Foma quality updates?

[aleckurgan]

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.)

As far as I know Foma doesn't suffer quality lapses these days.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The allegation was that large quantities were taken off the master roll first

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hit wrong button. The first of the roll went to private-label volume purchase, but was more prone to cracks because the emulsion wasn't fully cured. True or not, try hauling an 8X10 up a mountain and then discovering zits and parallel cracks or scratches over half your images. That's happened to me with two different boxes. Can't risk it again.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Do people typically shoot Foma just because it is cheaper?

Yes.

Sometimes, having a film that is substantially cheaper than the best film available, makes sense. I have taught a few people to use a view camera and to develop their film. In this part of the world, Foma Fomapan 400 4x5" film, is almost 50% cheaper than Ilford HP5+ or Ilford FP4+ 4x5" film. If you are going through a period of learning with mistakes sometimes happening, reducing your mistake costs by 50% certainly makes a difference. As for Kodak TMAX, people run when they hear the price; Fomapan 400 is 35% of the cost of TAX 100.

Currently in Melbourne these are 4x5" film costs of some of the more popular and readily available over the counter 4x5" films. Below prices are in Australian Dollars.

TMAX 100 $4.38 per sheet.

Ilford Delta 100 $3.23 per sheet.

Ilford FP4+ $3.03 per sheet.

Ilford HP5+ $3.03 per sheet.

Fomapan 100 $1.73 per sheet.

Fomapan 400 $1.54 per sheet.

If you were starting out in 4x5" photography, I have a hunch you would be picking one of the cheaper films to start your learning curve; more so when there is such a massive price difference.

Mick.

 

[DavidJRobertson]

Do people typically shoot Foma just because it is cheaper?

To be honest the price is why I bought some to try in the first place, but I absolutely love the look of Fomapan 200. The 100 and 400 are okay, but nothing special imo.

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

Not sure where you're shopping... Silverprint has Fomapan 400 35mm 36exp for £3.60, and HP5+ 35mm 36exp for £4.93. However, I've found it a lot cheaper to order from Fotoimpex in Germany than to order from any of the UK suppliers. Shipping surprisingly isn't much more, and is more than offset by the much cheaper prices.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nothing is cheap if you have to use two or three sheets hoping at least one is unblemished, if the same lighting even holds. But I'll admit that what I found intolerable in an enlargement might not be noticed in a contact print. Too bad, because Foma 200 is the only "straight line" film left on the market. It's not even close to 200 speed, and the long exp characteristics are awful, so it's not a reasonable substitute for old Super-XX or Bergger 200. But if they could stabilize quality control, I'd buy it again.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don't know about that "beginner" advice. I started out with 4X5 FP4 (old version) because it had an excellent reputation back then. But I had a bit of beginner's luck, and a few of those early shots turned out to be classics. There were others too hard to print, but which I've revisited after all the years, and in the past couple of months have gotten superb prints, given today's dramatically improved VC papers and my own learning curve.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

How past is the past? I did Foma 400 in bulk two or three years ago. After it I was astonished to discover what all of my lenses are sharp again.
But BW and grain is awesome from this film... on scans.

 

[Wallendo]

Arista EDU 100 (Fomapan 100 relabeled) is my go to film in 120, and I have never had issues. I have also had good luck with a bulk roll of Arista EDU 100 in 35mm format. There have been recent reports (about a year ago) of scratches being present on a number of bulk rolls of their 200 speed film. I am currently using up a bulk roll of Arista EDU 200 and have noticed scratch issues, but, at least in my case, it appears to be related to a rough edge in my bulk loader, not a manufacturing defect.

 

[paul ron]

No bitchin here. I went through 4 boxes of (50ea) 9x12 fomapan 100 this year and love the stuff. It seems to be exactly the same as the Arista 4x5 100 with the same green back n emulsion color. Both give me the same negatives using the same exposure readings.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I only have interest in the characteristic curve of the 200 speed product in sheets, whether Fomapan or Arista labeled. Anyone tried 8X10 recently?

 

[marcmarc]

I've used the Freestlye branded Foma 100 in 120 size at various times over the years. While I never got any scratches I did have the occasional roll where the tape holding the backing paper peel off and got stuck on the pressure plate. What this means is that when you peel off the tape you are left with a sticky residue on the plate which renders your camera useless until you can clean it unless your camera has interchangeable backs. Foma 100 is a really nice looking film in Rodinal but honestly, Foma has just had too many QC issues over the years for me to use them with any confidence.

 

[twelvetone12]

I use Fomapan 200 in 135 because I like it, not because it is cheap. The 100 and 400 versions are not that special IMHO. I never had any problems with QC with this stuff (I use it also in quarter plate sheets and some 120 and had no problems either). On the other hand some years ago I used Fomapan R in 8mm and it was plagued by the "black dots". Never used it again.