Foma Pan 400 ASA fog on film???

[joho]

I had a problem with two 1200 rollfilms

they came out with fog but like if 30 years old?? box says good till 2025.

any one had to clean something like this ???

 

[Paul Howell]

I have shot a hundred or so rolls of Foma Pan 400 120, fresh, and never had an issue. How was the film stored, any chance of being exposed to heat or X rays?

 

[joho]

I do not know that -- I will scan the tab at start for revew

 

[Donald Qualls]

More information would be helpful, too. What developer was used, what temperature/time, and how/where did you load the film into the tank?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

As Donald said, more info please. Even a scan of negs may be helpful. There are many factors that could have resulted in fogged film... 9 times out of 10 it's the users fault.

 

[koraks]

they came out with fog but like if 30 years old??

I've seen this happen when people experienced a momentary lapse of reason and turned on their red safelight while loading the film into the tank.

Another possible reason is xray fog from a CT scanner. Did you fly with this film?

 

[lamerko]

The airport scanner might degrade the film, but Foma 400 shouldn't end up with a massive "30 year" fog...

 

[koraks]

The airport scanner might degrade the film, but Foma 400 shouldn't end up with a massive "30 year" fog...

It's within the capabilities of a CT scanner.

 

[Bill Burk]

The base is dark for anti-halation purposes.

This from the Foma spec sheet

 

[Agulliver]

Could OP please post photos of the negatives including the head/tail so we can see what's going on. What was the procedure for development and what chemicals were used?

 

[albireo]

The base is dark for anti-halation purposes.

Not significantly darker than many other film types/brands. I really don't think inherent characteristics of Foma 400 are the culprit here.

 

[joho]

FomaPan 400asa-up to 1600asa
DEV. Selectol soft 1:7 mixed with Multigrade [Ilford] 1:4
in a compact tank 750ml 2 120 rolls on one reel.
temp 32-degres for 10.5 min with agitation + a sitting bath 9min [water]
here the two rolls came out the same

#271 is a scan as is

#264 was the roll just before
FomaPan 400asa-up to 1600asa
DEV. Selectol soft 1:7 mixed with Multigrade [Ilford] 1:4
in a compact tank 750ml 120 rolls on one reel.
temp 27-degres for 8.5 min with agitation + a sitting bath 9min [water]
it came out perfect [well almost]

must add if the film was transferred in the summer time from warehouse to store in summer here in Athens by means of some motorcycle, and was exposed to the sun - that means a heat index of 90-degrees that could f%^& up the film !!

 

[loccdor]

Looks very similar to a backing paper impression I had from 120 Fomapan 400 that I pushed to 1600 6 months ago.

Worse than being transferred by motorcycle, if it sat in a hot car/truck in Athens in the summer it could very well have intensified this effect. I remember leaving my film for a couple hours in a car in Greece under the direct sunlight last summer while it was 114F (45C) that day, and it was okay with no discernible difference, but it was mostly 100 speed, and mostly 35mm, and in an insulated bag - all things that would have improved its chances. But if it had stayed hours or days longer, who knows. The car was easily 130-140F when we opened it up.

By the way, I've never developed B&W film at 32C before. Highest I've gone is 27C, coincidentally, that was also Fomapan 400 pushed to 1600, and that came out great. But that was 35mm.

You can tell this isn't base fog because of that line in the center, which is present on the paper. Substances in the paper are getting transferred onto the film.

 

[koraks]

#271 is a scan as is

must add if the film was transferred in the summer time from warehouse to store in summer here in Athens by means of some motorcycle, and was exposed to the sun - that means a heat index of 90-degrees that could f%^& up the film !!

Backing paper offset issue. The transport conditions described are probably not such a good idea.

Btw, when asked for a picture of the negatives, it's generally preferred to provide just that. So not an inverted scan, but an actual photo of the negative as you see them with the naked eye. When judging things like fog etc., it's important to be able to see what it looks like for real without the intervention of (too much) digital processing. Having said that, in this particular case, the problem is quite clear.

 

[joho]

how did the base paper do this?????

 

[Bill Burk]

If you don’t have a densitometer, or know anyone with one, then a picture of the negative will show us how dark it is.

@albireo Most manufacturers of 120 rollfilm use a clear base. But Foma uses a blue base for 120.

Many people confuse anti-halation gray or blue base with fog, not realizing it is not fog. Discussions on Photrio can go a long time before anyone realizes the film is fine.

So collectively to help, we’re asking for a picture of the negative that tries to show what the negative looks like over a light background but not cropped down. Show the background as well in the picture of the negative.

Oh and the picture on the left in post #12 with the clear tail shows that there is a significant image quality defect. That tail is mottled and mottling is a defect caused by interaction with the backing paper.

I wouldn’t call it fog. I’d call it severe mottling.

 

[joho]

I’d call it severe mottling.???
WT$%^ IS THAT in 50 years this the first time.

It looks like films that I used that where out dated 30 years! if it is badly stored film -I have to look else where to buy....

 

[joho]

severe mottling, well just read up on it !!!
cheapness at its best!!! screw up the film with bad paper backing!!!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

The backing paper issue has been an issue with all film manufacturers, which they quickly addressed.

 

[joho]

Thanks to all on this problem, still I think to resolve this.

 

[koraks]

cheapness at its best!!!

Well...TMX and HP5+ have been subject to these issues just the same. That's the other end of the price range, pretty much.

how did the base paper do this?????

A photographic emulsion is just a super sensitive, finicky thing. Think about it - all it takes is something as tiny as a photon to knock an image into it in the timeframe of a millisecond. What do you think it does when you bring aggressive chemicals (in e.g. printing ink) in contact with it, for months or years at a time? This is just an inherent problem of 120 film. The fact that the problem isn't more widespread is a bit of a miracle.
Btw, I've shot quite some Foma in 120 format, but rarely if ever expired, and generally kept under decent conditions. Never had anything like this happen. But I do know it from e.g. Rollei Retro 80s.

 

[albireo]

If you don’t have a densitometer, or know anyone with one, then a picture of the negative will show us how dark it is.

@albireo Most manufacturers of 120 rollfilm use a clear base. But Foma uses a blue base for 120.

No it doesn't. The information in your hand is probably out of date. I have hundreds of Foma 400 negatives sitting beside me, and processed by me over the past 7 years, which have absolutely nothing blue whatsoever about them, and have pretty standard base density.

The antihalation layer on Foma's 120 products, which washes out after development, is green, not blue. However, nothing of that green is left on the processed, stopped + fixed + dried negative.

For reference, a couple of TMAX 400 rolls I processed recently have similar base density to Foma 400, and Kentmere 400 has much darker base.

 

[lamerko]

Both are Fomapan 200 still hanging to dry. There is nothing blue in the base. On the other hand, the anti-halation dye has an incredibly vivid bright green color - a joy to the eye

 

[MattKing]

Historically there were always some problems that arose with backing paper equipped films like 120 because of the interaction of film base, film emulsion, printing ink and the wrapping paper itself. Relative incidence is higher now, due to a number of different factors, but the problem itself isn't a particularly new one.
From 2019 and one of the batches of Kodak TMax 400 affected by wrapper offset - adjusted so the ghost image is visible:

 

[Huub]

If you have some more of this film batch at home, i would expose a new roll at 250 iso and develop it in something standard (D76, XTOL, HC110 or something similar) at a more normal development temperature and see what happens. The issues you have could be a combination of all sorts of factors, like the mixture of developers you use, the pushing of the film, perhaps backing paper issues, the high development temperature and or something one of us overlooked. The way you exposed and developed the film might be the cause and back to basics is a proven way to find out.

And if you don't have more of this film, try an alternative from Ilford or Kodak...

Also: high base fog doesn't need to much of an issue when printing in a darkroom - as long as the contrast is as it should be, all you will notice is extended printing times.