Fomapan 400 coating defects 35mm factory-confectioned

[Don_ih]

No one here is doing these alternatives, at least not in a proper, reliable way.

I don't think your claim is justified. You don't know what everyone else is or is not doing. I'm sure lots of people here have done fairly good testing of their preferred film to get the results they want.

 

[Film-Niko]

I don't think your claim is justified.

I am referring to the comments and questions here: They clearly indicate that it is actually not done, because if it woud be done, the questions would not be occur, would not be needed.
And most beginners today look at youtube for their information. And there almost all filmfluencers sadly do not teach the proper systematic approaches. Instead you find much more content about the esoteric stuff like stand development, using beer or coffe as developers etc.

 

[Don_ih]

"Here" is a vague word. If you mean, "In this thread," you should say that.
And there are many people here who are not beginners.
You will find many dedicated people who use stand development and coffee developer. That you don't use those methods doesn't really have much to do with whether or not someone else can get the results they want using them. Yes, there are "standard" ways of doing things but many people find standard ways dull and are after a result that you can't get from a standard approach. That's apart from any crap one hears from Youtubers.

But when it comes to criticizing a particular film, it really needs to be done from the perspective of someone using the recommended approach for that film - i.e., exposure and developer (including temperature).

 

[pentaxuser]

The necessary technology for comprehensive quality control of film material was already available at ILFORD when Kentmere film did not yet exist. Whether this technology could be purchased and operated today with films in the Kentmere price league alone seems questionable to me.

I am not sure what point you are making here. If it was in reference to albireo's point about no QC difference wasn't he saying that there are differences between say HP5+ or D400 and Kentmere as film and that is why Kentmere is cheaper but no QC differences because Kentmere film is made on the same equipment in the same factory

If yo are saying that Foma does not have the benefit of the level of Ilford manufacturing standards and may not be able to buy such equipment nowadays anyway then that suggests that customers may have to accept that Foma film will never meet the lower defect rate of Ilford films

I understand your latter point and what I conclude from that point is what I said above, namely Foma customers may have to accept a higher defect rate than Ilford customers

This makes sense but only if Foma is incapable of making its QC checks good enough to detect the defects i.e. Foma cannot prevent all the defects but knowing that its equipment is not as good as Ilford should it not be capable of preventing those defects so its defect rate that leaves the factory is about the same as Ilford?


Of course this might make Foma's QC dept more expensive and would affect the price of its films to the extent of removing its cost advantage over say Ilford


This in turn raises the question of whether Foma has had to choose between better QC and smaller or no price advantage or the same QC and hope that enough of its customers will overlook its higher defect rate for the benefit of a lower price

pentaxuser

 

[Film-Niko]

"Here" is a vague word.

With "here" I have referred to photrio, to this BW subforum especially.

And there are many people here who are not beginners.

Yes, and even from those group there are lots of members who are not using the described techniques to get the best results with their specific BW film developer combinations.
The countless questions over all the years for the the best developer / film / development time / agitation rhythm / developer dilution demonstrate that very obviously.
Because if the members would use at least one of the three described proper and successful testing techniques for optimal fit of the(ir) specific / individual BW film developer combinations they would not ask at all. They would have already found the optimal result for their selected materials.

If you would make a survey, than most probably less than 5% would answer that they are using at least one of the three systematic and reliable test approaches.

 

[albireo]

I am not sure what point you are making here. If it was in reference to albireo's point about no QC difference wasn't he saying that there are differences between say HP5+ or D400 and Kentmere as film and that is why Kentmere is cheaper but no QC differences because Kentmere film is made on the same equipment in the same factory

pentaxuser

Thanks Pentax for highlighting this - I had missed the reply by @Klaus_H - quoted below

The necessary technology for comprehensive quality control of film material was already available at ILFORD when Kentmere film did not yet exist. Whether this technology could be purchased and operated today with films in the Kentmere price league alone seems questionable to me.

Klaus, fair enough - that makes sense - then again, what about Adox? A much smaller company than Ilford, operates on a shoestring budget, yet it's able to manufacture a range of film products characterised by excellent quality control which are then marketed in a roughly comparable price bracket to Kentmere's range.

Adox doesn't have 'the benefit of Ilford manufacturing standards' to quote pentaxuser, and yet can offer consistently problem-free e.g. CHS II for 7-8 euro per roll and still pay its employees German wages, pensions etc. I still think Foma could and should do it. Raise the prices a little, improve QC etc.

Again - playing the devil's advocate here - I just fear the risk is otherwise to have a sort of 'Foma = nah, risk of defects' long term stigma attached to them.

 

[Don_ih]

If you would make a survey, than most probably less than 5% would answer that they are using at least one of the three systematic and reliable test approaches.

Well, you don't need to use any systematic testing approach if you try something and are satisfied by it. Lots of people are satisfied following manufacturers recommendations. Lots of people are happy letting a lab develop their film.

there are lots of members who are not using the described techniques to get the best results with their specific BW film developer combinations

Best results from your point of view may not be what they want. So-called "objective" best results are often not what individuals want from what they do. It's not a difficult concept.

In the meantime, you personally still don't know how many members here have undertaken testing that satisfies their personal requirements.

 

[charlotteRF]

When everyone was having the backing paper crisis a few years ago, did this affect Foma, and if it did, did they fix it?

I can't recall myself.

 

[john_s]

........ Lots of people are satisfied following manufacturers recommendations.........

I wasn't satisfied. I learned to expose a bit more and develop a bit less, but I didn't need to make accurate measurements.

 

[MattKing]

When everyone was having the backing paper crisis a few years ago, did this affect Foma, and if it did, did they fix it?

I can't recall myself.

Any question like this omits reference to the fact that problems with backing paper relate not just to the paper, but rather to the interaction between paper, particular film emulsions, available paper, and paper and ink printing methods and materials.
This is why Eastman Kodak's issues aren't/weren't the same as Harman's issues, which in turn wouldn't be the same as any issues experienced by Foma - all because of a number of factors, including the differences in the films themselves.
Eastman Kodak only ran into problems when their years long excess inventory of previously manufactured backing paper finally started running out, and it became clear that what were then current printing and paper manufacturing materials and equipment and methods were incapable of duplicating the old materials.

 

[charlotteRF]

Any question like this omits reference to the fact that problems with backing paper relate not just to the paper, but rather to the interaction between paper, particular film emulsions, available paper, and paper and ink printing methods and materials.
This is why Eastman Kodak's issues aren't/weren't the same as Harman's issues, which in turn wouldn't be the same as any issues experienced by Foma - all because of a number of factors, including the differences in the films themselves.
Eastman Kodak only ran into problems when their years long excess inventory of previously manufactured backing paper finally started running out, and it became clear that what were then current printing and paper manufacturing materials and equipment and methods were incapable of duplicating the old materials.

I did specifically recall some Lomo films finished by Foma did have the backing paper imprinting issue similar to what Ilford's Pan F was having around that time, I was curious if this was a factor at all this time around.

That being materials from the backing paper at all being related, if anyone had any idea.

 

[koraks]

I did specifically recall some Lomo films finished by Foma did have the backing paper imprinting issue similar to what Ilford's Pan F was having around that time, I was curious if this was a factor at all this time around.

That being materials from the backing paper at all being related, if anyone had any idea.

Backing paper issues are generally isolated to specific lots of film - or more appropriately, specific lots of backing paper. So far, I've not seen any correlation between different brands, let alone manufacturers. IDK about the Lomo backing papers though; I missed that. A couple of years ago (a decade or so?) Kodak had some issues with esp. TMX backing paper, but I think this turned out to be related to film having been left to sit in a hot truck somewhere for a while. In the past few years (4 or so?) we've seen Harman/Ilford film (esp. HP5+) pop up with backing paper problems once in a while, but it doesn't seem to be consistent, and the patter tends to look different from what we got with Kodak. Some re-packaged Agfa products (Rollei Retro 400s in particular) were notorious for backing paper issues. I don't know who did the packaging back then. This is also >10 years ago. From Foma, I don't recall any notable backing paper problems.

The long & short of it is that backing paper problems should really be looked at on a case-by-case basis. In the vast majority of instances that I see them, some kind of unfortunate combination of shelf life and storage conditions plays a role. What's left after eliminating those are a couple of seemingly fairly isolated incidents associated with different manufacturers, but those are so spread out in time that they can't track down to the same cause.

So it all seems to be unrelated, apart from the systematic difficulty of having a heavily inked piece of paper touching a sensitive photographic emulsion for many months or even years on end. You could argue that this is a fundamental design 'trait' (flaw) in 120 film - but it's hard (impossible) to change that legacy. It's an old format.

 

[Don_ih]

Kodak had some issues with esp. TMX backing paper, but I think this turned out to be related to film having been left to sit in a hot truck somewhere for a while.

Tmax and TriX they claimed was left in a hot truck over a weekend - the frame numbers were imprinted on the emulsion. At the time, they said they would make changes to prevent that from happening. Ilford's issues were an overall mottling, I think - no number imprinting.

 

[koraks]

Yes, exactly!

 

[pentaxuser]

Eastman Kodak only ran into problems when their years long excess inventory of previously manufactured backing paper finally started running out, and it became clear that what were then current printing and paper manufacturing materials and equipment and methods were incapable of duplicating the old materials.

Still on the plus side it sounds as if MCB18's idea of acrylic paint cures the problem although it would add cost to a 120 roll

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

Tmax and TriX they claimed was left in a hot truck over a weekend - the frame numbers were imprinted on the emulsion. At the time, they said they would make changes to prevent that from happening. Ilford's issues were an overall mottling, I think - no number imprinting.

So maybe a cheaper cure than acrylic paint is for co-operatíon between Kodak and Harman whereby Ilford shares its secret of preventing frame numbers and Kodak tells Ilford how it avoids mottling

Mind you if this were a mutually beneficial agreement would the two parties see it that way and reach an agreement in the "cut and thrust" red in tooth and claw" atmosphere of the capitalist world or is it more likely to be the " tale of the frog and scorpion" outcome ?

Could we rely on the "transactional approach" reigning supreme?

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

The Kodak problems extended to colour films as well, and manifested themselves as increased sensitivity in the areas where ink was in contact with the emulsion. As a result, negatives showed increased density in those areas, which in turn resulted in images of lighter numbers and letters in prints and positive images.
This example - from a 620 Brownie Hawkeye with re-rolled T-Max - has been digitally processed to make the effect more obvious.

 

[MattKing]

Cooperation between Harman and Kodak won't help Kodak much, because the great majority of 120 film sold by Kodak is colour film, and Harman doesn't sell much of that.
I'll repeat - the problems all relate to the interaction between film, paper, ink and all the processes used for all of them.