fomapan 200 emulsion issue?

[chris77]

hello.
i am getting this from time to time and cannot understand, is it my problem or a foma quality issue?

please look through my my loupe, the little strokes in the monochrome background is not rain, i assure you

processed in rodinal 1+50 in paterson tank (swirl), light stopbath and water rinse, alkaline fixer, wash, final wash in demineralised water, no flow no squegee no fingers no swearing..

cheers,
chris

 

[AgX]

Several years ago a artefact at Foma rollfilm was reported that we considerd to be caused by abrasion/stress by the backing paper surface.

 

[koraks]

If this is the 120 format film: yes, it's a well known issue. I've had it as well and have since refrained from using this film in 120. It's great in 4x5 and probably 135 as well.

 

[R.Gould]

I don't think it can be a backing paper issue as for the past year or so they seem to be using the same backing paper as Ilford/Kodak, the older slighter rogher paper has gone, at least on both the 200 and 400 that I use all the time,at least over here

 

[chris77]

If this is the 120 format film: yes, it's a well known issue. I've had it as well and have since refrained from using this film in 120. It's great in 4x5 and probably 135 as well.

yes, its 120.
never had this in 5x7.
sad..
love this film

 

[albireo]

I regularly shoot fresh Foma 200 in 120 format and have not encountered this issue. Would you be able to share the batch number in case the problem has to do with specific batches?

 

[mshchem]

Get in touch with Foma. Send them your picture.

 

[koraks]

Get in touch with Foma. Send them your picture.

That's what I did back when I ran into this issue. They requested the physical negatives exhibiting the problem, which I sent them. After a while they kindly informed me that the problem was indeed in the film. They replaced the film I had purchased at no cost. It exhibited the exact same problems. That's when I gave up on this film in 120, but I still like it in 4x5.

 

[mshchem]

That's what I did back when I ran into this issue. They requested the physical negatives exhibiting the problem, which I sent them. After a while they kindly informed me that the problem was indeed in the film. They replaced the film I had purchased at no cost. It exhibited the exact same problems. That's when I gave up on this film in 120, but I still like it in 4x5.

Yeah, when you are wary of the quality time to change. I'm using more Foma fiber base paper. The Fomatone MG is amazing. I tend towards Kodak and Ilford for film.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I gave up on Foma film due to repeatedly encountering zits and cracks in the emulsion. But I was shooting it in 8x10 sheets, where duplicate exposures are unrealistic. It's cheaper just to buy a more expensive film you can count on. I like the fact that Foma 200 is the last so-called straight-line film on the market, which does yield superb deep shadow separation. But it's nowhere near real 200 speed, has miserable reciprocity characteristics, plus lots of quality control issues. I expect my medium format films to be reliable too, and can't gamble on anything questionable. Paper issues are more forgiving because you have a chance to reprint them.

 

[Lollipop]

After some rolls without issues I had the same problem with #012856 batch. Replaced for free by Foma (good) but it's still a problem.

 

[koraks]

it's still a problem.

Yeah, it's unfortunately just not a feasible option in 120 format. I didn't have problems with it in 4x5 (but haven't used it much). I may give it a go in 135 one day.

 

[Lollipop]

Yeah, it's unfortunately just not a feasible option in 120 format. I didn't have problems with it in 4x5 (but haven't used it much). I may give it a go in 135 one day.

It's a pity because I do consider Fomapan 200/120 a great film, with an extended greyscale in the shadows and a reasonable price.

 

[grain elevator]

It's a pity because I do consider Fomapan 200/120 a great film, with an extended greyscale in the shadows and a reasonable price.

I like it, too! But what do you mean by "extended greyscale in in the shadows"? That the curve doesn't flatten off, i.e. short toe? How far things extend into the shadows is measured in the ISO sensitivity, no? And in the case of Fomapan 200, that's only in some speed enhancing devs, otherwise I'd say the greyscale in the shadows is shorter than indicated.

 

[koraks]

It is indeed a very interesting emulsion when coated well. Effective speed is 125-160 but not 200. So I wouldn't speak of extended shadow range; like in many films, it's nore the opposite. But not as pronounced as eg foma 400.

 

[Lollipop]

I like it, too! But what do you mean by "extended greyscale in in the shadows"? That the curve doesn't flatten off, i.e. short toe?

Yes, that's what I meant: in my printing chain and @100iso, Fomapan 200 gives contrasted shadows rich of details.
I can't see any difference in shadows when developed in R09 Studio 1+30, Foma Excel 1+1, Foma Fomadol P 1+1 and D76 1+1.

 

[Lollipop]

It is indeed a very interesting emulsion when coated well. Effective speed is 125-160 but not 200. So I wouldn't speak of extended shadow range; like in many films, it's nore the opposite. But not as pronounced as eg foma 400.

I do think Fomapan 400 (@160 iso in my chain with D76 1+1) is only a good film but not so exciting. But this is only my opinion.