Fomapan 200 questions

[DeletedAcct1]

it’s certainly recurring, which is a better description than temporary in this case

Che ne sai che chi si lamenta qui dentro non abbia lo stesso lotto di pellicole?
Andrei cauto a dire che è ricorrente...
Comunque per come la vedo io, continuate pure a gettare fango su Foma, quando poi Foma fallirà perché i suoi prodotti non saranno più acquistati vi rimarrà solo da farvi spennare da Kodak e da poche altre, oltre a trastullarvi con pellicole aeree che non son concepite per la fotografia normale...

 

[Tomro]

First, thanks for replying in Italian… just in case you thought I’d not understand you. Maybe check forum rules.

And it‘s nice that you assume things without checking first. I really like Foma films. As I’ve stated before. All of them. Especially the Foma 400, which has been flawless for me over years.
However, Foma200 in 120 has not.
I have tested 3 different batches over the years. None was flawless. And looking at albireo’s posts anyone knows that he likes Foma films. So if he reports something negative, it is certainly not to denigrate them.

But if you prefer to blindly defend someone, go ahead.

 

[albireo]

Comunque per come la vedo io, continuate pure a gettare fango su Foma

I'm not throwing mud on Foma. I'm highlighting an unresolved issue with one of their products.

The rest of their stuff is great, and in the right hands just as good as Ilford and Kodak.

 

[Tomro]

I'm not throwing mud on Foma. I'm highlighting an unresolved issue with one of their products.

The rest of their stuff is great, and in the right hands just as good as Ilford and Kodak.

Exactly

 

[DeletedAcct1]

First, thanks for replying in Italian… just in case you thought I’d not understand you. Maybe check forum rules.

And it‘s nice that you assume things without checking first. I really like Foma films. As I’ve stated before. All of them. Especially the Foma 400, which has been flawless for me over years.
However, Foma200 in 120 has not.
I have tested 3 different batches over the years. None was flawless. And looking at albireo’s posts anyone knows that he likes Foma films. So if he reports something negative, it is certainly not to denigrate them.

But if you prefer to blindly defend someone, go ahead.

You should know that if one writes in a forum is only because he's complaining of something, not because it's allright (and I find it not right).
Then, I should add that on Foma Instagram page (and Facebook page) there are plenty of images in 120 that are flawless, dunno how they managed to get them.
Third: If Foma itself suggest a workaround that solves the problem I can't understand why keeping discrediting Foma products in general, and of course I'm not referring to you neither to albireo because I don't know you. And this type of forum dynamic happens also in italian forums.
Albireo is certainly one of the fan of Foma here, but I've found not appropriate to publicy rant and state "I'm done with Fomapan 200". There's a problem with the product, there's a workaround. It ends here, as I see.
All this is extremely irritating to me, because Foma it's to be cherished being the last film manufacturer that produces good cheap alternatives.
See? The OP the first question he asked is: "is the qc good"?
Because probably he knew from fora members that Foma products aren't up to Ilford, Kodak and Fuji.
Which isn't simply true.
Should we remember Ilford and Kodak 120 format problem with the paper?

 

[koraks]

I've found not appropriate to publicy rant and state "I'm done with Fomapan 200".

If you feel a post violates forum rules, please report it and we'll look into it. However, someone stating that they no longer want to buy a certain product does not violate any forum rules, so in this case, you can save yourself the trouble.

Also, the problem with this product really is intermittent; it's been recurring for years. I can attest to this personally and ice had film from seperate batches exhibit essentially the same problems, and this was 5+ years ago, so definitely different batches of film from those reported on in this thread and many other places online.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

If you feel a post violates forum rules, please report it and we'll look into it. However, someone stating that they no longer want to buy a certain product does not violate any forum rules, so in this case, you can save yourself the trouble.

I don't care about it, I'm not easily influenced by negative rants about a manufacturer.
I'm instead a bit worried about the negative advertisement (and damage) that a public rant does.
The forum rules should be modified in that it's forbidden to write negative opinions about problems you may have with any manufacturer. They must be resolved privately with the manufacturer. One should limit himself to only asking for information on a specific problem in the most neutral way possible.

 

[koraks]

The forum rules should be modified in that it's forbidden to write negative opinions about problems you may have with any manufacturer.

This is unlikely to ever happen.

I'll bring this under the attention of the other moderators. And with that, it's time to go back to discussing Fomapan 200 and not forum rules in this thread.

 

[albireo]

I don't care about it, I'm not easily influenced by negative rants about a manufacturer.

Once again, and for the last time, it was not a negative rant about a manufacturer.

It was a rant about A PRODUCT by a manufacturer who is otherwise capable of excellence.

It was a rant about A PRODUCT that in the past has given me, with some batches, outstanding results and that is, sadly, INCONSISTENT in terms of QC.

When it works, it is outstanding. When it doesn't, it spoils images of my children I won't be able to make again.

I have several times attempted to address the issue with the manufacturer. It hasn't taken me anywhere, given the inconsistency is still there. I am posting my experience, and I'm not hiding my exasperation, in the hope that someone at Foma reads this and realises people care about this product of theirs and want it to be fixed once and for all.

 

[Chuck1]

I see it as a public service, and is kind of the point of photrio.
I might just try foma 100 or 400 in 120 because of this thread

 

[Tomro]

This is unlikely to ever happen.

I'll bring this under the attention of the other moderators. And with that, it's time to go back to discussing Fomapan 200 and not forum rules in this thread.

If this is turning into e request thread, I would specifically request that reporting problems is not disallowed. I want to know about mottling issues of Ilford films the same way I want to know whether Foma has solved its quality issues with Foma 200 in 120.
Science is based on standing on experience made by others. That means offering their own experience to be known. Science would be dead if everyone would need to like invent fire again every time.

 

[koraks]

If this is turning into e request thread

It isn't:

it's time to go back to discussing Fomapan 200 and not forum rules in this thread.

Further diversions may be deleted without notice or explanation.

 

[FotoD]

Fomacitro Stop 1+19 as per leaflet, third use
[...]
Washed in AP/Kaiser tank using AP hose connected to tap

At this point it's hard to say where the spots came from.

The stop bath was reused, maybe that's the source?

The film was washed under running water. It wouldn't be the first time there was iron, carbon or some other particles in the tap water.

There seems to be a perception on photrio that Fomapan 200 is prone to having spots. Maybe it's related to the films softer emulsion? That any particles present during processing would stick to the film more easily?

I would say good luck resolving the problem, but it seems the OP has moved on

 

[koraks]

At this point it's hard to say where the spots came from.

In my case, several years ago, I excluded all factors you mention before contacting Foma, and then sent them physical samples of my negatives. The black spots (in the positive) turned out to be coating defects, as evidenced by what Foma told me, which effectively summarized as "the problem is on our side". They graciously sent replacement rolls that exhibited the exact same problem. Since then, I've seen the same issue pop up regularly online, as it does here once again. It's a systematic problem but it apparently only affects a certain percentage of the rolls, and the severity of the problem seems to vary from roll to roll. This may have something to do from which part of the master roll a finished film is cut.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Fact: Foma has suggested to pre-soak the film in water for 20 to 30 minutes to eliminate the problem.
Question: does the OP have tried to pre-soak the film in order to alleviate/eliminate the problem?
Another question: how the film was stored? In freezer?
What kind of water was being used? Tap water?
A fresh emulsion (that is recently manufactured) with Orthopan sensitizers is much more sensitive for Calcium too which gives white spotts on the emulsion when your (tap-) water is pretty hard.
Hence the Foma suggestion: a pre-soak of 30 minutes will get rid of these sensitizers or you have to resort to use distilled water for all the process.
Either way it's not Foma fault, it's the way the film is manufactured.
Both Rollei Retro 100 tonal and all eFKe films had this very problem of white dots when freshly made.
Just make a Google search with "orthopan sensitizer" and "white spots" as keywords.

Look here https://philografia.wordpress.com/w...lei-retro-100-tonal_technical-information.pdf page 5, note 23:

 

[DeletedAcct1]

The black spots (in the positive) turned out to be coating defects, as evidenced by what Foma told me,

It's not pertaining to the problem. Whe have white spots, not black spots.
Black spots are coating defect. White spots are not.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Once again, and for the last time, it was not a negative rant about a manufacturer.

It was a rant about A PRODUCT by a manufacturer who is otherwise capable of excellence.

It was a rant about A PRODUCT that in the past has given me, with some batches, outstanding results and that is, sadly, INCONSISTENT in terms of QC.

When it works, it is outstanding. When it doesn't, it spoils images of my children I won't be able to make again.

I have several times attempted to address the issue with the manufacturer. It hasn't taken me anywhere, given the inconsistency is still there. I am posting my experience, and I'm not hiding my exasperation, in the hope that someone at Foma reads this and realises people care about this product of theirs and want it to be fixed once and for all.

It's not a qc problem

 

[albireo]

At this point it's hard to say where the spots came from.

The stop bath was reused, maybe that's the source?

Thank you for this. I would have thought it unlikely the water and/or the reused stop bath are the issue here, as I've developed all my rolls using water from the same tap for years, and other 2 rolls within 1 day of this (a Ferrania P33 in 35mm and a Rollei Retro 400S in 120) using water from the same tap and stop solution from the same bottle - with no issues.

However, I thought it would be interesting to exclude these variables in a test to really make sure operator error is not responsible for the 2 types of defects I'm seeing.

Therefore I decided to expose another roll in controlled conditions, as follows.

Materials

• Film: Fomapan 200 in 120
  • batch number 05 2027 / 014256-6 purchased from https://fomaobchod.cz/ Order date 29. 6. 2024 23:39:31.
  • Film kept in dark storage at 20-25°C since purchase.
  • Roll unwrapped yesterday few minutes before loading in a Rolleiflex 3.5F III entirely overhauled by Magicflex (Germany). Camera is in as new condition (no issues with rollers, pressure plate, lens etc)
• Fixer: Fomafix used 1+5 as per manufacturer's recommendations.
  • Bottle purchased together with the Foma 200 rolls above
  • Bottle unsealed 2 weeks ago. No cloudiness, no unusual smells.
  • I discarded the old fixer solution bottle and its contents (I tend to reuse it a few times, normally). For this experiment, I prepared a fresh new bottle (still water bottle, washed and dried in distilled water) of stop bath 5 minutes before processing the film.
• Stop Bath: Fomacitro used 1+19 as per manufacturer's recommendation.
  • Bottle purchased together with the Foma 200 rolls above
  • Bottle unsealed 2 weeks ago. No cloudiness, no unusual smells.
  • I discarded my old prepared stop bottle and its contents (I tend to reuse this until the indicator colour starts to change). For this experiment, I prepared a new bottle of stop bath 5 minutes before processing the film.
• Developer: Fomadon R09 used 1:50 20°C as per manufacturer's recommendation.
  • Bottle purchased earlier this year. Bottle had been opened 2 weeks ago, and used to process other 120 and 35mm film without any noticeable issues.
• Distilled Water:
  • I purchased a 5L bottle from a local chain of home products.
  • Bottle was sealed up until 5 minutes before processing
• Tank: AP/Kaiser tank with Kaiser reels. Tank and reels had been cleaned one day before with distilled water and a fresh toothbrush to ensure no residues of any kind might be left. Tank and reels left to dry overnight.
• All steps of the procedure employed distilled water from the same bottle.

Methods

After loading the film in the tank, I opened my sealed bottle of distilled water at 20°C and poured 600ml in the tank. 10 inversion, followed by 10 inversions every 10 minutes, for a total of 25 minutes.

I then poured the prebath (which as expected was of a very dark emerald green) out and started the processing proper.

• Development: 9 minutes, continuous inversions first minute, followed by 2 inversions at the beginning of every minute + 3 raps of the tank to dislodge bubbles
• Stop: 30 seconds, continuous inversions
• Fix: 4 minutes, same inversion pattern as development
• Wash: Ilford wash:
  • pour 600ml distilled water in tank. 5 inversions - discard water
  • pour 600ml distilled water in tank. 10 inversions - discard water
  • pour 600ml distilled water in tank. 20 inversions - discard water
  • pour 600ml distilled water in tank. 50 inversions - discard water
• Wetting agent: Fotonal 1:250 in 600ml distilled water - agitate gently for 1 minute.
• Remove roll from tank. Gentle shaking. Hang to dry. The wet negatives were not touched with anything.
• Dry in closed dedicated cabinet overnight. The cabinet is empty, dustless, used for all my negatives and no dust issues affect any of my development.
• Scan frames with a dedicated film scanner at 4000dpi resolution - linear raw 16bit/channel scans followed by gamma correction and inversion and black point trimming via histogram - no edits of any kind afterwards.

Sample images from roll. For each frame shown, first image shows the full scanned frame, resized for monitor consumption, followed by one or more samples from the same scan at 1:1 resolution.

Frame 1 in the roll

Frame 4 in the roll

Frame 8 in the roll

Conclusions
All rolls I have developed from this particular batch of Foma 200 in 120 show consistent issues with spotting. The defect appear to be of 2 types:

• the first results in white specks distributed uniformly throughout the frame. The specks are visible both at 1:1 magnification via a 4000dpi scan, as well as standard monitor visualisation size and presumably standard print sizes.
• the second results in black specs distributed non uniformly throughout the frame. These specs seem to cluster in places as shown in some of the samples. These spots appear smaller in size than those above, and might be less of an issue depending on final print size or chosen monitor visualisation size.

The issues are not dependent on issues with the tap water used and/or improper home storage of the film and present themselves without any appreciable change in distribution and magnitude even when distilled water is used for the entire processing chain, including prewash, developer, stop bath, fixer bath and wash cycles. The issues are not due to mechanical interaction with the wet emulsion, as there was none.

The issues are not ameliorated by a 25 minutes prewash, so this temporary workaround, suggested to me years ago by a Foma tech rep for a mildly problematic batch of Foma 100 in 120, is not helpful with this particular batch of Foma 200 in 120.

To summarise, this particular batch of Fomapan 200 in 120 shows emulsion defects that are consistent and cannot be ameliorated by carefully controlling processing variables in a pretty standard amateur developing chain like the one I perform. I stand by my earlier observations that this batch is affected by significant QC issues, and it is defective and unfit for (my) use.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Thank you for this. I would have thought it unlikely the water and/or the reused stop bath are the issue here, as I've developed all my rolls using water from the same tap for years, and other 2 rolls within 1 day of this (a Ferrania P33 in 35mm and a Rollei Retro 400S in 120) using water from the same tap and stop solution from the same bottle - with no issues.

However, I thought it would be interesting to exclude these variables in a test to really make sure operator error is not responsible for the 2 types of defects I'm seeing.

Therefore I decided to expose another roll in controlled conditions, as follows.

Materials

• Film: Fomapan 200 in 120
  • batch number 05 2027 / 014256-6 purchased from https://fomaobchod.cz/ Order date 29. 6. 2024 23:39:31.
  • Film kept in dark storage at 20-25°C since purchase.
  • Roll unwrapped yesterday few minutes before loading in a Rolleiflex 3.5F III entirely overhauled by Magicflex (Germany). Camera is in as new condition (no issues with rollers, pressure plate, lens etc)
• Fixer: Fomafix used 1+5 as per manufacturer's recommendations.
  • Bottle purchased together with the Foma 200 rolls above
  • Bottle unsealed 2 weeks ago. No cloudiness, no unusual smells.
  • I discarded the old fixer solution bottle and its contents (I tend to reuse it a few times, normally). For this experiment, I prepared a fresh new bottle (still water bottle, washed and dried in distilled water) of stop bath 5 minutes before processing the film.
• Stop Bath: Fomacitro used 1+19 as per manufacturer's recommendation.
  • Bottle purchased together with the Foma 200 rolls above
  • Bottle unsealed 2 weeks ago. No cloudiness, no unusual smells.
  • I discarded my old prepared stop bottle and its contents (I tend to reuse this until the indicator colour starts to change). For this experiment, I prepared a new bottle of stop bath 5 minutes before processing the film.
• Developer: Fomadon R09 used 1:50 20°C as per manufacturer's recommendation.
  • Bottle purchased earlier this year. Bottle had been opened 2 weeks ago, and used to process other 120 and 35mm film without any noticeable issues.
• Distilled Water:
  • I purchased a 5L bottle from a local chain of home products.
  • Bottle was sealed up until 5 minutes before processing
• Tank: AP/Kaiser tank with Kaiser reels. Tank and reels had been cleaned one day before with distilled water and a fresh toothbrush to ensure no residues of any kind might be left. Tank and reels left to dry overnight.
• All steps of the procedure employed distilled water from the same bottle.

Methods

After loading the film in the tank, I opened my sealed bottle of distilled water at 20°C and poured 600ml in the tank. 10 inversion, followed by 10 inversions every 10 minutes, for a total of 25 minutes.

I then poured the prebath (which as expected was of a very dark emerald green) out and started the processing proper.

• Development: 9 minutes, continuous inversions first minute, followed by 2 inversions at the beginning of every minute + 3 raps of the tank to dislodge bubbles
• Stop: 30 seconds, continuous inversions
• Fix: 4 minutes, same inversion pattern as development
• Wash: Ilford wash:
  • pour 600ml distilled water in tank. 5 inversions - discard water
  • pour 600ml distilled water in tank. 10 inversions - discard water
  • pour 600ml distilled water in tank. 20 inversions - discard water
  • pour 600ml distilled water in tank. 50 inversions - discard water
• Wetting agent: Fotonal 1:250 in 600ml distilled water - agitate gently for 1 minute.
• Remove roll from tank. Gentle shaking. Hang to dry. The wet negatives were not touched with anything.
• Dry in closed dedicated cabinet overnight. The cabinet is empty, dustless, used for all my negatives and no dust issues affect any of my development.
• Scan frames with a dedicated film scanner at 4000dpi resolution - linear raw 16bit/channel scans followed by gamma correction and inversion and black point trimming via histogram - no edits of any kind afterwards.

Sample images from roll. For each frame shown, first image shows the full scanned frame, resized for monitor consumption, followed by one or more samples from the same scan at 1:1 resolution.

Frame 1 in the roll

Frame 4 in the roll

Frame 8 in the roll

Conclusions
All rolls I have developed from this particular batch of Foma 200 in 120 show consistent issues with spotting. The defect appear to be of 2 types:

• the first results in white specks distributed uniformly throughout the frame. The specks are visible both at 1:1 magnification via a 4000dpi scan, as well as standard monitor visualisation size and presumably standard print sizes.
• the second results in black specs distributed non uniformly throughout the frame. These specs seem to cluster in places as shown in some of the samples. These spots appear smaller in size than those above, and might be less of an issue depending on final print size or chosen monitor visualisation size.

The issues are not dependent on issues with the tap water used and/or improper home storage of the film and present themselves without any appreciable change in distribution and magnitude even when distilled water is used for the entire processing chain, including prewash, developer, stop bath, fixer bath and wash cycles. The issues are not due to mechanical interaction with the wet emulsion, as there was none.

The issues are not ameliorated by a 25 minutes prewash, so this temporary workaround, suggested to me years ago by a Foma tech rep for a mildly problematic batch of Foma 100 in 120, is not helpful with this particular batch of Foma 200 in 120.

To summarise, this particular batch of Fomapan 200 in 120 shows emulsion defects that are consistent and cannot be ameliorated by carefully controlling processing variables in a pretty standard amateur developing chain like the one I perform. I stand by my earlier observations that this batch is affected by significant QC issues, and it is defective and unfit for (my) use.

The only thing you didn't vary are the chemicals so...
I'm asking you this for the second time: have you tried another developer? Say d76?
Another stop and fixer manufacturer?
Have you tried to follow Foma suggestion about washing the film (not prewash)? 30 minutes in running water (or 15 depending on the water temperature)?
Here a user https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/89253-ilford-panfrodinal-125-white-speckling-of-dark-areas/ had the same problem with Ilford PanF+ and Rodinal type of developer.
Many more examples of people having this problem when using Rodinal as the developer.

 

[FotoD]

Sorry you had to do all that work. I think you have ruled out tap water and stop bath as the culprit.

It sure looks like the problem is with the film itself.

Another developer might give another result, but with that careful development you shouldn't have problems with Rodinal either.

I hope you still have the energy to send this information to Foma.

 

[FotoD]

If you're not sick of testing yet, and if you have more film you could cut off a piece and fully fix it in a clean tray. It would be interesting to see if the spots look the same regardless.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

If you're not sick of testing yet, and if you have more film you could cut off a piece and fully fix it in a clean tray. It would be interesting to see if the spots look the same regardless.

Do you think the spots are in the film base?
To rule out all the possibilities I'd suggest to use a different developer and a different fixer, no stop bath (only water) and a final washing of at least 20 minutes in running water...
If all this will turn useless I'd ask for a refund not new rolls, since there's high probability that also these will be affected by the same problems.

 

[FotoD]

Do you think the spots are in the film base?

Maybe not in the polyester film. But this test could show if there is a basic problem with the gelatin layers that is independent of the developer.

 

[albireo]

Another developer might give another result, but with that careful development you shouldn't have problems with Rodinal either.

Another developer will not give another result. This particular developer is, in general, one of the best matches for this film. I've been using it for years. It is of course part of the recommended matching developers by Foma itself, as shown in the Foma product catalogue here https://www.foma.cz/en/catalogue_bw_photo_materials_and_developing_information - page 5

Here's an example scan from an old batch of Foma 200 in 120, developed in the exactly the same product (Fomadon R09 1:50), stopped in Fomacitro as normal, fixed in Fomafix as normal. Tap water, no prewash, no special rinse, no sacrifices to the Gods.

100% magnification details

Really quite acceptable for me. Again: no prewash, no distilled water, same developer, same stop, same fixer products used for the faulty batch in post #221. The above is how a 'good' batch of Fomapan 200 looks like using the same workflow I use for all my film - no special concessions.

Out of interest - here's how Foma 200 in 35mm looks when developed not only in the same developer + dilution (Fomadon R09 1:50), but the same bottle of Fomadon R09 I used for the faulty Fomapan batch in post #221:

And with this, I've completely lost interest in this topic. All the best in your Foma 200 journey!

 

[FotoD]

Yes, and that was my point. You shouldn't have the problems you are seeing with this developer.