Fomapan Creative 200 120 Black dots and...streaks

[Auer]

Pretty much the whole roll looks like this.
RO9 one shot 1:50 68c 8 minutes continuos rotation (Lab Box) (Fresh Bottle)
Eco-Pro clear Stop bath 1:32 2 minutes
Cinestill F96 Fixer 2 minutes

Bessa 46. Never seen anything like it with either Ilford or Kodak films in same camera.
Clarification: Never seen anything like it with D76. Could it be the acidic stop bath? Pinholes?

Any thoughts?

 

[Jonno85uk]

I've seen something similar every now and then on 200 & 400 (35mm & 120) but never quite as bad as that. That's awful. It's usually one spot (larger than in your example) with that telltale streak behind it in my experience.
It's as if something falls/drips onto the base before the emulsion is applied and repels it.

Reminds me a lot like when silicon spray accidentally gets onto surfaces that then get paint applied (DAMHIK).

 

[Jonno85uk]

I found an example of what I usually see. Not quite the same as yours.

This was on Foma 200, 35mm (100ft). There's a something like a serial no on the tin it came in "EM. 012515-04"

 

[R.Gould]

I have found in many years of using Fomapan 200 and 400 in both 35mm and 120 that it does not like stop bath, not every time, but when wet the emulsion is very soft, and when using acid stop it can cause problems of pinholes Ect, best way to avoid problems is to use plain water at 20, pou7r in invert 10 times, dispose then repeat twice more,

 

[Adrian Bacon]

You tend to see that if your stop bath is too strong. Foma films are a little more delicate than Kodak or Ilford when it comes to an acidic stop bath.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Those look like scratches from over vigorous squeegee application on a softer emulsion. Unlikely to be pinholes from stop bath - no carbonate in that developer. Or it's from contact with less than perfect chromed rollers in the camera.

 

[Auer]

Those look like scratches from over vigorous squeegee application on a softer emulsion. Unlikely to be pinholes from stop bath - no carbonate in that developer. Or it's from contact with less than perfect chromed rollers in the camera.

No squeegee, Never had this problem with this camera before.And no chrome rollers.

 

[Lachlan Young]

No squeegee, Never had this problem with this camera before.And no chrome rollers.

I've attached a marked up image of a Bessa 46 (from a video I found) showing the bearing surfaces that might be suspect - heavily hardened films tend not to care, but softer films like Fomapan can be surprisingly vulnerable to marking like this - I've seen similar marks quite often on vintage films from the 1950s, along with others which seem to relate to the film being over-tensioned in the camera. The other possible slight headache with Fomapan 200 specifically is that its flat-grain emulsion may make it more vulnerable to other defects caused by sharper break angles on the small transport rollers in 120 cameras - this was a big problem with the early T-grain technology. If the film & backing paper package is a little thicker than the Voigtländer was designed for, I could see the little roller inside the back door pushing the film into tighter contact with the larger right hand roller than intended, possibly causing marking etc. Now that I think about it, I recall having seen something similar with a Mamiya C330 and a not terribly well hardened film (possibly Shanghai) about 15 years ago, though I can't immediately put my hands on the material in question. I'd email Foma and ask their opinion too.

 

[Auer]

The "roller" on the back door is a ridge tube that holds a pin/axle that has tiny rollers at each end that engages the edges on the film so as to provide
enough pressure to make the larger roller underneath it turn over and engage the frame counter The large roller has knurled raised ends where the edge of the film rides.
Everything else is smooth and polished.(on my 46).

 

[koraks]

This is a well known problem with fomapan 200 in 120 format specifically. I had this too, got in touch with foma, sentthem samples of my affected negatives, they confirmed it was an emulsion defect and sent me new films. Those had the same problem. I didn't pursue this film in 120 any further, but continue to use foma 100, 200 and 400 in 4x5" and occasionally 35mm with satisfaction.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I had issues with 8x10 sheets, two different batches.

 

[Auer]

Thanks all, Sent Foma an E-mail.

Will try a roll in D76 as well, with a much shorter and more diluted stop bath.

 

[R.Gould]

Thanks all, Sent Foma an E-mail.

Will try a roll in D76 as well, with a much shorter and more diluted stop bath.

Foma suggest 10 seconds in stop bath for all films, I still prefer not to use stop bath, just plain water,

 

[Ernst-Jan]

Foma 200 has a very soft emulsion in 120, this gives problems with some cameras.
I had a lot of black spots with my M645, but no scratches. I shot 5 rolls, used different developers, fresh stopbath and fixer, so chemicals couldn't be the cause.
Then I got in contact with Foma and they told me about this "problem". They sent me other film to replace (I could choose, Foma 200 in 135 or 4x5 or Foma 100/400 in 120)
I had no problems with Foma 100 in 120. I haven't tried Foma 200 with my C330 nor RB67.

 

[Auer]

Did another roll, 10 second stop as per Foma. D76 instead of RO9. Not much change, possibly a bit better in a few images.

Might try in another Camera, but for now I wont use this Film in 120. Too fragile as some of you have mentioned already.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Avoid solution temps above 75F, and try to stick with the standard 68F/20C. And as already mentioned, keep your stop bath very weak. If you use indicator stop bath, it should be just visibly yellow, if mixed from concentrated acetic, way down around 1/4 % or less.

 

[Auer]

Avoid solution temps above 75F, and try to stick with the standard 68F/20C. And as already mentioned, keep your stop bath very weak. If you use indicator stop bath, it should be just visibly yellow, if mixed from concentrated acetic, way down around 1/4 % or less.

As I said, I might try it in a different camera but I'm not gonna spend a whole lot of time figuring this out. I have no love for overly fickle processes.

Plenty of other options out there.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I gave up on Foma films. It was that simple for me.

 

[albireo]

I'm shooting more than ever. Foma 100, 400 and Retropan 320 in medium format are fantastic stuff. I need nothing else.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Try lugging an 8x10 thousands of feet uphill to above timberline for a few seconds of opportunity when the lighting is just right, just to discover zits and fine cracks showing up in the enlargement. Then have it happen on the next sheet of film, and then another. That's grounds for divorce from Foma. Never had that problem with any other manufacturer.

 

[albireo]

Never had that problem with any other manufacturer.

I have had plenty of problems with other manufacturers.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I haven't - and I've been shooting for 55 yrs, multi-format. The only other problematic one was the last batch of Efke R25, just before the factory closed completely and was experiencing maintenance issues with dust. And way back when Kodachrome K14 processing was sourced out to Kodalux, that lax outfit ended up scratching a lot of film; but that was not the fault of film manufacture itself.

 

[Auer]

I have no problems with Foma in general, just this thing with the 200 in 120 that seems to be problematic.
Really like their 100 and 400.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Foma 200 is nowhere near true 200 speed. It's recip long exp characteristics are abominable, and it can't be plus developed to a high gamma like the real-deal ole Super XX could, or even the related excellent Bergger 200. But as the last standing "straight line" film, Foma 200 would still have commendable properties if the quality control could be relied on, especially for use in extreme lighting ranges. But rather than being a discount film, it proved darned expensive because so many shots had to be duplicated gambling for one good one. Expensive Kodak TMY400 comes out cheaper in real world usage because it's totally reliable, and is far more versatile, excelling in every feature except about one half to one stop of deepest shadow gradation. True 400 speed versus realistic only100 speed. Even TMax 100 wins apples to apples. But I guess that would constitute another thread. Foma 400 didn't impress me at any level, but it might constitute a decent enough student film if low price is a priority. "FILM" might be too long and complicated a term for the texting generation anyway.

 

[albireo]

Well, I haven't - and I've been shooting for 55 yrs, multi-format. The only other problematic one was the last batch of Efke R25, just before the factory closed completely and was experiencing maintenance issues with dust. And way back when Kodachrome K14 processing was sourced out to Kodalux, that lax outfit ended up scratching a lot of film; but that was not the fault of film manufacture itself.

In this thread we are discussing medium format roll film. Declaring that you shoot multiformat and that you lug your 8x10 equipment around is I'm afraid irrelevant to this conversation.

I think manufacturing roll film at high levels of consistency is hard for everyone these days.

- I pretty much stopped using Ilford FP4+ due to severe mottling. Pity - fantastic film. The problem is acknowledged by Ilford https://www.ilfordphoto.com/statement-120-roll-film I store my films well, never use expired film, and in spite of that I've still experienced the issue.

- I stopped long ago using Kodak Tmax 400. On 2 separate batches of 10 rolls I got backing paper characters printed all over my negatives. Overpriced junk as far as I'm concerned.

- I occasionally shoot TriX in 120. Have almost stopped though, as it's nowhere near the Trix of yore in terms of rendition, and I can get similar results with Foma and Ilford material at 1/3 of the (now extortionate) price.

- Foma 200 - I've recently stumbled on two batches characterised by the soft scratch-prone emulsion documented in this thread. I've stopped using this too, and I'll be contacting Foma to understand whether the problem is solved in new batches.