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

[sandermarijn]

I think I made some progress today. I developed three ‘no-camera’ Foma 100-120 films.

The first film was first unrolled to its full length (no cameras involved) and then exposed to a couple seconds of the artificial lighting in my darkroom. This film showed no scratches at all. This rules out as a cause for the scratches the entire chemical stage from developing onwards. Instead the problem seems to be with the camera or some other form of mechanical abuse during handling before or after exposure. This abuse could be my method of loading the film into the reels of the developing tank.
What I do is that I put the film in an old medium format camera (Agfa Clack) and then pull out the film and wind it up the reel (see picture in attachment). Something that never occurred to me before is that during this process, the paper backing curls up against the film and slips against it. This ‘brushing’ of the film does not seem to involve much force. However, the backing is rather rough and stiff (much stiffer and rougher than the paper from the big brands). It’s not exactly sandpaper, but in relative terms it is (see close-up in attachment). It seems entirely possible that the rubbing causes the scratches.

Unfortunately I do not have my cameras (apart from the Clack) in the location of my darkroom. (My darkroom is in my parents’ house and I live 15 km away from there in a place too small for a darkroom.) Therefore I could not load a film into any of the cameras that I normally use and that gave me the pictures with scratches.
I loaded a film into the Clack instead and wound that onto the take-up spool, in order to simulate the forces that the film feels in the other cameras. Then I loaded the film into the developing reel, just like with the previous film, i.e. with the ‘sandpaper’ rubbing against the film. I did the loading in daylight so that the film got its exposure.
This film did show scratches, identical to the ones I had before. Interestingly, the scratches were not homogeneously spread over the film, but grouped in batches a few centimetres apart from each other.
Did the scratches come from the rubbing of the backing paper against the film or from friction during transport inside the camera?

The third film I wound onto an empty spool first, very gently and by hand, not inside any camera. Then I put that second spool into the Clack and loaded it into the developing reel from there, i.e. with the paper backing rolling/rubbing against the film. In addition I extra-rubbed the backing paper against the last part of the film, like when using sandpaper on wood or something.
This film also showed scratches, but no extra scratches where I extra-rubbed the film. Maybe I rubbed the wrong side of the film?
The conclusion from this last film seems to be that the rolling/rubbing of the backing paper against the film (as in the first attachment) is enough to produce scratches. The question is now if a film that was wound/exposed inside a camera will show scratches even if the backing paper never rubs against it like in the picture.

Tomorrow I will shoot a film inside a camera (Hasselblad 500cm) and develop it. If it shows scratches then those are caused by transport (friction) of the film inside the camera. If it doesn’t show scratches then my reel-loading method (where the backing paper rubs against the film) is to blame.

What to think of all this? Fomapan 100-120 seems a very vulnerable film, a bit too much so I think. Even if I manage to eliminate the cause of the scratching then will I ever have full confidence that they won’t show up again at some unfortunate moment? Why does Foma use backing paper that is so rough? I just did a little test: if I rub Foma backing paper against Foma film then that film is very visibly damaged, but if I do the same thing with Fuji backing paper against Foma film then the film is completely undamaged. This Foma backing paper really is a liability.

I will post more results tomorrow (for myself and for those interested in more scratches).

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I too always thought that the backing paper was unnecessarily rough on the film itself. I also have a concern that it might wear out the mechanics of my Hasselblad film backs prematurely as there is a fair amount of abrasion going on.

Keep us posted. Your findings are very interesting.

 

[sandermarijn]

II also have a concern that it might wear out the mechanics of my Hasselblad film backs prematurely as there is a fair amount of abrasion going on.

Hasselblad eaten by paper, that's quite funny. But you may be right of course, this stuff really is a bit like sandpaper.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

Interesting dialpgue here. Could this abrasive paper also be where 'static' charge marks are making there way onto the film, or are they actual scratches...??

 

[sandermarijn]

ICould this abrasive paper also be where 'static' charge marks are making there way onto the film, or are they actual scratches...??

I don't know enough about the static marks to tell if they could be caused by some property of the backing paper. I am under the impression that my scratches are actually true scratches, i.e. holes in the emulsion as a result of mechanical action.

I should try another 'no-camera' film where I rub both surfaces with the backing paper, before I develop the film. The rubbing does visibly (with the naked eye) scratch the surfaces of the negative- I have seen that. But I would also like to see damage to the emulsion itself in the same places. That would confirm unequivocally the paper's 'potentially destructive nature'

 

[ricksplace]

When I load my reels, I slit the tape, unroll it between my two hands until I reach the beginning ( last frame) of the film. I hold the film by the edges, and let the paper backing and spool fall to the floor (hang on tight! it's a bugger to find the roll if you drop it). I leave it attached by the tape at the end of the film to provied some weight to keep the film taught as I feed it into the paterson plastic reel. I walk the film into the reel until the taped end is close to the reel, then tear off the backing paper and spool, and wind the rest of the film into the reel.

 

[sandermarijn]

Thanks Rick, that's more or less how I intended to do it today. One of the reasons for me to previously load from a 'dummy-camera' has always been the fear of accidentally dropping the film. Being a bit clumsy I remember that I had that some time- no fun.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

About the rubbing of the backing-paper : one might not forget that during transport, there is some friction between the film, be it on the emulsion side or not, and the famous paper. Rolling two ‚bands’ on one axle is always causing a kind of friction between them due to the slight but present difference of winding speed. Also, in the Hasselblad (the camera I shoot the most with); the film, in the transport system, is turned inside—out on the unrolling side, and then turned inside—in on the take up side. This means that there are two movements in opposite way of the two bands, the film and the backing-paper. Not to mention the passing over the flattening rolls and the pressure-plate.
Then, add the handling for processing, and there you have a chain of friction-scratching-brushing and alike, that the Foma film might not like.

I too, I did like the way the Bohemian emulsion ‚saw’ the subject, and I do like a rather present but beautiful and ‚pinned’ grain. But it did not work out. That’s why I had to move, with some pain in the hart, to the Rochesterian emulsion.
I found the Foma 100/400 — Pyrocat H-D combo to be rather close to the Agfapan 100/400 — Rodinal combo. But, of course, this last point is a very, very, personal opinion…

Philippe

 

[sandermarijn]

I developed this morning a film shot in the Hasselblad two days ago. I made sure that the rough paper backing did not contact the film while loading it into the developing reel.

Unfortunately the film shows the same pattern of scratches that did all the other ones exposed inside a camera. The only film so far that did not show scratches was the one that 1) was never loaded onto a take-up spool and that 2) never contacted the backing paper in any abrasive way.

The fact that I managed to produce one film without any scratches whatsoever means that the chemical stage (developing/fixing etc.) can be excluded as a cause for the scratches. Today’s result leaves only the camera. Something happens in the camera that causes the film to be scratched. To be precise, something happens in three cameras (Rolleiflex 3.5F, Hasselblad 500 CM, Agfa Clack).

The difference between a film that is never wound onto a second spool inside a camera and a film that is, to me seems to lie in the contact between backing paper and film. My theory is that the backing paper moves relative to the film, touches it, and thus scratches it. I imagine that the following takes place inside the camera during transport of the film from the one frame to the next:

The backing paper is always slightly farther from the centre of the spool than the film itself. However, the spool rotates at one certain angular speed, determined by the camera operator. Therefore, when the film is transported over length x, the backing paper is transported over a distance slightly larger than x.

This is a small difference, but not negligible. If you do the math (assuming a film thickness of 0.1mm, a paper thickness of 0.05mm, a spool-plus-film radius of 5mm and a translation of 60mm) you end up with a relative displacement of the order of 1mm. Such a ‘slack’ in the backing will be too little to interfere with film flatness.

When film and backing paper are re-united on the take-up spool, the slack goes out again. This goes accompanied (again) with the film and paper moving relative to each other. If, during this movement, film and paper are pressed onto each other, as is the case on the take-up spool, the rough surface of the paper may draw small marks onto the film. These lines would run along the length of the film, would not be entirely homogeneously spread over the surface of the film (because speed of transport is not constant), and would be equal to or smaller than the 1mm stated above.

My scratches are about 0.2mm in length, they appear grouped instead of entirely homogeneous and they run along the length of the film.

It’s just a theory and it’s the best I can come up with to explain the scratches. Maybe it’s no more than far fetched bogus. But if it is true then it seems that I can do little about it.
Also, if true, one would expect everybody to observe the same scratches, since I do not transport the film in any special (rough) manner (I think). But I appear to be the only one to have this problem.

Something that I must do and have not done yet, is to rub the backing paper against both surfaces of a test film, develop that film and see if the rubbing has caused a local increase in ‘scratches-density’. I did earlier rub the paper against one side of the film, and did not see any increase. I should try again and on both sides of the film. I will try this tomorrow, hopefully.


One other thing about Foma 100 in 120, having nothing to do with the silly scratches: it is shorter than any film I have tried before. In fact it barely fits 12 frames (see attachment).

When I align the arrow on the backing paper with the arrow in the camera, then the last frame drops off the film, or about 1cm of it. So what I do now is that I wind the film slightly less far onto the take-up spool before closing the back and winding on to frame one. I leave about 2-3cm in between the arrow on the paper and the arrow in the camera.

I guess this is how Foma gets to price this film so cheaply (I can’t speak for other Foma films and other formats). Honestly I’d rather see they make it a few cents more expensive and give us a few cm more length. It’s annoying to have to fear losing one’s first or last frame of every Foma film.

It almost seems that the more I mess around with this film for the wrong reasons, the more I get to like it. I love the tones. A bit like APX100 (which I never got to try in 120), but then maybe even nicer, because more grey-tones. I hope for Adox Pan 100 to come out soon.

 

[sandermarijn]

Rolling two ‚bands’ on one axle is always causing a kind of friction between them due to the slight but present difference of winding speed.

I came up with my little theory while riding my bicycle this morning. It seems you beat me to it Philippe. Things seem to be the way you say (and said earlier) they are. I should have listened to you better straight away.

Maybe it's my turn now to move on as well. Dang-darn-diddly-darn-dang-ding-dong-diddly-darn, this is really a huge pity.

 

[erikg]

You have invested a lot of time and money looking in to this, thanks for sharing. It sure seems like you have come to a reasonable explanation. If this is it it sucks, basically, and Foma should seriously locate a new source for backing paper. I just have one question: this should be happening to most every user, should it not? Certainly it fits that the sheet film users and the 35mm users are not bothered, but are all or mostly all 120 users seeing this? If I shoot some Foma 100 in a blad I should be seeing the same things, right? If I do not, and others do not, then what is it? Variations from batch to batch in the film? Camera variations? I bring this up not to question your conclusions but merely because these type of issues make me nuts as there often remains some doubt, driving me to keep trying to make something work. Maybe I think, it is just something I'm doing...
In this case, I'm inclined to say shame on Foma.
--erik

 

[sandermarijn]

I bring this up not to question your conclusions but merely because these type of issues make me nuts as there often remains some doubt, driving me to keep trying to make something work. Maybe I think, it is just something I'm doing...
--erik

You are completely right, Erik, it just doesn't make sense that I should be the only one writing about this. I imagine that if the problems stem from poor manufacturing then many more people should find their pictures affected. It could be of course that I am simply the first to report it (I just bought my films end of last month at a shop with high turnover- Silverprint). That would not surprise me- someone has to be first.

But it may also simply be that people don't bother to report every issue and simply move on to something else, or take it for granted. Common thing is that a lack of info on the web doesn't necessarily mean that there is no production problem.

Or maybe there is a unique combination of factors that in some evil way only come together in my situation. Unlikely but not impossible.

My experiment for tomorrow will be this: unroll foma film in dark darkroom, tear off paper backing, install backing taken from Fuji Reala, wind back on spool, shoot in camera, develop, see no scratches (wishful thinking in last step).

Of course I do not intend to replace the backings of all my 24 remaining foma films- I just want to know for (more or less) sure what's going on.

I will post results tomorrow. 80% sure right now of no scratches.

 

[ricksplace]

My Mamiya and Graflex backs have the same film path as a hassy, and I shoot a lot of the film in my Rolleiflex. I have never experienced any scratches like yours. I have probably shot about 150 rolls of this film in 120.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I hate to blow your explanation but it's not the backing paper.

I shoot Foma 200 in 35mm and I find the same artifacts. I am
attaching a raw scan from a roll I just shot through a Tenax II
in which you can see the same artifacts. Obviously, 35mm film
does not have backing paper.

Back to the drawing board.

PS: If you want to see the final image, you can find it at
Dead Link Removed

 

[Aurelien]

Well, I have read your entire topic and i 'm very interested in it since I have the same problems with my Foma films in 120. But as far as I know, backing paper may not be involved, since the same backing paper was used with forte / bergger films, and there was not such problems, and more recently, the first batch of rollei retro 400S was converted in 120 by Foma, with the same backing paper. And I did not observed such marks. I would agree with the first statements that involve the presence particles in tap water that would complex with dissolved silver and would make this marks. That would also explain why Sasnders observed such marks with 35 mm films: foma emulsion are sensitive to such complexes. But maybe we could warn the foma's girl about this problem, so as they would help us and maybe modify something in the coating process to avoid this.

 

[brucemuir]

I JUST (last month) bought 3 of the post dated cans of 35mm Fomapan 100 from Freestyle. Now I'm really paranoid because I roll my own and we all know the cassettes are never pristine when you reuse them.

I'll blow through a roll tonight an report back after I process it.

 

[John Wiegerink]

In the old days we had emulsion numbers on batches of pro film and it sure would be nice to compare emulsion numbers. From what I see here I'd have to say these are mechanical scratches and not chemical/water problems. I'd say the rollers on the film slitter at the plant could use a good cleaning. The plant probably has a scheduled maintence period and that's what is causing some people to have problem and some to not have problems. The lucky people get film after cleaning and the unlucky people get their film from a batch before cleaning. Just a guess, but I bet it is close to the source of the problem. JohnW

 

[cmacd123]

In the old days we had emulsion numbers on batches of pro film and it sure would be nice to compare emulsion numbers. From what I see here I'd have to say these are mechanical scratches and not chemical/water problems. I'd say the rollers on the film slitter at the plant could use a good cleaning.

I would be interested at what the folks at Foma say about this?

 

[Rolleiflexible]

This is a complete guess on my part, and I am
sure someone like PE would have a better idea
of the cause, but I am thinking the problem has
something to do with how the emulsion dries on
the substrate, and maybe with flaws of some sort
in the substrate, that causes these checks to open
up as the film dries after coating. If it was from
the cutting, one would expect a more predictable
pattern. And the imperfection appears across
emulsions as well as formats -- I am seeing it in
35mm Foma 200, while the OP sees it in 120 Foma
100. The coating and drying are the processes
common to both films.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Chuck,
Like I said, I could be wrong, but all the things I read here sure do point in that direction. As for the folks at Foma? I would imagine they would say what Kodak in the USA and Fuji in Japan would say if this was a topic about one of there films and that is that it's a consumer problem and not a manufacures problem. It's not until a bunch of us consumers start shooting one email after another at these companies do they perk up and maybe do something about it. Another words threaten to hit them in the pocket book if they don't get their sh!t together. The only reason I'm here in this discussion is because I just bought ten rolls of Foma 100 from FreeStyle and was researching the film before I shoot it and develop it. Now I read this and wish I had bought Fuji Acros instead. At least I know Acros and know nothing of Foma 100. The reason I went Foma over Acros was I thought Foma might be a better combo with my WD2D+ Pyro. Now I'm wondering. JohnW

 

[John Wiegerink]

This is a complete guess on my part, and I am
sure someone like PE would have a better idea
of the cause, but I am thinking the problem has
something to do with how the emulsion dries on
the substrate, and maybe with flaws of some sort
in the substrate, that causes these checks to open
up as the film dries after coating. If it was from
the cutting, one would expect a more predictable
pattern. And the imperfection appears across
emulsions as well as formats -- I am seeing it in
35mm Foma 200, while the OP sees it in 120 Foma
100. The coating and drying are the processes
common to both films.

Well, I'm not saying it is a slitter roller problem, but what I am saying is that I'd be willing to bet that the source of the problem is somewhere inside the Foma plant. It's either a bad mechanical step, poor chemical mixture or some contaminated goods from one of their suppliers. Or maybe, like you say, bad dry down technique. Still, I think the answer is inside the Foma plant and I sure would like those folks at Foma to read our discussion, but I would imagine they already know of the problem. JohnW

 

[sandermarijn]

I hate to blow your explanation but it's not the backing paper.

I shoot Foma 200 in 35mm and I find the same artifacts. I am
attaching a raw scan from a roll I just shot through a Tenax II
in which you can see the same artifacts. Obviously, 35mm film
does not have backing paper.

Back to the drawing board.

PS: If you want to see the final image, you can find it at
Dead Link Removed

Those marks look the same as mine. If it's not the backing paper then maybe it's the folding and being put under slight pressure (in the camera) that the film does not like.

I will do my experiment today with the Foma film and the replaced backing paper. If that film doesn't turn out scratch-free then there is real trouble.

 

[sandermarijn]

Now I'm really paranoid because I roll my own and we all know the cassettes are never pristine when you reuse them.

I really do not want to bash Foma with this thread. 99.99% of people seem to have no problems with Foma films. As long as I don't know what's going on (and I don't, honestly), then there is no reason for other people to worry about their Foma films. 10,000 against 1 that your films turn out fine.

The problem may still be just me (although I don't actually believe that). Or else a very small production batch.

 

[sandermarijn]

Other possibilities:
1) have you tried to use a hardening fixer?
2) in 35mm friction of the emulsion on the light trap, with dust grits embedded (not probable);
3) I would exclude the particles in the tap water because these scratches would otherwise have a random pattern;
4) the simplest explanation is: poor manufacture from Foma. Look no more.

1) No,
2) I myself haven't used Foma in 135,
3) Unlikely, I developed one entirely scratch-free film while using tap water (this film was never inside any camera),
4) I'm close to that now, although I'm also considering getting more films from another batch to see if those are better. I really want to make this film work for me.

 

[sandermarijn]

I would agree with the first statements that involve the presence particles in tap water that would complex with dissolved silver and would make this marks. That would also explain why Sasnders observed such marks with 35 mm films: foma emulsion are sensitive to such complexes.

Bear in mind that I did manage to produce one scratch-free film. This was a film that went straight into the developing reel, without having been inside a camera. This result should rule out the quality of the tap water.

I'm currently thinking that (some) Foma film doesn't like pressure and folding the way they happen inside a camera.