FOMA-r factory issue.

dr5chrome · Jan 31, 2012

Note to those using this film - FOMA-r [new stock]. EM#017676-01 exp.2014-08
http://www.dr5.com/fomar.jpg [large file]

This EM is producing black spotting throughout the image. We have triple confirmed this with 3 separate clients.
Old stock, prior to this new, does not produce this problem.
http://dr5.com/blackandwhiteslide/fomar.html

Regards.

Rudeofus · Jan 31, 2012

Thanks for the heads up! Just a brief question, are you in contact with Foma about this? As you seem to be quite an authority in the field of b&w reversal processing and Foma R is directly aimed at this market you may be in a better position to do this and might get better responses than random Rudeofuses would get ....

dr5chrome · Jan 31, 2012

..yes, absolutely.

The film companies and suppliers take our reports with a grain of salt [pun intended]. No thanks is ever given for keeping this kind of problem under wraps or making the effort by bringing it to their attention 1st. Usually nothing gets done about it.. Since we are a quality-first based lab, public announcement to steer clear of offending product is best for our clients and anyone else that uses the film. We used to be able to get test films to check them a few times a year - this no longer happens.

What ever film product is used, it is no longer cheap, the lab service is not cheap, the shipping is not cheap. If the companies that make and sell poor product do nothing, then we have to help each other in this regard.

dr5

thegman · Feb 1, 2012

Michael R 1974 said:
Why am I not surprised. And yet people are still determined to not use Ilford and Kodak products.

Indeed, Much better to stamp out the small companies trying to serve a photographic niche.

TheFlyingCamera · Feb 1, 2012

Folks-

let's remember to keep things upbeat, and not provoke needless (and already beaten-to-death) arguments. Kodak/Ilford vs. Foma/Efke/Adox is as tired, old and valueless as Canon vs Nikon vs Leica vs Zeiss. People will choose which film is appropriate to their needs, not based on a political dogma. I think it's sufficient to state that it's a shame Foma is not being more attentive to reports of QC issues from high volume, long term customers like DR 5.

railwayman3 · Feb 1, 2012

TheFlyingCamera said:
Folks-

let's remember to keep things upbeat, and not provoke needless (and already beaten-to-death) arguments. Kodak/Ilford vs. Foma/Efke/Adox is as tired, old and valueless as Canon vs Nikon vs Leica vs Zeiss. People will choose which film is appropriate to their needs, not based on a political dogma. I think it's sufficient to state that it's a shame Foma is not being more attentive to reports of QC issues from high volume, long term customers like DR 5.

I keep mainly to Ilford, occasionally Kodak, but had thought to try Foma-R for reversal slides, since, I understand, it is the only film made-for-the-purpose with a clear base?
Disappointing (but very useful) to hear of this problem, with no action or even interest by the company.
I bet that, if there were a film from Ilford/Harman with an apparent emulsion problem, that you would get a prompt examination of the product and an honest report back!

coigach · Feb 1, 2012

railwayman3 said:
I keep mainly to Ilford, occasionally Kodak, but had thought to try Foma-R for reversal slides, since, I understand, it is the only film made-for-the-purpose with a clear base?

Apologies if this is a little off-topic, but just wanted to let you know that Ilford film reverses very well. I use dr5 processed Delta 100 - see my APUG gallery.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Also, HP5 has a massive range when reversed in dr5.
http://www.dr5.com/blackandwhiteslide/filmreview.html

Anyway - thanks for Foma heads-up Mr dr5...

railwayman3 · Feb 1, 2012

Coigach - Thanks for that info. I used Scala while it was available (and even one or two of the last rolls of Agfa Dia-direct), but hadn't taken any B&W reversal since then. I always liked these films as an alternative to color slides for some subjects, and I'll certainly give Ilford a try, particularly if the Foma issue isn't sorted with future batches.

MDR · Feb 1, 2012

Weird that this is happening with their new stock just like with Efke. Never tried the film outside a movie camera were it gave unique and good results. I would be very sad if this film would be lost as an alternative to Kodak's offerings due to Q.C. Issues.
Has someone tried to develop the same batch in Foma's own Reversal developer?

Dr5 thank you for your constant updates.

Dominik

Sal Santamaura · Feb 2, 2012

Valuable, not tired.

TheFlyingCamera said:
...Kodak/Ilford vs. Foma/Efke/Adox is as tired, old and valueless as Canon vs Nikon vs Leica vs Zeiss...

Quite the contrary; this discussion has great value. It serves to inform anyone who reads it and wasn't previously aware of the fact that quality control at lower-tier manufacturers doesn't meet modern standards.

With the sole exception of those Adox products actually made by Adox in Germany, Foma/Efke/Adox branded sensitized products simply cannot be counted upon to be defect-free. On the other hand, Canon, Nikon, Leica and Zeiss products are all top-tier quality and can be relied upon. If someone reading APUG decides to engage in the crapshoot that using film and paper made in tired, obsolete factories is, this forum's beneficial role ought to be ensuring that the decision was an informed one.

In my opinion, "Kodak/Ilford vs. Foma/Efke/Adox" is so important it deserves its own prominent subforum category. Failing that, threads highlighting the problems should at least be made sticky.

TheFlyingCamera · Feb 2, 2012

Sal-

I'm not trying to stick up for a company if they produce a substandard product. However, there are more than enough threads out there already on the subject of films from makers other than the Big Three (Kodak, Ilford & Fuji), and they are replete with everything from useful information to gross exaggerations. For the same reasons that you assert that Adox/Efke/Foma cannot be relied upon, there are numerous people out there who will make the same assertion about every one of those camera manufacturers you cite, based on a unique personal experience of a singularly buggy product, and will swear with self-righteous vehemence about how horrible Canon/Nikon/Contax/Leica were/are and how they'll never buy another Canon/Nikon/Hasselblad/Linhof/whatever again.

From my personal experience with Ilford, Foma and Kodak films, I will agree that Foma has a higher defect rate, but it is hardly the garbage that some make it out to be, and when the price point is 1/3 the price of Kodak and 1/2 the price of Ilford for a comparable product, there are times when budget IS a concern, even for a photographer. It also has some spectral response and development characteristics that make it especially well-suited to certain kinds of image-making.

This discussion specifically has value for people who want to shoot reversal processed black-and-white and want to use DR5 to process their film. I'll stick by my assertion though that general band-wagon bashing of manufacturers has little value, because it degenerates into flame wars of "my favorite rules, and your favorite sucks".

sandermarijn · Feb 2, 2012

TheFlyingCamera said:
I'm not trying to stick up for a company if they produce a substandard product. However, there are more than enough threads out there already on the subject of films from makers other than the Big Three (Kodak, Ilford & Fuji), and they are replete with everything from useful information to gross exaggerations.

I will keep reporting issues that I encounter, regardless of which brand is involved. Hopefully other APUG'ers will do the same. This is one of the powers of the forum.

"More than enough" is not relevant. Each problem is new to the person who runs into it, and they should be free to report it, even if others have done the same thing.

If newcomers to APUG find that reports of problems are all dated they may be led to believe that the problems have been solved while in reality that's not the case.

TheFlyingCamera said:
For the same reasons that you assert that Adox/Efke/Foma cannot be relied upon, there are numerous people out there who will make the same assertion about every one of those camera manufacturers you cite, based on a unique personal experience of a singularly buggy product, and will swear with self-righteous vehemence about how horrible Canon/Nikon/Contax/Leica were/are and how they'll never buy another Canon/Nikon/Hasselblad/Linhof/whatever again.

The discussion in this thread is about Foma film, not about the camera manufacturers that you mention.

TheFlyingCamera said:
From my personal experience with Ilford, Foma and Kodak films, I will agree that Foma has a higher defect rate, but it is hardly the garbage that some make it out to be, and when the price point is 1/3 the price of Kodak and 1/2 the price of Ilford for a comparable product, there are times when budget IS a concern, even for a photographer. It also has some spectral response and development characteristics that make it especially well-suited to certain kinds of image-making.

I myself have reported problems with Foma films twice. Never in those reports have I referred to Foma film as 'garbage'.

In Europe and for the formats that I use (35mm and 120), Foma films cost about the same as Ilford and Kodak (& Fuji). This may be different in sheet film, I don't know about that.

TheFlyingCamera said:
This discussion specifically has value for people who want to shoot reversal processed black-and-white and want to use DR5 to process their film. I'll stick by my assertion though that general band-wagon bashing of manufacturers has little value, because it degenerates into flame wars of "my favorite rules, and your favorite sucks".

I do not often see this "general band-wagon bashing of manufacturers" on APUG. Most people here are very conscientious in their evaluations.

Sal Santamaura · Feb 2, 2012

TheFlyingCamera said:
...there are more than enough threads out there already on the subject of films from makers other than the Big Three...

Scott, if you argued that duplicate threads shouldn't be started and prevailed, traffic on APUG (as well as most other Internet forums) would slow to a trickle and an easily searchable archive would be available. Good luck! I've taken that position for years, especially on the LF Forum, without any success.

TheFlyingCamera said:
...I will agree that Foma has a higher defect rate, but it is hardly the garbage that some make it out to be...

That may be your experience. Consider that the experience of "some" might support their characterizations. Remember that the variability batch-to-batch and within a batch of products manufactured under low or no quality control conditions can be enormous.

TheFlyingCamera said:
...when the price point is 1/3 the price of Kodak and 1/2 the price of Ilford for a comparable product, there are times when budget IS a concern, even for a photographer...

I've always found the expression "you're not wealthy enough to buy cheap things" very appropriate in situations like this.

Ian Grant · Feb 2, 2012

Perhaps it's worth putting Scott's comments into context, there ahave been many people writing about the faults of Foma and EFKE/Adox films on APUG who have never used them often deliberately trying to get others not to use them.

It's somewhat similar to the people who constantly talk down Xtol because of a packaging fault in the smallest packaging many years ago.

Sure there can be issues but third hand experiences are pretty useless particularly when many people are getting superb results with these products.

Ian

thefizz · Feb 2, 2012

I have used a lot of Fomas papers and never had a single problem with any of them. Recently I've been trying their films and so far so good.

ras351 · Feb 2, 2012

dr5chrome said:
..yes, absolutely.

The film companies and suppliers take our reports with a grain of salt [pun intended]. No thanks is ever given for keeping this kind of problem under wraps or making the effort by bringing it to their attention 1st. Usually nothing gets done about it.

dr5

Sadly this has been my experience as well. I had a couple of rolls of Maco 120 IR820c (rebranded Efke) which were obviously faulty (the film appeared to have run off the rails near the end of the roll during manufacture and the edge numbers were scrawled across the exposed area). I contacted the distributor in Australia and went to the trouble and cost of mailing them the offending negatives but they did not receive a response from Maco.

Rudeofus · Feb 2, 2012

I see a lot of hatred against Foma/Efke/Adox which frequently reaches a boiling point when problems are reported to but not at all addressed by the makers. If you read dr5's posts, he's somewhat upset because a new batch of film appears defective but what really (and rightfully) ticks him (and many others) off is the complete lack of response from a company which most likely messed up. Compare this to the many Simon Galley postings here which state "oh, it seems like you may have gotten a defective product from us, we're sorry, contact me for a replacement".

I work with Czech companies and learned from this that while they are very ambitious about getting out a high quality product, their English language skills, especially in the older generation, are sorely lacking. There is a good chance that no one from Foma really understood what dr5 reported. This does not excuse yet another manufacturing failure and I also understand that a company which sells product internationally should create a support infrastructure which handles important feedback in a professional manner.

In the end the market will sort this out. If Foma is unable to supply consistent quality product and unwilling to provide proper support at least in English language, they will be stuck well below their market potential, both in volume and in price.

sandermarijn · Feb 2, 2012

Ian Grant said:
Perhaps it's worth putting Scott's comments into context, there ahave been many people writing about the faults of Foma and EFKE/Adox films on APUG who have never used them often deliberately trying to get others not to use them.

I can't see why anybody would want to do such a thing.

BTW, where did you find these "many people"? Am I on a different APUG?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Andrew Moxom · Feb 2, 2012

I've had issues with fomapan 100 in the past, and will not use it because of the anomalies on the film I was getting. The fact that they purport to be an ISO9001 certified company means squat if they are not listening and fixing issues that come up. You can have all the process and documentation you want showing that you follow certain fixed standards, but still churn out bad product.. I'm not FOMA bashing, but I'm not willing to waste precious time and money re-shooting...I love their papers however.

Dave in Kansas · Feb 2, 2012

Perhaps this may help some of us realize that the film produced by the "big 3" is simply amazing for its quality and dependability.

I've used Foma R 100 in the past and had good luck with it, and still have some in my freezer. I'll probably wait a while before ordering the new batch, however, based on what has been reported.

Dave

thefizz · Dec 22, 2013

I currently have this film with a slightly different batch number of 17676-2 and expiry date of June 2016.

Does anyone know if this batch has the same problem? I have not used it yet.

RalphLambrecht · Dec 22, 2013

Michael R 1974 said:
Why am I not surprised. And yet people are still determined to not use Ilford and Kodak products.

penny pinchers never die.

AgCl4ever · Dec 22, 2013

TheFlyingCamera said:
<SNIP>It also has some spectral response and development characteristics that make it especially well-suited to certain kinds of image-making. <SNIP>

+1

railwayman3 · Dec 22, 2013

RalphLambrecht said:
penny pinchers never die.

I don't think the original post had anything to do with penny-pinching.

Foma R100 is a specialist reversal film, with no dedicated equivalent produced by Ilford or Kodak, which (at least in the UK) is a similar price to "quality" B&W film. Also dr5 is a quality specialist lab, not a cut-price outfit, who were trying to sort a problem and maintain the standard of their service to customers.

The OP was nothing to do with people's views on the quality, price, etc., of general purpose films from Ilford, Kodak, Adox, etc.

Xmas · Dec 22, 2013

sandermarijn said:
In Europe and for the formats that I use (35mm and 120), Foma films cost about the same as Ilford and Kodak (& Fuji). This may be different in sheet film, I don't know about that.

Forma 400 is about 15% less than Kentmere in this part of Europe in 135, where I shop. My only problem is it sells so well it is rarely in stock where I shop.

FOMA-r factory issue.

dr5chrome

Rudeofus

dr5chrome

thegman

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

railwayman3

coigach

railwayman3

MDR

Sal Santamaura

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

sandermarijn

Sal Santamaura

Ian Grant

thefizz

ras351

Rudeofus

sandermarijn

Andrew Moxom

Dave in Kansas

thefizz

RalphLambrecht

AgCl4ever

railwayman3

Xmas

FOMA-r factory issue.

Membership Council

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency