Foma is taking back defective 200-120 film

[sandermarijn]

The Dutch distributor of Foma, Dead Link Removed (Robert Vonk), sent me an email today stating that Fomapan 200 in 120-size with the following date/batch numbers are eligible for replacement: 099561 exp. date: 11/2013 and 099561 exp. date: 12/2013.

Foma admits scratch/crack-like problems with these batches in tight loading systems ("Hasselblad A12 and some TLR's").

I personally won't bother to return the few 200-120 films that I've shot or not-yet shot. I refuse to spend more time and money on an issue that should have been addressed long before. But perhaps I'm being harsh here.

I will be much more interested in Foma's view on the problems reported by some people (including myself) with Fomapan 100-120. Not a word about that in the email, unfortunately.

Sander

 

[sandermarijn]

I should add that, according to RoVo's email, the replacement version of Foma 200-120 has been improved in the following ways:
- a different (more transparent) polyester carrier,
- softer, more flexible backing paper for less friction with the emulsion,
- an improved, slightly harder emulsion.

I wonder if the same improvements will be/have been applied to other films (e.g. 100-120) in Foma's range as well.

 

[EASmithV]

I've always found Foma 200 to be beautiful in 8x10 sheet size... But that was before the emulsion disaster, haven't tried it since then as i had some stocked up.

 

[sandermarijn]

I wonder if the same improvements will be/have been applied to other films (e.g. 100-120) in Foma's range as well.

I've asked Robert; he doesn't know.

 

[pekelnik]

Good to know I'm not insane. 2 crops from 120 fomapan 200 in a A12 back:

First looks like cracks, this only happened at the end of the film, scratches on the second were only at the beginning of the film.
They look like scanner issues but they aren't, they are on the negative.

 

[Photocrack]

In a Dutch analogue photoforum some examples of the new Fomapan Creative 200 are posted. They seems to be free of any defects.

And you can receive the new Fomapan 200 120 roll films free of charge in the Netherlands. Not too bad this faulty filmexchange.

 

[sandermarijn]

Not too bad this faulty filmexchange.

True. I just sent back my used and unused Foma 200-120. Foma deserve some credit I guess for this offer-it'd be too easy of me to turn them down just like that.

 

[jelke]

i had the same cracks with the new fomapan 200 film in my hasselblad.. fotohuis rovo sent me in return new film (fuji across 100) this was the second time i had problems with fomafilm and in total i ruined more than fifteen films...and spend a lot of time, for me no foma anymore

 

[Trond]

i had the same cracks with the new fomapan 200 film in my hasselblad.. fotohuis rovo sent me in return new film (fuji across 100) this was the second time i had problems with fomafilm and in total i ruined more than fifteen films...and spend a lot of time, for me no foma anymore

Are you saying that you are having problems with the new production on a clear polyester base and softer backing paper?

Trond

 

[jelke]

Are you saying that you are having problems with the new production on a clear polyester base and softer backing paper?

Trond

yes..

 

[sandermarijn]

Robert Vonk says in this thread (5 April 2012, in Dutch) that his entire stock of Foma 200-120 will be replaced with new production. The new production Jelke is referring to is not the same new production that Robert is waiting for. Robert's new is newer .

The yet to arrive hyper-new Foma 200-120 may be improved, only time will tell.

Sorry about your wasted films Jelke, that really sucks. Good of Robert though that he replaced them with something better.

 

[sandermarijn]

The new-and-supposedly-improved Foma 200-120 arrived in the mail today. Credit to Robert and his Fotohuis RoVo for catering to Foma's and the customer's needs. Not an entirely thankful position to be in.

The new film is dated 1/2015, batch number 010656 4. Robert has written on the white wrapper "Foma 200 new". Nothing on the original packaging to indicate that something has changed, as far as I can tell. We'll have to go by the emulsion numbers.

I will submit it to what is usance for most films but a massive torture test for Fomafilm: a trip in the Hasselblad. Observations to follow soon.

 

[Trond]

Looking forward to the test results!

Trond

 

[dnjl]

I still have a few rolls of this horrible batch, but I won't bother with turning them in. I'd love to hear how the "new" emulsion performs, Fomapan in Rodinal is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

[sandermarijn]

Alas, the new (i.e. replacement) Foma 200-120 doesn't seem to work for me.

I shot two films @EI 120 in the Hasselblad, and developed them in Rodinal 1+50 for 9'. Although the frames look fine at small sizes, closer inpection reveals the following:
1. a shot noise like pattern of tiny black dots (i.e. clear spots on the negative),
2. dark lines (i.e. semi transparent on the negative) running along both sides of the frames, along the entire length of the film,
3. the occasional scratch (short straight lines, parallel to the length of the film).

An example of 1 and 2 (visible on all frames):

The entire frame looks sort of alright:


but a closer look of cow 8959.6 reveals 1 and 2:


Another frame shows scratching very similar to what could be seen in Foma 100-120:

Not all frames are scratched to this extent; the above shot is worst.

There may be workarounds for some or all of these issues: use demineralized/distilled water for the developer, don't pre-soak the film, don't use this film in Hasselblads and the likes (tight loading systems), etc etc. I will not attempt any of this.

Other, minor observations:
- The film is very short. Loading until the arrows on the insert and the film are aligned will make you lose part of the last frame. Workaround is to load the film until just before the arrows align, like this:


Then all frames will just (but only just) fit the film. It's a tight fit:


Foma had better call this 11-frame film, or, preferably, make the film a bit longer; just a few centimeters should do.

- The backing may feel less coarse than that of the 'old' (before the swap) 200-120. This is from the top of my head. I chucked all the old backing paper, therefore I cannot verify.

- The base is colourless (to my eyes) polyester, no blue tint.

 

[jelke]

now i finally know which film sally mann uses..foma film

 

[jelke]

this is my foma film

 

[sandermarijn]

this is my foma film

Never seen rain before Jelke? And you're surprised that some of it ended up on your precious film? Geezzz, some people will never learn.

 

[jelke]

Never seen rain before Jelke?

rain enough here in holland... but this was the first rain in my studio :confused:

 

[dr5chrome]

hmmm

This is sad to hear. We experienced the same issue with the FOMA-r stock http://dr5.com/blackandwhiteslide/fomar.html

We brought the attention of a poor product to both, distributor & manufacture, who only treated us as poorly as the product is. All we can do is keep our clients advised. Too bad they can not get this problem resolved.
As far as we know these defective products are being sold in the US, they have not been recalled.

regards - dr5

Alas, the new (i.e. replacement) Foma 200-120 doesn't seem to work for me.

I shot two films @EI 120 in the Hasselblad, and developed them in Rodinal 1+50 for 9'. Although the frames look fine at small sizes, closer inpection reveals the following:
1. a shot noise like pattern of tiny black dots (i.e. clear spots on the negative),
2. dark lines (i.e. semi transparent on the negative) running along both sides of the frames, along the entire length of the film,
3. the occasional scratch (short straight lines, parallel to the length of the film).

An example of 1 and 2 (visible on all frames):

The entire frame looks sort of alright:
View attachment 49691

but a closer look of cow 8959.6 reveals 1 and 2:
View attachment 49692

Another frame shows scratching very similar to what could be seen in Foma 100-120:
View attachment 49693
Not all frames are scratched to this extent; the above shot is worst.

There may be workarounds for some or all of these issues: use demineralized/distilled water for the developer, don't pre-soak the film, don't use this film in Hasselblads and the likes (tight loading systems), etc etc. I will not attempt any of this.

Other, minor observations:
- The film is very short. Loading until the arrows on the insert and the film are aligned will make you lose part of the last frame. Workaround is to load the film until just before the arrows align, like this:
View attachment 49694

Then all frames will just (but only just) fit the film. It's a tight fit:
View attachment 49695

Foma had better call this 11-frame film, or, preferably, make the film a bit longer; just a few centimeters should do.

- The backing may feel less coarse than that of the 'old' (before the swap) 200-120. This is from the top of my head. I chucked all the old backing paper, therefore I cannot verify.

- The base is colourless (to my eyes) polyester, no blue tint.

 

[georg16nik]

Does anyone knows if those issues were resolved and if Fomapan 100 / 120 or 400 / 120 were also affected?