FOMA-r factory issue.

[richyd]

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]

It is not about the money

penny pinchers never die.

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]

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.

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

 

[thefizz]

What batch?

Hi Alessandro, see my last post, #31.

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello,

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

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]

+1. Slides are the best!

 

[richyd]

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]

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.

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

 

[Xmas]

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]

penny pinchers never die.

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.

 

[R.Gould]

penny pinchers never die.

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

 

[Xmas]

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]

Barring the OP, has no one else had anything scanned/printed to post?
Or link to?

Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[georg16nik]

+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.

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.

 

[Ashfaque]

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

 

[dr5chrome]

unfortunately, the FOMA-r film problem "IS NOT A WEB-JOKE" http://www.dr5.com/graphics/TESTfoma.jpg

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.

 

[dr5chrome]

unfortunately, the FOMA-r film problem "IS NOT A WEB-JOKE" http://www.dr5.com/graphics/TESTfoma.jpg

+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.

 

[dr5chrome]

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

Hello,



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

 

[dr5chrome]

This current 'new' batch is also bad. http://www.dr5.com/graphics/TESTfoma.jpg http://www.dr5.com/blackandwhiteslide/fomar.html We suspect it is of the same mater-roll.

With some rolls we get in we do see "clear result", but most of the time an EM# is not supplied - so we have no idea what EM# was used.

dr5

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

 

[avortex]

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:

 

[flavio81]

A suggestion to David Wood @dr5.com: to have a clear and a general perspective of how the various emlusions will turn out in the dr5 process, why don't you rate each film taking into account: sharpness, contrast, tonal scale? Giving each parameter a score, 1 to 5?

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

 

[avortex]

So, basically, to sum it up, FOMA is ignoring customers feedback and complaints.

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]

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]

patience

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...

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.

 

[avortex]

Good idea! I'll try to contact macodirect.