Fomapan/Arista.edu Ultra 100-120: Pattern of small scratches, looking for culprit!

sandermarijn · Jan 14, 2010

Thanks for the clarification Philippe, I see what you mean now. I think I can discard the camera as a cause, having used two different cameras that both do not give problems with other films. It may still be that Fomapan is simply unusually vulnerable, but then more users should be having the exact same problem. And I don't believe that I am an over-average-rough handler of film.

Mike suggested that I develop a film that never saw a camera at all. That's a good idea and I will give it a try, just to be safe on this matter.

leicam5 said:
They have something like really ‚wide lips’ at the beginning, and, believe me, they do scratch Foma film; again, other brands of film are not showing this issue!

My Paterson reels have tiny 'lips'. I once used reels with thicker (wider) lips and those gave rise to local turbulence (I presume) and uneven development. The thin reels protrude inward so little that they could never even scratch the edge of the film, let alone the centre, which in my case is also crawling with marks.

leicam5 said:
It is the lack of a good protective layer on the emulsion that is causing the problem, and, IMHO, the rather rough and stiff backing paper as used in conjunction with Foma roll-films.

The roughness and stiffness of the backing paper were the first things that occurred to me when I opened my first Foma 100-120 film. It also feels thicker, but that could not be the case of course- probably just illusion.

When one winds the film forward then the rough back of the paper touches the film. This may be a problem, but I don't really believe it. I've heard of nobody to confirm this as a problem, so probably not something that contributes to my scratches.

leicam5 said:
What I did not tell, and apologise me fort this forgetting, is that my experiences are solely with 120 roll film.

I am dealing with the same format here.

sandermarijn · Jan 14, 2010

An APUG member from the same town where I live has offered to develop a film exposed by me in my camera. This may take some time but it will be interesting to see the results. I will update this thread with the results when they arrive.

dfoo · Jan 14, 2010

Why not unspool a fresh roll before putting it in the camera and cut off the first few inches of film and inspect it to see if it has the scratches before developing. If no scratches, then develop it. If still no scratches then you know its the camera. Otherwise, you'll see its either on the film from the get go, or caused by developing.

Andrew Moxom · Jan 14, 2010

that's a good idea.... but take the film, and just process/fix it without exposing it and see if the anomalies are there.

dfoo said:
Why not unspool a fresh roll before putting it in the camera and cut off the first few inches of film and inspect it to see if it has the scratches before developing. If no scratches, then develop it. If still no scratches then you know its the camera. Otherwise, you'll see its either on the film from the get go, or caused by developing.

Ian Grant · Jan 14, 2010

dfoo said:
Why not unspool a fresh roll before putting it in the camera and cut off the first few inches of film and inspect it to see if it has the scratches before developing. If no scratches, then develop it. If still no scratches then you know its the camera. Otherwise, you'll see its either on the film from the get go, or caused by developing.

You'd need to cut the last few inches not the first because the film is taped at the start.

Ian

dfoo · Jan 14, 2010

Andrew Moxom said:
that's a good idea.... but take the film, and just process/fix it without exposing it and see if the anomalies are there.

The purpose of inspecting the film before processing is to see if the film has issues before developing. I've bought some crappy Chinese film before that had loads of specks all over the surface of the film... it helps to make sure you are dealing with a good product before you go and adulterate it

Nicholas Lindan · Jan 14, 2010

Manufacturing defect in the film.

The way it goes:

One keeps doing things to try and fix it;
And eventually run into some film that doesn't have the defect;
Then conclude that what one was doing/not doing at the time caused the problem.

Result: The cause is traced to not having watered the marigolds

New Net Advice: Be sure the flowers have been watered before developing film.

sandermarijn · Jan 14, 2010

dfoo said:
Why not unspool a fresh roll before putting it in the camera and cut off the first few inches of film and inspect it to see if it has the scratches before developing.

I should stress that the scratches seem to me to be not really scratches in the sense that either of the surfaces are literally scratched, but rather they seem to be holes in the emulsion in the shape of small lines, thus resembling scratches. The scratches/lines are not visible -at least not with a loupe or with my scanner- in unexposed or thinly exposed areas. If I want to see if the scratches are present independent of camera then the film still needs some exposure.

I will (tomorrow I think) take a fresh, unexposed film, expose it to daylight, and develop it. No scratches means camera is guilty, yes scratches means workflow (tap water?) or something inherent to this (batch of) film. If the latter happens (yes scratches) then I will repeat the experiment and use distilled water for all stages except rinsing.

sandermarijn · Jan 14, 2010

Nicholas Lindan said:
New Net Advice: Be sure the flowers have been watered before developing film.

I have no flowers in my darkroom, they kept dying.

The (truly) last time I went to see a fysiotherapist he suggested my foot problem has something to do with earth rays. Should I ask his opinion you think?

sandermarijn · Jan 14, 2010

dfoo said:
The purpose of inspecting the film before processing is to see if the film has issues before developing. I've bought some crappy Chinese film before that had loads of specks all over the surface of the film... it helps to make sure you are dealing with a good product before you go and adulterate it

I don't see a problem with the unexposed film.

paulie · Jan 14, 2010

ahhh foma film, i use 4x5 and 8x10, the 8 x10 is great no issues as of yet,
the 4x5 is a problem, scratching is a definite issue with some emulsion marks thrown in for free ,often the film edges can show streaking.

these problems are unlikely to be your fault, its the film i guarantee it .

my advice buy some era film of abay, its the best of the cheap three (shangers, era foma)and the cheapest

allthough if you need cheap and extremely usable 8x10 then use foma, you just cant beat the price.

i love foma, there papers especially

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 14, 2010

Cut the unexposed film into pieces. Leave one unexposed and develop/stop/fix normally. See if problem is there without film going through camera.

If no problem, it's likely your camera. If problem, you know it's chemistry or film related. Now is when you use distilled water to see if you can repeat the problem.

If no problem, you know it's your water.

For your washing, you likely only need to do your final rinse in distilled water (and wetting agent). And that doesn't take much.

- Thomas

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 14, 2010

You can also try a different film and see if you have problems with it or not.

sandermarijn · Jan 14, 2010

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Cut the unexposed film into pieces. Leave one unexposed and develop/stop/fix normally. See if problem is there without film going through camera.

If no problem, it's likely your camera. If problem, you know it's chemistry or film related. Now is when you use distilled water to see if you can repeat the problem.

If no problem, you know it's your water.

For your washing, you likely only need to do your final rinse in distilled water (and wetting agent). And that doesn't take much.

- Thomas

That's exactly what I intend to do, as I stated above. I am not sure about rinsing in distilled water. I have no problem with doing it once, for the sake of the experiment, but to do it with every film would be too expensive for me. I pay 1 euro/litre at the local DIY store. For developer I need 600 ml (disposed after use), rinsing takes about 5x 500 ml (I think this is called the Ilford method). That's 3 euros for one film.

sandermarijn · Jan 14, 2010

paulie said:
these problems are unlikely to be your fault, its the film i guarantee it.

That's a disheartening thought, but not one I did not have myself already. It would be a great pity to say goodbye to this film, because the tonality is really nice. But I should resist the temptation to jump to conclusions, still more testing ahead.

sandermarijn · Jan 14, 2010

Thomas Bertilsson said:
You can also try a different film and see if you have problems with it or not.

In 120 I've never had a problem of this type with any of the films that I've used (Pan F, FP4, HP5, Tri-x, TMY, Neopan 400, Acros). It may or may not be coincidental that all these films are from the 'big three'.

Andrew Moxom · Jan 14, 2010

If it's any consolation, I've only had problems with the Arista Edu Ultra 100 film in 4x5 (FOMA 100). I get small black dots/rings in the film in highlight areas. I do not get this with ANY other of the big 3 films.

sandermarijn · Jan 14, 2010

That does mean some consolation Andrew- always nice to know that one is not alone even if the problem is as silly as mine.

BetterSense · Jan 14, 2010

Neopan Acros is less than $3 per roll in 120. It's not the same thing as Foma/arista, but if you are shooting the arista to save money you might want to give the Acros a try. IMO it surpasses TMX.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 15, 2010

I have discovered this, and I agree. The 'look' a film imparts is only so much of the process, and you can often do some things to change the film curve a little bit to suit your needs.

Color rendition, of course, is a different story.

As beautiful as the Foma 100 is, I now only use it for shots that I, without problem, can go back and shoot, (or sometimes I use it if I can't afford my standard film, which is more expensive). Everything else is one single emulsion from one of the big three.

If you want to use the Foma/Efke/Shanghai etc, why not buy a large batch of, meaning hundreds of rolls of it, and test the batch to be good. If it's no good, send it back for a refund or replacement. If it's good keep using it and buy a freezer (the freezer is a good idea anyway).
That's the only way I would see it as a completely viable endeavor.

- Thomas

Alessandro Serrao said:
I'm beginning to think that buying Foma, efke and that all cheap films will result in false economy...
Better stick with the consistency and reliability of Ilford, Kodak and Fuji??

:Francis: · Jan 15, 2010

Alessandro Serrao said:
I'm beginning to think that buying Foma, efke and that all cheap films will result in false economy...
Better stick with the consistency and reliability of Ilford, Kodak and Fuji??

Me too. When I've used up my stock of Foma I'll most likely never buy it again because of its unreliable nature.

Francis

fotch · Jan 15, 2010

Thomas Bertilsson said:
...

If you want to use the Foma/Efke/Shanghai etc, why not buy a large batch of, meaning hundreds of rolls of it, and test the batch to be good. If it's no good, send it back for a refund or replacement. If it's good keep using it and buy a freezer (the freezer is a good idea anyway).
That's the only way I would see it as a completely viable endeavor.

- Thomas

Garbage in Garbage out! Amortize the cost of a freezer, the cost to run it, the time value of money tied up in the freezer and the stock, and save money? You will me money ahead if you just buy Kodak or Ilford as needed and have absolutely no risk. And, you can be assured that the photos you take will not be risked with risky film.

JMHO

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 15, 2010

JMHO / fotch - I was merely referring to the 'viable endeavor' with regard to making the Foma 100 emulsion work. I was not referring to saving money. Some people love a certain film so much they will do anything to make it work. And it seemed to me that the original poster was loving the film in every other way.

- Thomas

fotch · Jan 15, 2010

Thomas Bertilsson said:
JMHO / fotch - I was merely referring to the 'viable endeavor' with regard to making the Foma 100 emulsion work. I was not referring to saving money. Some people love a certain film so much they will do anything to make it work. And it seemed to me that the original poster was loving the film in every other way.

- Thomas

OK, got it. Makes more sense. Thanks

sandermarijn · Jan 15, 2010

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Some people love a certain film so much they will do anything to make it work. And it seemed to me that the original poster was loving the film in every other way. - Thomas

Hitting nail on head!

Fomapan/Arista.edu Ultra 100-120: Pattern of small scratches, looking for culprit!

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency