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

[Ian Grant]

I've used Fomapan 100 & 200 in my Yashicamat 124 & Mamiya 655 100S, and my Gaoers 617 with no problems, not checked the two films from the Rolleiflex 3.5E (they were reciprocity tests that I didn't print).

But having said that I thought it was batch specific.

Ian

 

[sandermarijn]

So it IS camera related. But it doesn't mean there is somewhere a problem.

I don't understand that statement at all.

My cameras (Hasselblad 500 CM with two different A12 backs, and a Rolleiflex 3.5F) have no problems at all with Neopan 400, Acros, HP5+, FP4+, Pan F+, Tri-x. Fomapan 100-120 however does not work in these cameras.

To me personally -or my cameras- there is a problem with this (batch of) Foma film.

 

[sandermarijn]

The problem is only found back with some specific cameras. So there is no emulsion failure found.

That's beyond me.

 

[Aurelien]

Well, as I told Mrs Hojna from FOMA, I just rolled and unrolled Retro400S (packed by Foma) and scanned the undevelopped film. Scratches are here.

In my opinion, scratches are made by BACKING PAPER and as Foma said, emulsion is not involved.

I ask FOMA to change their backing paper with a higher quality one (the same as Fotokemika is very good).

Robert, with my mamiya 7II i have very small scratches. I think it is related to the strength of rolling.

And If they do not change their backing paper, I will stop using it in 120.
And maybe selling it.

 

[sandermarijn]

Robert, I appreciate a lot your efforts in this, and I don't want you to get the idea that you are taking the heat for what is not your problem in the first place. You are Dutch Foma distributor, yes, but Foma make the film, and they alone are responsible for the quality of their films *and* for how they choose to communicate.

 

[sandermarijn]

And If they do not change their backing paper, I will stop using it in 120.
And maybe selling it.

I considered doing the same thing but thought it 'immoral'

 

[Philippe-Georges]

In one of my previous posts I said it COULD be the backing paper, I am afraid it is IS the backing paper. But, the camera (and the photographer) can enhance the issue by the way it handles the film.
I bought my 500C/M new in 1980 and this is the first time I am confronted with this kind of problem. Perhaps I was not attentive enough in the past 30 years, but then the publishers, the printers, the photogravure and even the authors must have seen it, as they do now.
It is a pity because I liked a lot the way the FOMA 400 rendered the image. It felt a bit like the old AGFA days…
BTW, I bought my first 10 rolls of FOMA film, and Foma paper, at Robert’s web-shop and was pleased a lot, but the second load of film I bought was defective. Of course, Robert is certainly not to blame!

I really do hope that FOMA Bohemia can solve this problem!

Philippe

 

[Ian Grant]

Originally Posted by RobertV (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
So it IS camera related. But it doesn't mean there is somewhere a problem.

I don't understand that statement at all.

I thought it made perfect sense, one problem is that different cameras/backs place very different strains on the emulsion & backing paper of a film.

The old classic system used in most older folding roll film cameras causes the least stress, my 6x17 & Ikonta use that system.

A TLR like a Rollei/Yashica isn't to bad, one 90°, but the path in the inserts/backs of many 120 SLR's is more severe, and then there's the gearing speed & tension of the transport.

Un-flat film after filmm had been sat unused for a while was once a common problem with some cameras and particularly the roll film holders that passed film through 180° turns, the thin type that slip under a spring back on LF cameras.

Foma use a very different 120 film base to any other companies so it's entirely possible that a combination of this & the rough backing paper that Aurelien describes is causing stress marks on the film, and is more likely to happen where the film path is more convoluted.

Ian

 

[Aurelien]

Originally Posted by RobertV (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
So it IS camera related. But it doesn't mean there is somewhere a problem.




I thought it made perfect sense, one problem is that different cameras/backs place very different strains on the emulsion & backing paper of a film.

The old classic system used in most older folding roll film cameras causes the least stress, my 6x17 & Ikonta use that system.

A TLR like a Rollei/Yashica isn't to bad, one 90°, but the path in the inserts/backs of many 120 SLR's is more severe, and then there's the gearing speed & tension of the transport.

Un-flat film after filmm had been sat unused for a while was once a common problem with some cameras and particularly the roll film holders that passed film through 180° turns, the thin type that slip under a spring back on LF cameras.

Foma use a very different 120 film base to any other companies so it's entirely possible that a combination of this & the rough backing paper that Aurelien describes is causing stress marks on the film, and is more likely to happen where the film path is more convoluted.

Ian

I do not agree when you say it is related to their film base since the scratches appear also on Retro 400S converted in Foma and sharing the same backing paper. So : the scratches are made during the conversion, or the scratches are made during the rolling, due to backing paper and effects are dependant on the camera.

BUT CLEARLY I DON'T UNDERSTAND why Foma keep using this backing paper, since a change may fix all issue !

 

[sandermarijn]

But Ian, then there *is* a problem, no? What's worth a film with a base/backing paper/emulsion/... that's not up to the most mainstream of cameras?

I do have scratches in the 'less convoluted' Rollei TLR as well, BTW.

 

[Ian Grant]

My Rolleiflex is in the UK, I use my Yashicamat here but from what I remember the Rollei's path is slightly different, perhaps more stress.

So far I've been lucky and had no problem like this (I had a one off unrelated problem with a Foma film), but others obviously have had problems. It's easy to blame Foma, but all film manufacturers are dependent on their base and backing paper suppliers. There's no way to do a quality check on all of a huge roll of support or backing paper. and the films may well have been test for QC and passed with no problems.

So lets give Foma a chance, it's a relatively new and unexpected problem, I've found the image/print quality excellent when I've used their films & papers, and I have no worries using the Foma film stocks I have left.

Ian

 

[RobertV]

Well thanks for the immense feed back given in a few hours. I pointed already out the backing paper and this issue will be tested next week either.
It's clear when a factory have to change one production parameter of all their films there will be some extended tests first.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Adox is plainly wrong. It has fallen prey to the
same fault of logic to which others succumbed
in this thread. It is an intermittent random
occurrence, and thus when it does occur, people
want to attribute it to some element within their
grasp. In Foma's case, it does so in an effort to
say the problem is not one of its making.

So: If we are going down the rabbit hole with
this sort of illogic, you need to put Leica LTM
and Leica M-series cameras on the list, because
I've gotten these marks shooting Foma 200 in
35mm with an M3, a II and a IIIa. (And also with
a Zeiss Tenax II, which shares a film path design
with the Contax 35mm cameras.) None of which,
I might add, involved backing paper.

I think it is safe to assume the problem will not
be observed in the M9.

 

[Aurelien]

Yeah Robert it's clear: they have to make tests.

That's not a problem

I just hope they will fix.

 

[sandermarijn]

So lets give Foma a chance, it's a relatively new and unexpected problem, I've found the image/print quality excellent when I've used their films & papers, and I have no worries using the Foma film stocks I have left. Ian

Actually,

Foma 100-120
+
Rodinal 1+50
+
Hasselblad 500 CM w/ 80mm
+
Kentmere FPVC

works so well for me that I would almost be willing to take the scratches for granted.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

works so well for me that I would almost be willing to take the scratches for granted.

Agreed. It's not such a big deal as to stop me from
using the film. But it would be nice if they fixed the
problem for us.

 

[mikebarger]

I'd feel better if they would admit there is a problem with their product. If they can't fix it, that's OK, but seems like they don't have a grasp of the problems related in this and previous threads.

Mike

 

[sandermarijn]

This whole thing reminds me of Chernobyl. The cloud is over Sweden, but Foma says all is well.

Anybody for a glasnost-petition to Foma?

[disclaimer: poor joke]

 

[erikg]

Yeah, don't worry. We'll just put this little piece of metal on your accelerator pedal and everything will be fine.
I'm afraid Foma is passing the buck on this. The film is great as long as it doesn't pass through a camera. Swell.

 

[Aurelien]

Well, I just made a test.
I respool three Foma 100 with the Fotokemika backing paper.

Three is the minimum figure to interprete scientifically... So I will expose them in the same RB67 back and develop them at once. And I will examine.
If there is no scratch... so that is the confirmation. Wait and see.

 

[Ian Grant]

OK, we expect the results in 15 minutes

Ian

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Well, I just made a test.
I respool three Foma 100 with the Fotokemika backing paper.

Three is the minimum figure to interprete scientifically... So I will expose them in the same RB67 back and develop them at once. And I will examine.
If there is no scratch... so that is the confirmation. Wait and see.

Sorry to be the broken record:
How do you reconcile your backing
paper theory with my observation of
the occurrences in 35mm film?

 

[Aurelien]

Hmmm, in the following week, ok.

 

[Aurelien]

Sorry to be the broken record:
How do you reconcile your backing
paper theory with my observation of
the occurrences in 35mm film?

Do you have unimportant neg that you could send to me, with those scratches?

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I generally do not discard my negatives.
I will look to see if I have one that I
can part with, to send to you. But I
am telling you, that they are the exact
same type of marks that are visible
in the scans posted here. (Your earlier
comment that mine are bigger, did not
take into account that mine were on a
24x24mm negative, not a 6x6cm one.)