.

Same with Ilfords Delta, which is really flattish triangular grain with epitaxial crystals on the vertices.
Both distinct enough from Kodak’s T grain to not trigger lawsuits?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Same with Ilfords Delta, which is really flattish triangular grain with epitaxial crystals on the vertices.
Both distinct enough from Kodak’s T grain to not trigger lawsuits?

Ilford seem to have patented the key parts of Delta crystal growth technique in the 1970's (by the looks of it at around the time HP5 was launched). There may also have been more technology sharing at one time or another between non-Kodak companies than we realise - I recall seeing electron micrographs of Agfa high aspect ratio grain structures that looked remarkably Delta-like - and Fuji and Ilford are the only two that have enacted epitaxial structures on their films for non-industrial/ medical use

 

[cjbecker]

Here are the scratches I'm dealing with foma 200 4x5. I am in no way assuming these are coming like this, I think it something I'm doing, but have never had any scratches with hp5, fp4 for tri-x. I have always tray developed using the shuffle method. The scratches seam too always be closer to an edge.

 

[FotoD]

Fomapan 200/Arista.EDU Ultra 200 are the non-T-grain film.

Do you have a source for that claim?

This is what Foma say themselves:
"FOMAPAN 200 Creative
is panchromatically sensitized, black and white negative film of the speed ISO 200/24°. It is the film of new generation, making full se of outstanding properties of hexagonal core/shell tabular silver halide grains."

Others have shown that "making full se of outstanding properties of hexagonal core/shell tabular silver halide grains" does not mean that all the grains are tabular, but rather a mix of tabular and traditional grain.

 

[takilmaboxer]

I've been using the Foma 200 (as sold by Freestyle under the Arista.EDU Ultra label) in large format. Of course, in 5x7 or bigger, grain is a non-issue. I process the Fomapan 200 in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100, 8 minutes at 75F (23.8C) and expose it at ISO 100. All of the Fomapan films are borderline orthochromatic - they're marginally sensitive in the red portion of the spectrum, so throwing a red filter on them will seriously affect your exposure compensation. Foma makes(made?) a T-grain 200 speed film but it had a distinct name - I think it was T200 Creative or somesuch. From what I've seen of the 400, if you like grain, you'll love it. If you don't like grain, you'll hate it.

Borderline orthochromatic? Foma's published data do not support this assertion at all. 100, 200 and 400 drop off between 650-700 nm, same as other panchromatic films. In fact the 200 sheet films and the 400 film go nearly to 700.
Personally I prefer the 100 speed, but I use it in larger formats, where grain is not an issue.

 

[jaeae]

When you washed the film between your fingers, was this a plain water wash? If so, then can you say how 90% of the scratch lines were rubbed away? I had always thought that a scratch line is in fact a gouge in the emulsion which can be filled( nose grease is often quoted as the best filler) but was not one that could simply be rubbed away by fingers and plain water?

To rub away a scratch/gouge don't you have to be able to rub enough of the higher surface either side of the scratch to bring it level with the scratc? Can fingers do this and if they can, then can it be done without affecting the undamaged emulsion such that a genuine repair takes place?
pentaxuser

Plain water wash yes under tap. Dry fingers (not much grease..). I don't know what really is happening there, but I know squeegee is not enough, but rubbing with fingers did "something"

Here's one that did NOT get better:



You can see the line going under the moon, through the frame. I have to get the negative and try to take photo of the emulsion side..

 

[R.Gould]

I have found over ythe years that with Foma 120 just a final rinse in wetting agent solution, shake the reel and just hang the film up to dry, with 35mm again a wetting agent final rinse, shake the reel, then hang the film up, take a sheet of kitchen towel, and wipe the back of the film only down with the pad of kitchen towel, but on no account touch the wet emulsion side with anything, it is very soft and will damage easily
Richard

 

[Lachlan Young]

does not mean that all the grains are tabular, but rather a mix of tabular and traditional grain.

Not really. It means that you can make/ grow highly controlled grain shapes of a particular crystal habit (3D, or high aspect ratio 'flat' crystals etc) - and then if you want/ need/ can grow further crystals of specific habit on to these (epitaxy). You can then blend emulsions to get specific characteristics. A mix of grain types in a single emulsion would be polydisperse, rather more like the simple Efke emulsions.

 

[foc]

I have found over ythe years that with Foma 120 just a final rinse in wetting agent solution, shake the reel and just hang the film up to dry, with 35mm again a wetting agent final rinse, shake the reel, then hang the film up, take a sheet of kitchen towel, and wipe the back of the film only down with the pad of kitchen towel, but on no account touch the wet emulsion side with anything, it is very soft and will damage easily
Richard

I squeegee all my films, have done so for the last 35 years. I never had any problems with any film.

Now before you get the pitchforks and torchlights, let me say there is a right and wrong way to squeegee any film.

In fact you can look at my Foma 400 samples in post # 63, there are no marks.

 

[unwantedfocus]

What prevented me from shooting FOMA in 120 yet, was images I saw where the backing paper frame numbers where shown on the film after development. I don't know if this was only a batch or occurs occasionally.

 

[Helge]

What prevented me from shooting FOMA in 120 yet, was images I saw where the backing paper frame numbers where shown on the film after development. I don't know if this was only a batch or occurs occasionally.

Only shot 120. No problems so far.

 

[FotoD]

I wouldn't worry about imprint from the backing paper any more than with the other makes of film. Foma is certainly not the company who had the most problems in that regard during the last several years.

In general 120 film is a little more sensitive to environmental conditions compared to 135 or sheets, since the paper is in contact with the film. Personally I've only had that problem with T-max, Tri-X and Ektar.