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

[ricksplace]

You're talking about 135, right? My scratches-problem is with 120, I can't speak of 135.

Nope. 120 Arista.edu Ultra iso100. Don't know if the backing paper is the same as foma branded. I blew off a roll in my Rolleiflex this morning. I won't get a chance to soup it until after work today. I'll post results tonight.

If it's scratchy, I'm gonna be really pissed.... (I have 60 rolls)

 

[sandermarijn]

Keep us posted Rick.

The thing with the expiration date seems a bit odd. Are batches that large? Or does Arista/Freestyle invent their own separate date? It could also be that the number on the box is not a batch number but a product number.

 

[Aurelien]

Before to destroy the reputation of Foma with speculations, maybe we can now wait for the results of their investigations. We know that they are now aware of this issue, and they are looking for a solution.

Moreover, I have to say that, when we enlarge a neg, it's near unnoticeable on the print (even in 30*40)

 

[RobertV]

016756-01 is a batch number.
Arista packages are also made by Foma in Hradec Kralové especially for the USA market.
About the expiration dates, it depends how (temperature) the material was stored in the ware house. So a same batchnumber can have a different expiration date.

 

[Ian Grant]

Before to destroy the reputation of Foma with speculations, maybe we can now wait for the results of their investigations. We know that they are now aware of this issue, and they are looking for a solution.

Moreover, I have to say that, when we enlarge a neg, it's near unnoticeable on the print (even in 30*40)

You could be waiting rather a long time, I'm still waiting for a reply from the (there was a url link here which no longer exists), I had a reply saying they were looking into it, then nothing, and I've sent a reminder.

Ian

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I found the original scanning, of the problems I had on Foma 400, back on my computer…

Philippe

 

[sandermarijn]

Moreover, I have to say that, when we enlarge a neg, it's near unnoticeable on the print (even in 30*40)

Maybe in areas with lots of 'random detail', but certainly not in larger areas of even density (sky), not to my eyes at least. We should however account for variations from camera to camera, batch to batch, etc.

 

[sandermarijn]

I found the original scanning, of the problems I had on Foma 400, back on my computer…

That's actually quite interesting: your scratches/marks are most visible in the shadows, my scratches seem to be only in the denser areas of the negative (sky, white cats, etc). Their appearance is otherwise very similar. I am comparing different films of course: yours is the 400, mine the 100.

I cannot escape the feeling that there is one common cause to all these (mechanical?) problems and that these are not quick & easy for Foma to solve. I also believe that my explanation, where the paper scratches the film, is far too simple. I just don't know enough about film and its production to come up with something truly sensible.

 

[ricksplace]

I souped the roll of 120 Arista.edu ultra iso100 in Rodinal 1:50 7 min. Bright green developer when I poured it out! I have never seen this with my old stock (exp 2008)of the same film. NO SCRATCHES. I looked at the negs under an 8X toyo loupe and all I can see is normal grain. I put a neg in the Beseler 45, cranked it up to the top and I couldn't see any scratches on the paper in the easel.

The backing paper for the new batch is different. The start of the paper is green, and the sticky at the end of the roll is self-adhesive. The markings on the backing of the new batch use a different font and are brighter (whiter lettering) than the old batch. The film side of the two papers also differs. The old backing is "glossier" and looks "blacker" than the new stuff. When held side by side, the newer backing looks slightly "matt" compared to the older backing. I measured the thickness of the two backing papers and the older stock of Arista.edu Ultra measured .0043", while the newer stock of the same film measured .0045 with a few ten thousandths variation through the length (both). So there is no difference in the thickness of the backing paper. Maybe the foma folks use a different backing paper for their foma branded film.

Gotta say I'm relieved.

 

[sandermarijn]

All your observations about film and paper match mine, apart from those scratches, of course. At least we seem to be talking about the very same film.

Nice that you managed to measure the thickness of the paper. Just curious, how did you do that? Calipers on stacked/folded paper?

 

[ricksplace]

All your observations about film and paper match mine, apart from those scratches, of course. At least we seem to be talking about the very same film.

Nice that you managed to measure the thickness of the paper. Just curious, how did you do that? Calipers on stacked/folded paper?

I have a 6" digital caliper that is accurate to .0005, and an old mechanical Moore and Wright 0-1" micrometer that is accurate to .0001. I used the Moore and Wright for the measurement. I measured each single roll of backing paper at several different spots along its length.

I just realized... I'm analog for measuring too! The only time I use any of my digital calipers is when I have to make or convert metric measurements. I get a much better "feel" with analog micrometers, and when measuring to .0001, the "feel" of the micrometer can make a huge difference.When measuring to .001, I use mechanical 6" calipers.

 

[kameranerd.com]

I'm also having these scratches with Foma 100 120. I have just developed 4 rolls and they all have scratches. They have been exposed in a SL66se, wich il never have used before. I normally use a Mamiya C330, and scratches havent been a big problem with that camera. Film transportation is longer in the SL than in the C330. The last films was expose in very cold weather, down to minus 18.

Kent Bentzen

 

[sandermarijn]

Do you have the batch number of your films? It says on one of the sides of the carton film boxes.

I tried to blame my scratches on temperature, but then I never got close to -18 centigrade, more like -5 and sometimes not even minus.

I saw no difference in density of scratches between films exposed in my Rolleiflex 3.5F and those from the Hasselblad 500CM.

 

[kameranerd.com]

I found one box looking in my thrash it's says 016756 1 ,expire 2 2012. I recieved 15 new rolls yesterday with batch number 016956 1, i will test a couple this weekend. It's only minus 2.

Kent

 

[sandermarijn]

I found one box looking in my thrash it's says 016756 1 ,expire 2 2012.

Thanks Kent, exact same batch as where my films came from. Now I am very curious after your results with the newer batch.

 

[kameranerd.com]

Just developend 2 films from batch 016956 1 expire 9 2012, and they also have these scratches. They also have holes in the emulsion, so i get black holes on the print. I think i will take a long break from Foma films now.

Kent

 

[maurits]

Hey Sander, look at this post by me from last december.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Are these the same spots or scratches you have found?

I had so many black spots in my Foma 200 negatives that it was just not funny anymore. Like you I blamed my own processing at first, but with films from Ilford, Fuji or Kodak in my Hasselblad 501 CM I had none of these problems. Tried other developers, fixers, wetting agents, tanks, spools and demineralised water. Like others I swapped film backs, used another camera etc. All to no avail.

I wasted around 15 or more of Foma 200 120's rolls because of this (batch# 08656 1 - 10 2011), let alone a lot of time and images. Even though I very much like the way Fomapan 200 images look, I am happily paying a bit more for Ilford FP4 now.

Cheers, Maurits

 

[sandermarijn]

Hey Sander, look at this post by me from last december.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Are these the same spots or scratches you have found?

I had so many black spots in my Foma 200 negatives that it was just not funny anymore. Like you I blamed my own processing at first, but with films from Ilford, Fuji or Kodak in my Hasselblad 501 CM I had none of these problems. Tried other developers, fixers, wetting agents, tanks, spools and demineralised water. Like others I swapped film backs, used another camera etc. All to no avail.

I wasted around 15 or more of Foma 200 120's rolls because of this (batch# 08656 1 - 10 2011), let alone a lot of time and images. Even though I very much like the way Fomapan 200 images look, I am happily paying a bit more for Ilford FP4 now.

Cheers, Maurits

Similar but not the same I would say, Maurits. Funny how in your case the spots change shape with developer- I have tried only with Rodinal (Fomapan 100) and got small lines rather than dots.

 

[sandermarijn]

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!

 

[mikebarger]

Believe me, if Hasselblad had that type of problem they would not be the professional camera they are.

Look to the second tier film company with limited QA for your answer. You get what you pay for, it's that simple. Sure you can go for awhile and not have a problem, maybe forever, but there are way to many posts on the web about QA issues with this film company.

I tried them, had issues, and ran right back to Kodak and haven't looked back.

Mike

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I tried them, had issues, and ran right back to Kodak and haven't looked back.
Mike

Exactly what I did…

Philippe

 

[bill williams]

I ran across this email exchange I had with Marv at Freestyle 4 years ago. It may be of interest to those having problems scratches on FOMA film:


Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 2:01 PM

To Customer Service at Freestyle Photo
Subject: Arista.EDU.ULTRA

I recently purchased several sizes of EDU.ULTRA. 100 & 200 5x7, 100 &
200 4x5, 200 35mm, and 200 120.

The 5x7, 4x5, and 35mm all were 'ok', though there was at least 1
pinhole and sometimes as many as 3 or 4 pinholes on a frame(or sheet).
Otherwise, a fairly decent showing. However, the 200 in 120 format was
horrible. If you held up the film to light and looked at it with a
loop, it looked like a billion stars shining in a night sky, and even
'shooting stars' all over. Totally unacceptable for any pictorial
use.

I understand that the film is the "FOMA" film re-boxed. Would the same
be true of the quality of the film sold under the FOMA label?

Thanks

Bill Williams

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 1:54 PM
To: Bill Williams
Subject: RE: Arista.EDU.ULTRA

Hi Bill

I have spoken to our VP of Product Development and he responded to me with the following:

We have had sporadic complaints of this from time to time. I think it is static although it is difficult to know as we haven't had much of this back. I would replace it as an isolated instance although it would be nice to get some samples back with details of how it was processed.

The item in question is 4 rolls #190220 EDU ULTRA ISO 200 120 SIZE. The Foma branded is item #420212 which I will gladly exchange for the Arista at the same price. In essence a no charge replacement. All I ask is if you have some samples that you can send me so we can see the problem.
You do not have to return the film. Just drop a few samples in the mail to my attention.

I'll be waiting to hear from you.

Thank you.


Marv Keller
Customer Service/Sales Supervisor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sent: Friday, February 10,2006 2:53 PM
To: Marv Keller



Marv,

Thanks for replying. I certainly feel there is no static problem on my end, as I'm not a newcomer to the process. Thousands of rolls actually. And though there may be some static on the production end, I think it’s more of a mechanical problem on the coating line. Although the entire film has thousands of very minute pinholes, there are also streaks. The pinholes remind me of a VERY star filled night sky, and the streaks, which are repetitious and primarily on one side, look like "falling stars". I don't have a clue as to the coating problem causing the pinholes, but the repetitious streaks make me think something in the way of a roller or guide is scuffing the emulsion after it is coated. There are also linear scuffs in the developed emulsion on the film.

I'm going to mail to you some negatives. They are not important to me, just some test shots that I did while trying to determine if every roll of the 120 was bad. A couple of them are not sharp, but the emulsion has the problem just the same. You can destroy them after looking at them. The developers I used were D-76 for a couple of rolls, and one similar to PMK for a couple of rolls. I will include that info with the negatives.


Thanks again,

Bill Williams

 

[RobertV]

Foma help us (me) please!

Well they are working on it:

Dear Robert,
thank you for the information and for the Em. No.
We are investigating now where is the problem and will inform you.
For your information - I regret, but I will be not in the next week in the office, so I will contact you on beginning of February,
or you can contact me on my mobile phone +420 XXX XXX XXX.
Thank you for your understanding.
Best regards and nice weekend,

Dana

 

[sandermarijn]

Thanks for your help in this Robert, very kind of you.

Today's dismal weather didn't manage to keep me from running a Foma 100 film through my Fuji GS645S. I got some blurred frames from trying 1/30s- not relevant in this context of course.

Most of the frames (10 out of 15) are free from scratches. The frames that are scratched show only a small number of them, ten or so. That's an improvement over both the Rolleiflex TLR and the Hasselblad, presuming the observed difference is not random but caused by 'something' in camera.

I really had to look for the scratches, and they only appeared in very thick parts of the negative (sky).

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Most of the frames (10 out of 15) are free from scratches. The frames that are scratched show only a small number of them, ten or so. That's an improvement over both the Rolleiflex TLR and the Hasselblad, presuming the observed difference is not random but caused by 'something' in camera.

Again, Sander, you are attributing a causal
connection to an association, based on evidence
way too thin to support it. These marks are
intermittent and I don't think one roll proves
that they are caused "in camera," or that one
camera is more or less prone to cause them.