Fomapan 100 - defective lot!

That would be unusual on a Kodak product, as they are checked for this type of defect 100%. The two defects are called 'comets' and 'chatter' and are easily detected. One results from bubbles or dirt in the melted emulsion and the other results from uneven coating speed or chemical feed to the coating surface.

EK uses a laser scanner to detect such defects.

PE

I might have the same defects. My batch number is 09256 - 9.

Click to expand...

If you sent in the material together with the other undeveloped films (together with a copy of your invoice), you will get replacement by Fotoimpex.

Foma will replace all defective film material.

Robert

Oh yes, that's exactly the defect I was talking about! The same ugly small comets! I have mistaken them for snow, so call me naive too They can't be anything scratch- or development-related, they are made from silver grains - my 100x microscope told me so I wonder how FOMA has managed to skip this obvious kind of defect during their QC? judging from what people all around the globe says, the whole 09256 emulsion lot has been ill-coated and should be all removed from sale - but only good sellers like Robert took some actions to protect their customers. So I hope this batch will end sooner or later, and the new Foma 100 emulsion would be better, i. e. not this stellar

Cheers,
Zhenya

timeUnit said:

I might have the same defects. My batch number is 09256 - 9.

I have only shot night shots with this film, so I thought the spots were stars or something... when looking through them now I realise they can be defects.

Click to expand...

Fotohuis said:

If you sent in the material together with the other undeveloped films (together with a copy of your invoice), you will get replacement by Fotoimpex.

Foma will replace all defective film material.

Robert

Click to expand...

Ok! Do I need to send the developed films back as well? I have taken several pictures that I like, and I would not like to part with them, spots or not.

Photo Engineer said:

That would be unusual on a Kodak product, as they are checked for this type of defect 100%. The two defects are called 'comets' and 'chatter' and are easily detected. One results from bubbles or dirt in the melted emulsion and the other results from uneven coating speed or chemical feed to the coating surface.

EK uses a laser scanner to detect such defects.

PE

Click to expand...

Yes I agree. It can be due to some mistake I made in processing. My processing skills have improved quite a bit since that film, processed as I was getting back into analogue photography.

A little OT, but I processed a Tri-X 400 120-film a few weeks ago, with pinholes. I don't think it was my processing. Sometimes defects slip through I guess...

That's the worst part of story. Ruined pictures that you like. I am sure you don't need to send your negatives, send them an e-mail with scans - also I think they should already know about their fault and would replace the film with no extra words.

timeUnit said:

Ok! Do I need to send the developed films back as well? I have taken several pictures that I like, and I would not like to part with them, spots or not.

Click to expand...

You have to send in all (unexposed) films and some evidence of your defects, your found in the film under mentioning the emulsionnumber. Always put a copy of your invoice with it.
You can address to Mr. Mirko Boeddecker from Fotoimpex.

You will receive new Foma films and the distributor will claim the damage with Foma in the Czech Republic. Fotoimpex is also informed by Foma, so it's not a big problem.

Robert

I have sent an e-mail to fotoimpex, with links to the scans and a reference to this thread. I'm sure they will get back to me soon.

Thanks all!

I've had the same problems described above, but with Arista.EDU 100 - NOT the Arista.EDU Ultra 100. I understand that the .EDU is Fortepan, the .EDU Ultra is Fomapan. I've had nothing but good experiences with my Fomapan (so far).

My dev process was D76 1:1 8 1/2 minutes, then rinse and fix. Agitation for five rotations every minute.

I'm enclosing an example. This has happened to me twice now, it is very aggravating. I hope it doesn't happen with the .EDU Ultra, I've just ordered a bunch of it!

Best,

Wiggy

Wiggy, that looks like what I might expect if you had undissolved borax crystals suspended in your D-76 -- local overdevelopment. Did you mix it (from Kodak package or raw chemicals) just before using? Of course, it could also be chemical fogging from conditions in storage, repackaging, etc., or from contamination of the emulsion with old or exposed halide crystals during or before coating. The latter is what one might expect in a factory with the problems Forte has had the past couple years...

Yes, Wiggy, your kind of defect looks like local overdevelopment dots from undissolved chemistry - not a stuff like we've seen in Fomapan 100 emulsion. There are no "tails", and the density distribution is another than in Foma... I've never met those in person on Forte films, but I can remember older Svema films (that was phenidone causing small spots like yours). Today's Forte film is quite good, and I can recommend is to anyone - the sheet film, Fortepan 200, makes an excellent portrait film with soft rich gradation when exposed at ASA 100 and developed in Microphen for 6 min 30s.

Cheers from Moscow,
Zhenya

Fotoimpex has very kindly given me credit for the ten Fomapan 100 rolls I bought. All I need to do is send them the boxes I have left. They even offered to pay for the postage of the boxes. A very swift and pleasant business. Thank you, Mirko!

Donald Qualls said:

Wiggy, that looks like what I might expect if you had undissolved borax crystals suspended in your D-76 -- local overdevelopment. Did you mix it (from Kodak package or raw chemicals) just before using? Of course, it could also be chemical fogging from conditions in storage, repackaging, etc., or from contamination of the emulsion with old or exposed halide crystals during or before coating. The latter is what one might expect in a factory with the problems Forte has had the past couple years...

Click to expand...

Donald,

The D-76 was/is fresh, but not this week fresh, more like this month fresh. I mixed it from Kodak package, but took care to ensure thorough dissolving of all the powder. Also, I have processed other films, such as Agfa APX 100 and Fomapan 100 (Arista.EDU Ultra 100) in the same soup at the same time - only the Fortepan (Arista.EDU 100) seems to be having the problem.

I did note that when I developed my Fomapan, I used the instructions from Freestyle's website - only noticed the directions printed inside the package later on - which showed that agitation should be constant for the first minute, then five second for every minute thereafter, total of 8.5 minutes, D-76 1:1, temp 68 degrees F.

I would think that if there are borax crystals in my D-76, all my other B&W film stocks would be similarly affected - but perhaps they are more tolerant of the problem?

In any case, I had a brick of the Arista.EDU 100. Never really liked it due to it being so curly that it was hard to scan - could not make it lay flat in the scanner tray, it wants very much to curl up as if it were still in the can. I even had trouble getting it on the reel to process. But I finally got one of those old Kodacraft aprons - works a treat, and even seems to make the Fortepan lay a bit flatter when dev is done (strange, but true). But I've had the problem with these damned spots each time I've tried the Fortepan lately, and other films I've shot and processed at the same time do not exhibit this problem.

Any thoughts?

Best,

Wiggy

PS - I'm still using your push mower; it's very nice! Just about done for the season, though. Grass is finally all brown.

eumenius said:

Yes, Wiggy, your kind of defect looks like local overdevelopment dots from undissolved chemistry - not a stuff like we've seen in Fomapan 100 emulsion. There are no "tails", and the density distribution is another than in Foma... I've never met those in person on Forte films, but I can remember older Svema films (that was phenidone causing small spots like yours). Today's Forte film is quite good, and I can recommend is to anyone - the sheet film, Fortepan 200, makes an excellent portrait film with soft rich gradation when exposed at ASA 100 and developed in Microphen for 6 min 30s.

Cheers from Moscow,
Zhenya

Click to expand...

OK, sorry to jump in on your discussion, then. From the way it was described, I thought we were seeing the same thing, only with me it was the Fortepan not the Fomapan. Fortepan may be good, but since I've had this problem several times now and only with Arista.EDU 100 films, I think I'm going to stop using this one and turn to the Arista.EDU Ultra (Foma) which has treated me very well so far.

Best,

Wiggy

PS - Who sells Svema? That's the Ukrainian Sumy Oblast, right? I'm trying to get a line on Svema and Tasma films for import to the US.

Wiggy, you're correct that it's very unlikely you'd get that effect in the same tank where other films didn't show it. Those other films can't very readily be more tolerant, since the effect is local overdevelopment and is more dependent on the developer than on the film.

I might suggest that use of aprons could contribute, though -- the aprons might have collected randomly selected chemicals from decades of use, and now release those chemicals, sporadically and locally, while almost in contact with your film. And, if you're using the apron in a tank along with other films on steel or plastic reels, you might in fact see an effect from the aprons that didn't affect other films in the same tank.

You might check with J&C Photo to see if they can order Svema and Tasma films in from Retro Photo in the UK -- they're both part of the fotoimpex family, so it certainly looks possible, though heaven only knows what the minimum would be or how much the shipping would run. The worst they can do is tell you to order direct from Retro. I've been interested in the Svema glass plates, but can't even consider paying $100 for a box of 12...

Oh, and glad you're getting some use out of the mower -- I think I only used it twice in the four or five years I had it; too much work on a not-very-smooth lawn with major soft spots.

Changeling1 said:

euminus, Is there anything (besides Vodka) being manufactured in Russian that can anyone can count on? Is is not nearly impossible to do business in that country due to a complete lack of integrity of Russian government and business people? No offense intended to any particular individuals, but Russia is dooming itself (again) in a mire of corruption, shoddy products, and complete disregard for the rule of law or ethics. Don't waste your time and money on a product made by people who's only passion is the accumulation of wealth by any means possible. Films don't have emulsion flaws unless the manufacturer 1) doesn't know what they are doing 2) has absolutely no quality control 3) Could care less. Quality analog photographic materials are (still) readily available- why don't you take your business to the companies who care about you and the photographs you create?

Click to expand...

Foma films are made in the Czech Republic. What does Russia have to do with it, other than the fact that Eumenius is in Russia and purchased the film in Moscow? The Czech Republic is a fairly civilized place these days, but I'd imagine they may produce a defective product occasionally, just as happens in most countries. How about that new X-Box?

Changeling1 said:

euminus, Is there anything (besides Vodka) being manufactured in Russian that can anyone can count on? Is is not nearly impossible to do business in that country due to a complete lack of integrity of Russian government and business people? No offense intended to any particular individuals, but Russia is dooming itself (again) in a mire of corruption, shoddy products, and complete disregard for the rule of law or ethics. Don't waste your time and money on a product made by people who's only passion is the accumulation of wealth by any means possible. Films don't have emulsion flaws unless the manufacturer 1) doesn't know what they are doing 2) has absolutely no quality control 3) Could care less. Quality analog photographic materials are (still) readily available- why don't you take your business to the companies who care about you and the photographs you create?

Click to expand...

I have not noticed any signs of coating defects or othe lck of quality control in any of the Russian or other former Soviet Union film products I have used - Tasma film, Slavich paper and Slavich glass plates.
Nor are Russian and Ukrainina optics in any way poorer than most of what is produced in the "west".

Statements such as yours serve only to highlight your own ignorance.

Well, a good question... many, many things still produced here deserve attention and trust. It's so wrong to say that everything made in Russia is a crap - and what do you think about China and its goods, eh?

Doing business here is not a simple thing, right, because of crazy government, lack of qualified people because of very low salaries, and because Russia has too much oil and gas to make the economics independent from those. But, as Ole has correctly said, Russian optics or photo materials are not really all this bad - take some cameras like Iskra or Kiev-II as examples, or Industar lenses in whole... I am sure there is much more examples in all fields.

FOMA is a Czech company, and many people all abroad are very happy with its products. It has a century-long story, and just nothing in common with Russia - why did you think it's Russian? They really care about their customers, but they also have a right for error - as with any products, in Russia or in USA. So I hope you're not trying to tell us that, say, Fujifilm or Kodak never fail? I've seen plenty of defects in "quality" expensive materials, so it's not right to pour mud on cheaper brands only because they're "racially impure"

Changeling1 said:

euminus, Is there anything (besides Vodka) being manufactured in Russian that can anyone can count on? Is is not nearly impossible to do business in that country due to a complete lack of integrity of Russian government and business people? No offense intended to any particular individuals, but Russia is dooming itself (again) in a mire of corruption, shoddy products, and complete disregard for the rule of law or ethics. Don't waste your time and money on a product made by people who's only passion is the accumulation of wealth by any means possible. Films don't have emulsion flaws unless the manufacturer 1) doesn't know what they are doing 2) has absolutely no quality control 3) Could care less. Quality analog photographic materials are (still) readily available- why don't you take your business to the companies who care about you and the photographs you create?

Click to expand...

Wigwam Jones said:

Who sells Svema? That's the Ukrainian Sumy Oblast, right? I'm trying to get a line on Svema and Tasma films for import to the US.

Click to expand...

You and I are both in the US, and I'm sure this differs elsewhere. I know of no US importer of Svema films. I did buy about a dozen rolls from a Ukrainian fellow via eBay a few months ago, though. IIRC, I bought from alex-photo. He doesn't currently have any Svema film up on eBay, but you could try sending him a query. He might be able to get you some; or you could put up a search for Svema film on eBay and have them e-mail you whenever there's a new listing. Note that the shipping costs make it impractical to buy just a roll or two; plan on buying one or two dozen rolls if you want to keep the prices (on a per-roll basis) reasonable. Another option might be to ask J&C. The last I checked, they didn't sell Svema film, but if anybody in the US could be convinced to begin importing it, I'd expect it would be them.

Wiggy,

I don't know if Svema and Tasma films are imported in the US at all - here they cost next to nothing, maybe $1.5 per roll. And their sheet film is available, including the ultra-finegrained MZ-3L for contratyping, i. e. a non-sensibilized film with paper sensitivity, a very slow one. So it's easier to buy it here... but technically it's difficult

Funny, but true - everyone dies all around the world for Agfa APX100 in 120 size - here in Moscow it's easy to find for $3 per roll, but no one wants it. People here love Foma and Ilford.

Cheers from Moscow,
Zhenya

Wigwam Jones said:

PS - Who sells Svema? That's the Ukrainian Sumy Oblast, right? I'm trying to get a line on Svema and Tasma films for import to the US.

Click to expand...

Retrophotographic sells Tasma film and Slavich papers, as well as Slavich glass plates. Svema I haven't seen.

I've used Slavich 9x12cm plates and Tasma sheet film in 24x30cm and 30x40cm. Both products are great!

All this trouble for a total savings of $1.00 p/roll?? Seems Excessive.

I never used Foma, but after reading this thread, despite the ever thinning selection of professional grade b/w films, I'm genuinely disinclined to even try it.

For it to take weeks or months to get a company's attention, or for it to be necessary to apply 'pressure' of any sort to get a supposedly "respectable" company to take responsibility for its product or respond to customer emails is altogether unheard of; or at least in local circles in the U.S.

Perhaps my experiences have spoiled me to expect respectable firms to demonstrate integrity, and to stand firmly behind their products. Or maybe honesty and integrity in business practices is just an "American thing"?

I think its a foolish misapplication of the expression "you get what you pay for" to equate buying "cheaper" film with one that is not only "crappy and defective", but whose maker clearly sees the need to dodge customer complaints for weeks and months on end.

Were it Kodak or ilford, this whole matter would've been resolved in a phone call or two, regardless of if the problem was a single occurence or as in this case, a systemic one. Perhaps this should serve as a learning experience to avoid, as one can, dealing with companies that are situated in parts of the world where industry is abound with corrution and fraud.

Interestingly enough I just got back from a trip to B&H photo. I purchased a box of HP5 4x5 sheet film about a week ago and after trying it, it seemed to me that the emulsion wasn't perfect - this being a very subjective, qualitative, and an altogether "hunch-like" impression. Also, B&H has a no-return policy on media of anykind. I decided it wouldn't hurt to try and went over to the customer service department. I explained what I thought might be wrong with the batch and that I would be happy if they exchanged it for a similar product from Kodak (tri-x 320). The customer service people at B&H genuinely care about the satisfaction of their customers - not 5 minutes later I walked out of the store with 2 boxes of Tri-x. THIS is how a responsive company behaves - after which the makers of Foma should consider modeling their own business practices.

I sadly regret that Zhenya is actually "happy" having to send back unused film to Foma, along with "proof" of the problem, an invoice, and all this - after multiple emails! Truly indicative of an attitude on the part of the film maker that arms need bending if results are to be had. I can only hope that more companies like B&H Photo sprout in other parts of the world so that fine, eloquent members of Apug.og, such as Zhenya, are able to enjoy more pleasant experience similar to my own.

Dear iserious,

you probably have misunderstood me a bit - I didn't send anything to FOMA by myself, that was some of our colleagues on APUG. When I noticed the problem, I instantly dumped my 40 or something rolls to our FOMA distributor, and they were accepted without trouble.

Of course, FOMA staff proved to be not quite responsible for their production, but this happened for the very first time - everyone has a right to err, give a look at AGFA - two world wars didn't have such impact on it as mismanagement did. You're right about the American integrity - but I am from the USSR, so the Czech bad behaviour is like a candy for me

Also, at least for me, buying Eastern and other esoteric films is not motivated by money saving - it's just a looking for the Holy Grail of old-style films, made with old technology and giving the classical look to my pictures. Just a small nice deviation of usual big respectable companies like Ilford, whose film I buy too. But you see, everything is simple - if I'm not satisfied with one's film, I dump it with no regret, and wait for a better lot... it always worked, I didn't regard it as a real problem. If someone blundered, they'll feel it in their pocket anyway, and that'll teach them. I wish I would live someday in a country where someone can get a reimbursment or exchange a defective film fast - it's an excellent practice, but that took too many human-days to the perconnel and manufacturer to learn it. I would wish good luck to Foma, Forte and other smaller companies - a good luck, good QC, better treatment of customers, etc. If they stay in film industry, and their products are good or very good in general, may not a mismanagement or production fault ruin their whole reputation at once.

Cheers, Zhenya

Even sadder is the fact that it appears that the defect can be fixed by some simple changes to the melt prep and coating procedures. From the description, it does not appear to be an insurmountable problem, nor an expensive one to fix.

PE

eumenius said:

you probably have misunderstood me a bit - I didn't send anything to FOMA by myself, that was some of our colleagues on APUG. When I noticed the problem, I instantly dumped my 40 or something rolls to our FOMA distributor, and they were accepted without trouble.

Of course, FOMA staff proved to be not quite responsible for their production, but this happened for the very first time - everyone has a right to err, give a look at AGFA - two world wars didn't have such impact on it as mismanagement did. You're right about the American integrity - but I am from the USSR, so the Czech bad behaviour is like a candy for me

Click to expand...

Zhenya,

I took it that you emailed Foma at least twice before they responded, that in itself would send alarm bell ringing as far as I'm concerned. The manner and efficiency of company response to customer inquiries is the foundation for consumer confidence. If you had to 'chase' them down with multiple emails, or if 'pressure' of any sort needed applied - as I have gotten from earlier posts on this thread, that in itself is indicative of certain inadequacies on the part of Foma in this respect.

I'm very happy to hear that you were able to replace the defective rolls through your distributor. I don't know of your financial situation in Moscow, but if my own (and in New York City - at that!) is to be considered, i would be hard pressed to replace 40 rolls of defective film out of pocket!

In the United States there exists a tier structure (or 'levels of separation') between manufacturer and consumer. For the most part, most of the tiers are filled by the distributor who is generally expected to offer the customer at least 30 days of recourse following the date of purchase. In most cases, distributors meet and often even exceed this rule - B&H Photo being only one of many. In the unlikely event that a distributor is in fact "unloading trash" - their profits from said venture will be very short lived.

I hope Foma does take this experience to heart, and makes the necessary adjustments both to their QC *and* to their attitude towards the importance of customer satisfaction. Personally, I'll be sticking to Tri-x 320 for as long as it is available, and even afterwards, I'm going to consider pulling a "Michael Smith" and buying up a long-term supply.

Best,
Daniel