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

mikebarger · Jan 29, 2010

You're on to something Sanders... I noticed the dates of the emails and it appears each roll was shot and developed under a quarter moon.

Based on this new scientific evidence, I may try Foma again and put my film in foil bags at each quarter moon and be perfectly safe.

Mike

ricksplace · Jan 30, 2010

sandermarijn said:
Helpful APUG-er Cor from Leiden has shot, developed and printed one my Fomapan 100-120 films: no scratches at all. His camera was a Bronica RF645.

Could it be that the Bronica is more gentle than my Hasselblad? Could it be that earth rays penetrate my house but not Cor's? Only Foma knows (or not), and they do not speak. I wrote them two emails now. To not avail yet- pity.

I will try another Foma 100 film, this time in a Fuji GS645S, which should be similarly gentle to the film as Cor's Bronica RF645. I can imagine that the Hasselblad does more stressing/bending/pulling the film than it likes. But honestly I am at a loss.

Foma help us (me) please!

How about you shoot a roll of foma 100 in your camera, and ask your friend to soup it for you. If it comes back clean, you know your camera is not producing the scratches.

RobertV · Jan 30, 2010

During my film development seminar, roll film and sheet film in a CPA (Jobo) with expert drums this week I tested also a Fomapan 100 with above emulsion number in a Fuji 690 R.F. camera (just from a customer). No scratches.......

sandermarijn · Jan 30, 2010

ricksplace said:
How about you shoot a roll of foma 100 in your camera, and ask your friend to soup it for you. If it comes back clean, you know your camera is not producing the scratches.

RobertV is willing to process one of my films exposed by me in my Hasselblad, which is very nice of him.

I hope to shoot the film tomorrow, the weather shouldn't be too bad I think.

If Robert finds scratches then there will be a free Hasselblad up for grabs.

(that's a joke)

Aurelien · Jan 30, 2010

Well, As Robert said, Foma is now working hard to fix this issue. They are aware of what happens, even if they do not answer our mails. More communication from them should not be harmful.
But at this time, the problem may be a mix of various defects, like soft emulsion combined with rough backing paper (I said MAYBE). That is the reason why all cameras will not provoke the same scratches. The more pressure film rolls apply on film, the more scratches we can see.
I have many cameras at home, and the worst to use with these films is my rolleiflex with its system of rolls that detect the beginning of the film. Nevertheless, it's just back from jurgen kushnick repair. It's like new.
With my Mamiya 7II, I have almost no scratches.
But films are all from the same batch...
So we can not conclude anything else that there are problems in the emulsions. Now, it's time for Foma to solve them.

sandermarijn · Jan 30, 2010

I will include a previous (scratched) film with the new, undeveloped film Robert, as well as a print of one of the negs so that you will know exactly what to look for.

I can see the scratches only just with the naked eye, but really only just, and I am near-sighted and not super-old. The scratches are more obvious under a loupe, under a microscope, or in the enlarger.
When I showed them to Cor, we both (me too yes) initially had some problems seeing them with the naked eye (Cor is more near-sighted than me but also slightly older). But they did not escape Cor's antique microscope.
The scratches are more obvious in scan than when printed or viewed directly on the negative with light falling through- like all imperfections I suppose.

Aurelien · Jan 30, 2010

sandermarijn said:
The scratches are more obvious in scan than when printed or viewed directly on the negative with light falling through- like all imperfections I suppose.

I completely agree. On 24*30 prints, they are very difficult to see ... so for me films are very useable. But Foma has to fix, as I said.

sandermarijn · Jan 30, 2010

Aurelien said:
I completely agree. On 24*30 prints, they are very difficult to see ... so for me films are very useable. But Foma has to fix, as I said.

Very recognizable Aurelien. I've been telling myself that I mustn't be so fussy about a few tiny scratches here and there, but I remain unconvinced. People who are into printing their own pictures are notorious for over-scrutinizing their own 'work', and I am no exception. It would be easier if all films randomly showed the occasional scratch, but Ilford c.s. have set the standard admirably high.

mikebarger · Jan 30, 2010

Why would you want to convince yourself a products QA issues are acceptable? Did you buy with a disclaimer, look out....to sell at a cheap price we've discontinued/reduced our QA department?

This is not the first, second, third, or even the fourth time this company has had QA issues reported on APUG.

Mike

sandermarijn · Jan 30, 2010

mikebarger said:
Why would you want to convince yourself a products QA issues are acceptable?

Because
1. I like the look of this film with Rodinal in the Hasselblad a large lot,
2. I have 21 rolls of it in the fridge,
3. I am not so great a photographer that minor deficiencies wouldn't drown in the larger pool of personal errors/imperfections/otherwise suboptimal technique.

But of course I'd rather do without QA issues- hence this thread.

mikebarger · Jan 30, 2010

Foma hasn't corrected their QA problems listed in the many previous threads covering several years, I doubt they will do anything this time. As long as people buy it, there is not much pressure on them to improve.

Wishing you the best.

Mike

Aurelien · Feb 2, 2010

Just discovered one thing: I was doing tests with rollei retro 400S in 120, which was cut in Foma, and has the same backing paper... Contrarily to what I said before, scratches are also present. The only common point between these two films is their backing paper. I think it is the culprit.

Aurelien · Feb 2, 2010

Exemple:

Ian Grant · Feb 2, 2010

mikebarger said:
Foma hasn't corrected their QA problems listed in the many previous threads covering several years, I doubt they will do anything this time. As long as people buy it, there is not much pressure on them to improve.
Wishing you the best.
Mike

Foma have ISO 90001 Accreditation, a major part of that covers customer complaints and the procedures etc that should be implemented.

Having worked in a ISO 9001 Acredited company and seen how seriously the 9001 policy was adhered to I'm surprised at how poorly Foma treat quality issues.

The company I worked for had regular inspections to audit their compliance. some routine others unannounced, and that included seeing how complaints were dealt with.

I'd add that my only problem with Foma films has been a one off film defect, unlike the problem here in this thread.

Ian

mikebarger · Feb 2, 2010

Depends if they are pencil whipping the audits and the non conforming process results. I've done some third party auditing of 9000, 9001 and TS16949 and not all companies apply the same "precision to the process".

It's a little like OSHA requirements here in the states, some comply, some comply on paper.

Mike

Rolleiflexible · Feb 2, 2010

Aurelien said:
Just discovered one thing: I was doing tests with rollei retro 400S in 120, which was cut in Foma, and has the same backing paper... Contrarily to what I said before, scratches are also present. The only common point between these two films is their backing paper. I think it is the culprit.

Then how to explain their presence on my 35mm negatives?

Aurelien · Feb 2, 2010

Can you show them?

[edit] sorry you already did it... Your scratches seem to be different, since they are much bigger than ours. Their origin seem to be different. Just a supposition, nothing definitive... unfortunately...

Never had such in 35 mm, nor LF

Slavomir Polivka · Feb 2, 2010

I´ve tested batch 016956 1 on a Linhof and did not find any scratches. I´m waiting for an answer from Foma about the complaints. Hope it comes soon.

http://www.fomafoto.com

Philippe-Georges · Feb 2, 2010

Slavomir Polivka said:
I´ve tested batch 016956 1 on a Linhof and did not find any scratches. I´m waiting for an answer from Foma about the complaints. Hope it comes soon.

http://www.fomafoto.com

The way film is transported in a Linhof back is way different from in other cameras, its more gentle. But the issues I have whit Linhof are the pressure marks from the steel roll that pushes the film against the rubber drum from the frame counting system. No scratches but more like printed marks, when I find the time, I will scan an example.

Philippe

Rolleiflexible · Feb 2, 2010

Aurelien said:
Can you show them?

[edit] sorry you already did it... Your scratches seem to be different, since they are much bigger than ours. Their origin seem to be different. Just a supposition, nothing definitive... unfortunately...

Never had such in 35 mm, nor LF

Aurelien, I believe they are "bigger" only because
the scans are enlarged to make the 35mm frame
display at the same screen size as a MF negative.

The problem everybody is hitting on in this thread
is that the marks occur intermittently, randomly,
and people are drawing incorrect conclusions based
on chance associations they observe in their own
workflow. You, for example, conclude it must be
the 120 backing paper because you observe it in
120 film but not in 35mm or in sheets. Sander
concludes it must be happening in camera because
he observes the marks in a roll passed through one
camera, but not in a roll passed through another.
And so on.

I think our cumulative experience with this problem
is that we don't know enough to make a rational
conclusion as to its cause. My own guess, already
expressed above, is that it is caused by some
occasional glitch in the confectioning, coating, or
drying of the emulsion, or perhaps some intermittent
issue with the substrate -- maybe a contaminant,
maybe static electricity, maybe peeved photodeities.

It would be a great thing if someone could coax PE
into this discussion and see what wisdom he might
share with us.

RobertV · Feb 10, 2010

Foma is asking for original Fomapan 100 film material with the scratches and some films from the same batch, not used.

sandermarijn · Feb 10, 2010

I will send two blank films as well as an exposed 'scratched' film, all from the same batch. Thanks for the help Robert.

Aurelien · Feb 11, 2010

Are they aware that all their emulsions are touched: 100, 200 and 400? I have films in each sensisibility with the same scratches.

I have some not used in 100 and 200, no more in 400. But I think I can find the batch number, if I find a box in my bin...

sandermarijn · Feb 11, 2010

Maybe you can send some of your faulty film to Robert? (Dead Link Removed)

120 films fit ordinary mailboxes, so shouldn't be overly expensive to send. Robert will pass on the film to Foma so that they can analyze. The more sources the better.

Aurelien · Feb 19, 2010

Well new notification from foma:

I sent my negatives, they are now aware of the problem and they are going to analyze it under the microscope...

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

mikebarger

ricksplace

RobertV

sandermarijn

Aurelien

Advertiser

sandermarijn

Aurelien

Advertiser

sandermarijn

mikebarger

sandermarijn

mikebarger

Aurelien

Advertiser

Aurelien

Advertiser

Ian Grant

mikebarger

Rolleiflexible

Aurelien

Advertiser

Slavomir Polivka

Philippe-Georges

Rolleiflexible

RobertV

sandermarijn

Aurelien

Advertiser

sandermarijn

Aurelien

Advertiser

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

Advertiser

Advertiser

Advertiser

Advertiser

Advertiser

Advertiser

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency