FOMAPAN 100 VS BRAND X (WITH FOMAPAN 100 INSIDE)

I read a discussion which centered around re-spooled, re-branded film. Some commenters put price as the main factor (Brand X being cheaper, and therefore they would use that film), whereas some commenters said they would "never" buy the re-branded Brand X even though the "real" FOMAPAN is a little more expensive. One factor mentioned was that re-spooling by hand is prone to human error and the cartridges seem flimsy. I shoot mainly original factory brand film such as Tri-X or Acros; I just naturally order what I've been using over the years. But is re-spooled film something to avoid?

i think it would depend. I am told by a friend who did it that Freestyle used to have the staff load Arista brand film from bulk rolls by hand, which meant the film was as good as the person doing the rolling -- if they ever miscounted or forgot to open the gate (scratch city!) you had a quality control problem.

Most off-brand film sold today, such as Arista, is packaged by the original maker in the packaging of the seller -- so it's not really "re-spooled" film, just packaged differently. Having said that, I've sometimes wondered if the film sold as off-brand but made by a major manufacturer, is stuff that flunked a quality control check along the way and is being moved out. I had some serious problems with some of Freestyle's paper at one time, but nothing recently as I only buy Ilford paper now. At some point you say "Screw the cost, I want best quality,) and let the grandkids earn their own money.

I've shot both the rebadged and OEM brand Fomapan 100 in three formats, I see no difference. There have been some who have gotten scratched "off brand" and complained, also some genuine brand who have experienced same. I believe it all goes back to Quality control at the factory. The seller and manufacturer stand behind the brand.

I would have thought it was more expensive to hand spool from bulk rolls than to cut a deal with Foma to OEM film for Freestyle. All that work by hand would cost and is pretty inefficient...and introduces chances of mistakes.

In some cases where a major manufacturer OEM's material for an "off brand", they do offer a slightly different product. In the past (read 80s and earlier) you might have found a retailer did a deal with a manufacturer to offload product that had slightly failed quality control. In the world of recording tape it was well known that some of the cheapest brands were reject Ampex tape or even computer data or video tape repurposed as "voice grade" recording tape. However, I've not heard anything similar for photo film. Back in the day, when Fuji, Agfa and Ferrania used to do a lot of OEM film for various retailers the products were always reliable...even today with Fuji CN200 being sold for a pound in the UK as "Agfa Vista Plus" the product seems identical to Fuji's budget film offering.

Any issues with Arista EDU might be due to past QC issues at Foma...but it seems they were solved years ago.

Next time I visit the states (assuming Trump allows me to) I'm going to pick up a couple of hundred feet of the Arista EDU 100 as I love Fomapan 100.

There was a time when Freestyle reloaded cartridges. I still have a frozen roll of Ilford Pan F, purchased at Freestyle's retail location. Label (looks like a typical gummed label printed with an office laser printer) states "ILFORD PAN F PLUS 50" and "135x20 EX RELOAD BY FSC". And the cartridges were reloadable.

I bought a 10 pack of Lucky B&W SHD 100 (100 ASA)35mm film when it was available, it looked fine but I noticed the DX coding was 200 ASA and when I peeled the sticker off I found it was in a Kodak 200 ASA colour film canister. the Lucky sticker just coverd over the Kodak information but left the original 200 ASA DX coding.

I only have used one roll in my retina and the developed negative had two long scratch lines along it's entire lenth, the Lucky film was joined at the end by tape to a piece of the original Kodak 200 film

To be fair the negative join and the canister sticker where nicely excecuted.

I have lots of 35mm Legacy Pro (Acros) in what appears to be factory-loaded cassttes--never a problem.

If your concern is with bulk loading, I personally have had good experiences with bulk loaded film. If you want to shoot Double-X, I believe bulk load is your only option. I have started to bulk load myself. Of courses, I screw things up, but it's all part of the learning process.

If your concern is with rebranded film, I think you are right to be concerned. The issue is not with the quality but rather the underlying film could change without notice, and your accumulated learnings with a particular film would become useless.

I have started to see the film and negatives only as an intermediate step to the final print. It would be nice to have the exposure and development perfect each time, but sometime it's better to accept life is less than perfect and simply make the best of it and move forward toward the final print.