FOMA-r factory issue.

richyd

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
203
Location
London UK
Format
Medium Format
I had a roll developed by DR5 and came across this issue. It was the first B&W film I had reversal processed, at first I thought it might be something to do with the processing then I learned they experienced the same problem with other rolls. Since then I got into reversal processing myself and I had exactly the same issue with this film whereas with ordinary Foma 100 it was fine. The R100 film has fantastic tonality.
 

37th Exposure

Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2010
Messages
208
Location
The Land of
Format
35mm
It is not about the money

RalphLambrecht said:
penny pinchers never die.
Click to expand...

I would gladly buy only Kodak, Ilford, etc. if they made a film that matches the unique tonal range and processing characteristics of Foma films. Kodak just killed Plus-X so that is that much business they lost from me. Agfa was the only first class film that worked for me, and we all know where that went. Foma was the closest and less problematic than the other suitable film, Efke. Ilford Pan-F is my all time fave, but ISO 50 is just masochistic. ORWO Filmotec looks promising but who has time to load their own cartridges, and it does not come in 120. I get called a cheapskate because I would rather take my chances with the cheap stuff (Arista EDU Ultra, exactly the same stuff that goes into the Foma boxes with better finish quality than the OEM package, maybe because it is for export). QC issues with the last few years' batches of negative stock have not been an issue so I think they do care and hope one day they will be as fail safe as say Kodak, etc. The constant issues with Foma R however have made me stop using it altogether for now.
 

thefizz

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
2,345
Location
Ireland
Format
Medium Format
thefizz said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just to answer my own question, I have processed five rolls in the Foma kit and they are perfect.
 
  • Deleted member 2924
  • Deleted

Henning Serger

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
2,196
Format
Multi Format
Hello,

thefizz said:
Just to answer my own question, I have processed five rolls in the Foma kit and they are perfect.
Click to expand...

same here, last batch I've used was fine: Batch number 017676, best before date 06/2016.
Developed at professional BW reversal lab Photo Studio 13.
I had the "black spots problem" with a former batch. So let's hope that Foma now has solved the problem with QC long-lasting.

BW slides are absolutely outstanding, especially when projected with an excellent projector / projection lens.
Everytime when I see my slides projected I am so excited!
That is where film is absolutely unsurpassed: You cannot get that outstanding quality with any other medium (well, I've made all the direct comparisons).

For everyone who has never seen an excellent slide projection I can only recommend: Go for it!!
Excellent projectors and projection lenses are extremely attractive priced.There is no reason not to try it.
Scanned film on computer screens is looking awful compared to a projected slide.

Best regards,
Henning
 

ME Super

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
1,479
Location
Central Illinois, USA
Format
Multi Format
+1. Slides are the best!
 

richyd

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
203
Location
London UK
Format
Medium Format
With these latest reports I was hopeful so I bought a new roll - 017676-2, exp. 10/ 2016 but experience the same black spots problem. I guess I'll just have to use Silvermax again.
 

mnemosyne

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
759
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
richyd said:
With these latest reports I was hopeful so I bought a new roll - 017676-2, exp. 10/ 2016 but experience the same black spots problem. I guess I'll just have to use Silvermax again.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately found that
emulsion number 017676-2 develop by 1/2016
has black spots
 

Xmas

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
6,398
Location
UK
Format
35mm RF
I've used a lot of Foma and Efke film with no detectable problems but never reverse processed any.

But I process with tight tempering and minium pH change apart from using a squeegee which last they have tolerated.

The reverse processing is more exposed & more likely to damage.

I've only used some Kodak 5222 cine (about 1000 feet) and this sample had lots of emulsion damage but mayhap the cine is not inspected to same standards as stills. Not used much other Kodak mono apart from half a dozen 320Tx 220.

Not had the same problems with Ilford cine though the fog level is a bit higher than fresh HP5+ it has not been stored well. It has been cooked in a studio flat...It is also more than a decade old.

Next film is FSU 1000 feet off and I don't do Cyrillic...

I have no vesting interest in Ilford or Forma.
 

flavio81

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2014
Messages
5,074
Location
Lima, Peru
Format
Medium Format
RalphLambrecht said:
penny pinchers never die.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is a fair comment.

Fomapan 100 and Fomapan 400 are films that produce beautiful results, and they are very different from FP4 and HP5+ (for good and bad), so it's not like they are just "cheapo films". They are different films, and Fomapan 400 and Ilford HP5+ happily coexist on my camera bags.

The fact that they are really inexpensive is just a nice bonus.

Adox, Foma and ILFORD are currently the only manufacturers that are strongly commited to film and that we can be sure they will be operating for a long time. I don't think is a good idea to bash those companies.

BTW, so far i had no problem with consistency using Fomapan 100 or 400.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

R.Gould

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
1,752
Location
Jersey Chann
Format
Multi Format
RalphLambrecht said:
penny pinchers never die.
Click to expand...

Not a fair comment,Ralph, I use Fomapan, both the 200 and the 400, I am not and would never be influenced by the price of the product, I use the film simply because I love the results I get from it, completely different from any other film on the market, kind of like a throwback to an earlier age, I have and still do on occsosion use Kodak tri x, at more than double the price,and have used Ilford HP5+, but I come back to Fomapan as it gives my photographs that neither Kodak, Ilford,Adox or other films on the market do, as for QC issues, I have yet to have a problem, it is, for me just a happy coincidence that Fomapan is one of the cheapest films around,
I have used most films Quality films around, and I would count Fomapan as a quality film, so I am not by any stretch a penny pincher, I just love the look and quirkiness of the film, and as long as it is around I will continue to use it, as will many photographers,
Richard
 
  • Deleted member 2924
  • Deleted

Xmas

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
6,398
Location
UK
Format
35mm RF
This is a web joke

I've had more problems with two seperate batches Kodak film than Efke and Foma put together.

ie none with last two.

Ive not shot a lot of Kodak film this century. Lotta Efke and Foma.
 

analoguey

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
1,103
Location
Bangalore, I
Format
Multi Format
Barring the OP, has no one else had anything scanned/printed to post?
Or link to?

Sent from Tap-a-talk
 

georg16nik

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
1,101
Format
Multi Format
+1.

Unless I experience it myself, the “factory” issue is Internet rumor / web joke.

  • How many labs operate their own water distillers and really use distilled water?
  • What are the water specs?
  • What about chemistry by the book?
  • What about temps. etc.?

The usual response is that the problem should be in film X, since films Z and Y are totally fine in that same process.
Labs and most analog photographers love shortcuts but silver halides have no mercy for slobs.

Xmas said:
This is a web joke

I've had more problems with two seperate batches Kodak film than Efke and Foma put together.

ie none with last two.

Ive not shot a lot of Kodak film this century. Lotta Efke and Foma.
Click to expand...
 

Ashfaque

Member
Joined
May 4, 2013
Messages
382
Location
Bangladesh & UK
Format
35mm
In case someone is planning to buy: Not directly related, but I contacted Maco on 27th Oct, asking about their 100R stock. They've informed me that their Foma R100's stock has the "emulsion # 017976-1, exp. date 03.2017 and 10 rolls 06.2017". So, according to updates posted on .dr5 page (same link as posted above), you'd still have the issue. :|

Bests,
Ashfaque
 
OP
OP

dr5chrome

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
461
Format
Medium Format
unfortunately, the FOMA-r film problem "IS NOT A WEB-JOKE" http://www.dr5.com/graphics/TESTfoma.jpg




 
OP
OP

dr5chrome

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
461
Format
Medium Format
This is a good reference Henning.. that Studio-13 is also experiencing this issue. Between us and them, maybe we can get FOMA to address this problem! Are you listening Eric Joseph?? http://www.dr5.com/graphics/TESTfoma.jpg




 
OP
OP

dr5chrome

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
461
Format
Medium Format

avortex

Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
136
Location
The Twilight Zone
Format
35mm
AT LEAST! I've got an answer for those awful black spots!
Thanks a lot for pointing this out. I was thinking my processing was faulty with Fomapan R100, but I checked the boxes of my remaining rolls and the serial number is also 017976-1, with exp. date 6/2017.
This is a shame. Foma R100 delivers my favourite B&W ever, but there's a clear lack of good quality control here... I shot about 10 rolls last september/october and all the pictures were plagued with this problem.
Look at the sky in this one:



Take a closer look here:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Deleted member 2924
  • Deleted
  • Deleted member 2924
  • Deleted

flavio81

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2014
Messages
5,074
Location
Lima, Peru
Format
Medium Format

They do have some reviews of individual films on their website, plus some interesting tests.
 
  • Deleted member 2924
  • Deleted

avortex

Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
136
Location
The Twilight Zone
Format
35mm
Alessandro Serrao said:
So, basically, to sum it up, FOMA is ignoring customers feedback and complaints.
Click to expand...

I don't know, Alessandro. I wrote to Foma yesterday about this issue, so I still give them the benefit of the doubt.
I'll let you know whatever happens.
 

avortex

Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
136
Location
The Twilight Zone
Format
35mm
A week without response. I think it's safe to say now that there's no such a thing as "customer service" in Foma.
What a shame. My favourite B&W stock and I'm not going to purchase it anymore...
 

Animalcito

Member
Joined
May 22, 2014
Messages
35
Location
Minnesota, USA
Format
35mm
patience

avortex said:
A week without response. I think it's safe to say now that there's no such a thing as "customer service" in Foma. What a shame. My favourite B&W stock and I'm not going to purchase it anymore...
Click to expand...
I contacted FOMA via my dealer before Christmas, because I was confused as the last batch of Fomapan 400 was without DX coding. It took some time, but this week I got the feedback. So maybe it takes some time as English is not that common in former eastern Europe and second I would also suggest to contact via the dealer/ retailer the product was bought from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…