Foma quality updates?

[alanrockwood]

A while back there was a lot of discussion about quality of Foma films, mostly complaints about quality problems.

What about recent lots of Foma films? Have the quality issues been worked out, or are people still complaining about product defects?

(And based on recent discussions about 120 format backing paper, maybe Foma isn't the only film maker to suffer quality lapses these days.)

 

[R.Gould]

I use Foma film all the time, I love the stuff and rarely use anything else, and have yet to have any QC issues of any kind

 

[Ian Grant]

The quality issue which hit Fomapan 120 films was caused by a third party company who made the backing paper and was resolved quite a time ago. Kodak have been having similar issues.

I've used hundreds of rolls of Fomapan 100 & 200 and never saw the issue.

Ian

 

[Vw1302]

The truth is that I had some problem with f100 120 classic, some scratches was there, but I suppose that it was only a matter of czech local market. We have another version here - fomapan 100 proffesional which is probably the classic version abroad and this version is ok without scratches..

 

[macfred]

Bought a brick 120 Fomapan 200 Creative a few weeks ago - used two rolls with no issues.

 

[miha]

Years ago I hade some issues with Fomapan 200 in 120 but this was well recognized and is resolved by now. The few 4x5 sheets of Fomapan 100 I have exposed and several rolls in 135 were all impeccable.
I'm tempted to buy more stuff from Foma via their e-shop where they offer very competitive pricing (e.g. 5 litres of Fomafix is 23,20 eur).

 

[miha]

The truth is that I had some problem with f100 120 classic, some scratches was there, but I suppose that it was only a matter of czech local market. We have another version here - fomapan 100 proffesional which is probably the classic version abroad and this version is ok without scratches..

So which is which?

 

[mnemosyne]

The truth is that I had some problem with f100 120 classic, some scratches was there, but I suppose that it was only a matter of czech local market. We have another version here - fomapan 100 proffesional which is probably the classic version abroad and this version is ok without scratches..

I have stopped using Fomapan 100 professional (120 size) with my Rolleiflex TLR, as I have been regularly encountering two problems: First, artifacts in the form of irregular short, straight scratches across or rather along the pictures. The problem is described and documented on several sites across the web and explained as interaction between backing paper, film and transport mechanism in some cameras (Hasselblad, Rollei TLR). It is supposed to be fixed by Foma some years ago, but I still encountered it with film I bought about a year ago directly from Foma. Second, a tendency that the self adhesive sticker at the end of the roll will "activate" and jam the camera during transport after the last frame. I stopped using Fomapan roll film in my Rolleiflex for that reason. I should add that I have not yet seen this problem with other film (FP4+, HP5+, some Portra) in my Rolleiflex, but it also did not happen with Fomapan in the Horseman roll film backs for my view cameras, but I have only used half a dozen rolls or so with that setup.

Second, I had a very miserable experience with Fomapan 100R (reversal) a couple of years ago, where several rolls that I had shot during a holiday in Italy were ruined by millions of small black particles embedded in the emulsion. I am quite sure it was not a processing error, as the films were processed by a very experienced pro lab (Studio 13) and reports of similar problems from other sources were surfacing at the time. Actually, the film was pulled from production shortly after. It is back in production now, I have some fresh rolls lying around but have not had the possibility to shoot them yet, so I cannot say if the problem is solved.

I have not had any obvious kind of QC problems with Foma's 135 negative film (100 & 400).

 

[R.Gould]

I use Fomapan 200 and 400 in my Rolleifle,Rolleicord and my Microcord, with no problems such as described above, in fact it is impeccable, and the sticky band at the end never causes problems in the Tlr's, sometime it will catch and come off with one or two of my folders, but that is not a problem, simply remove from the pressure plate and use, as far as the backing paper, Foma seem to have replaced the backing paper recently, they appear to be using a backing paper the same as Ilford, white, and very smooth, but still with the frame Nos printed in bold black, I have used several of the new backed paer recently without out a problem as Kodak have recently had, and seem to have solved, Can't comment in any way with the Fomapan reversal film, which over here seems to have dissapeared from sale,

 

[removedacct3]

First, artifacts in the form of irregular short, straight scratches across or rather along the pictures. The problem is described and documented on several sites across the web and explained as interaction between backing paper, film and transport mechanism in some cameras (Hasselblad, Rollei TLR). It is supposed to be fixed by Foma some years ago, but I still encountered it with film I bought about a year ago directly from Foma.

I've seen straight scratches on some of my 120 Foma 200 negatives. Googled and googled, but I never found something that described it. Do you happen to know where to find info about this issue?

 

[Alan9940]

I've shot quite a bit of Foma 100 in both 4x5 and 8x10 sizes and I've never had any type of QC issue.

 

[Vw1302]

So which is which?

PRO is better if you can choose..

 

[miha]

PRO is better if you can choose..

Do you know in what way?

 

[mnemosyne]

I use Fomapan 200 and 400 in my Rolleifle,Rolleicord and my Microcord, with no problems such as described above, in fact it is impeccable, and the sticky band at the end never causes problems in the Tlr's, sometime it will catch and come off with one or two of my folders, but that is not a problem, simply remove from the pressure plate and use, as far as the backing paper, Foma seem to have replaced the backing paper recently, they appear to be using a backing paper the same as Ilford, white, and very smooth, but still with the frame Nos printed in bold black, I have used several of the new backed paer recently without out a problem as Kodak have recently had, and seem to have solved, Can't comment in any way with the Fomapan reversal film, which over here seems to have dissapeared from sale,

The last Fomapan 100 professional I shot (the batch that gave me the jamming problem every other roll or so) was (IIRC) bought at the end of 2016 directly from Foma. It still had the old (all black with white numbers) backing paper.
If there have been indeed recently made changes to the backing paper as you indicate then I would be willing to give the film another shot. Maybe the scratch problem is also solved with the new backing paper.

 

[mnemosyne]

Do you know in what way?

I remember reading that the "pro" film was supposed to be cut from the middle portion of the master roll, while the standard was taken from the sides, where there is a higher likeliness of defects showing up (in theory?).

 

[Vw1302]

I remember reading that the "pro" film was supposed to be cut from the middle portion of the master roll, while the standard was taken from the sides, where there is a higher likeliness of defects showing up (in theory?).

Exactly

 

[mnemosyne]

I've seen straight scratches on some of my 120 Foma 200 negatives. Googled and googled, but I never found something that described it. Do you happen to know where to find info about this issue?

For example
https://www.flickr.com/groups/86738082@N00/discuss/72157623645047064/
I also remember reading some related discussions here on Photrio/APUG some time ago. If you're interested I am sure I could dig out a scan of a negative that shows the type of "scratches" I am talking about.

 

[R.Gould]

The last Fomapan 100 professional I shot (the batch that gave me the jamming problem every other roll or so) was (IIRC) bought at the end of 2016 directly from Foma. It still had the old (all black with white numbers) backing paper.
If there have been indeed recently made changes to the backing paper as you indicate then I would be willing to give the film another shot. Maybe the scratch problem is also solved with the new backing paper.

Certainly the paper has been creeping in for a while now, I still have some of the old papers, the all black and some that were green at the start then black with white numbers, so I imagine that they were using up all the old stock of paper, but for the last few batches I have got the backing paper was the white, but I have used all the papers in my Tlr's, Rolleiflex,cord and Microcord for many years and I have never had problems, certainly I have never had a roll jam in any camera,, and certainly I have never had a scratch problem with mine, although I have only once used some 100, and that was 135, I tend to use 400 as for many of the subjects I take I need the faster speed, in fact even with 400 sometimes my shutter speeds are down to 1/2 second, hand held, with folders and Tlr's, and never in at least 15 or possibly more of using Fomapan for everything,

 

[RattyMouse]

Do people typically shoot Foma just because it is cheaper?

 

[R.Gould]

Do people typically shoot Foma just because it is cheaper?

In the UK their is not a ot of difference in price between Foma and Ilford, in fact I believe that the HP5+ 35mm 36 is cheaper, I shoot fomapan simply because I like it better than either Ilford or Kodak, and as I have not had a problem of any sort in over 15 years of using it I will continue to use it

 

[pentaxuser]

I remember reading that the "pro" film was supposed to be cut from the middle portion of the master roll, while the standard was taken from the sides, where there is a higher likeliness of defects showing up (in theory?).

Interesting point but even if there is a greater likelihood of defects showing up i.e. being present simply because the standard film was taken from the sides and not the middle, surely the QC should ensure that the sides are checked for defects so that defective film does not get through to any greater an extent?

Otherwise it sounds as if Foma might be saying that the customer pays less but the quid pro quo is that he accepts that the percentage of defective film getting through to customers is greater and that Foma cannot or will not invest in the QC to the extent that the risk of a greater wastage through defects remains a cost to the film maker and not the customer.

If it works in the way you describe in the quote then we all better look out if Ilford decides to market a standard and pro version of say HP5+

Some companies do use the category of "pro" but I'd be surprised if any base this on the message that the customer takes the greater risk of defects.

pentaxuser

 

[removedacct3]

Do people typically shoot Foma just because it is cheaper?

The results I got in 35mm were absolutely stunning. Unfortunately I got scratches in 120 when using my Pentax 645N. Last week I shot Foma 200 from a different batch with a different medium format camera. On first sight the negs look great, but I haven't had a change to print them yet.

 

[removedacct3]

For example
https://www.flickr.com/groups/86738082@N00/discuss/72157623645047064/
I also remember reading some related discussions here on Photrio/APUG some time ago. If you're interested I am sure I could dig out a scan of a negative that shows the type of "scratches" I am talking about.

Yes, I am interested! Never saw negs with the same scratches as mine. Very curious to know whether or not we're suffering from the same issue.

 

[miha]

Interesting point but even if there is a greater likelihood of defects showing up i.e. being present simply because the standard film was taken from the sides and not the middle, surely the QC should ensure that the sides are checked for defects so that defective film does not get through to any greater an extent?

Otherwise it sounds as if Foma might be saying that the customer pays less but the quid pro quo is that he accepts that the percentage of defective film getting through to customers is greater and that Foma cannot or will not invest in the QC to the extent that the risk of a greater wastage through defects remains a cost to the film maker and not the customer.

If it works in the way you describe in the quote then we all better look out if Ilford decides to market a standard and pro version of say HP5+

Some companies do use the category of "pro" but I'd be surprised if any base this on the message that the customer takes the greater risk of defects.

pentaxuser

Good point!

 

[removedacct3]

https://www.flickr.com/groups/86738082@N00/discuss/72157623645047064/

For some reason or the other, I completely missed that Flickr group as well as the long thread describing the exact same problem I had last summer. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction!