Fomapan Creative 200 120 Black dots and...streaks

[albireo]

I don't see any of the defects I'm familiar with on this film in your (very nice) example shots.

Thank you @koraks. There are barely visible marks here and there - magnify the 100% crop (second example) and navigate to the bottom right corner. You'll see two faint slanted hairline marks. I saw a lot of those in a couple of older batches (2019 or so) but they were darker, denser, like a swarm - nothing of this sort. I find the above more than acceptable for my purposes.

 

[koraks]

I see what you mean, and I also agree that these are hardly objectionable at all. In fact, if these were my photos and I wasn't specifically looking for any defects, it would have taken me a very long time to spot them - if I ever got to that point. They're incomparable in size, frequency and magnitude to what I saw before on this film. What I cannot tell, of course, is if you're consistently rather lucky in encountering relatively defect-free rolls, or if Foma has finally managed to minimize the problem.

Btw, I'm having a blast with this film in 4x5 and 8x10". It's just so nice to work with!

 

[chuckroast]

Quick test of a Fomapan 200 roll in 120 format, batch 013856-3 (06-25).

Camera was a Fujifilm GW 690 III rangefinder. Tank was a plastic Kaiser tank with plastic reels. D23 1+1 one shot, Kodak agitation, water stop bath, Fomacitro 1+5 as per manufacturer's leaflet, and finally Foma Fotonal 1:200 in distilled water. Negative strip hung to dry without any squegeeing. Linear raw 16bit/channel Vuescan negative scan all as previously detailed in this thread. No automatic post-processing apart from crop + set black point + resize.

My working conclusion still stands: Fomapan 200 works fine for me, I like the results in Adox Rodinal 1+50 and D23 (both regularly, but gently, agitated) and the very minor imperfections in the emulsion are not limiting my results at all (or at least incommensurably less than my exposure, processing, and composition mistakes).

I will keep buying it and using it with pleasure.

Because of your subject matter, defective film would be less likely to be seen. The defective emulsion shows up as small black dots, and you kind of need a light background to see them. I'm not saying your film is defective, only that your test is less likely to reveal problems if they do exist.

I very much like Fomapan 200 and use it regularly in 35mm and 4x5. For 120, I've found a very good replacement: Kodak Double-X which is of similar ASA, is quite fine grained and develops well in D-23 or Pyrocat-HD (with a lovely stain).

 

[albireo]

Because of your subject matter, defective film would be less likely to be seen. The defective emulsion shows up as small black dots, and you kind of need a light background to see them. I'm not saying your film is defective, only that your test is less likely to reveal problems if they do exist.

I have plenty of sky shots that don't show issues, as above. Will post some later.

 

[chuckroast]

I have plenty of sky shots that don't show issues, as above. Will post some later.

Do you know when your film was manufactured? I would love to shoot this film in 120 if they have fixed their quality issues.

 

[baachitraka]

That's good to know. I'm not going to rush out and buy some or change my main films, but I surely will give it a try. Who knows, I might just like it. I really like Foma 100 at EI 100-125 for its tones and grain structure, but black specks are just too much to overlook.

May I know what developer do you use to push Fomapan 100 to EI 100-125 from it's real speed EI 64

 

[Anon Ymous]

May I know what developer do you use to push Fomapan 100 to EI 100-125 from it's real speed EI 64

It probably reaches box speed in Xtol.

 

[Steven Lee]

Do you know when your film was manufactured? I would love to shoot this film in 120 if they have fixed their quality issues.

The slow but reliable way of getting usable Fomapan in 120 is to buy 10+ rolls, expose one trying to include smooth bright areas. Develop. Scan. One of two things will happen, both leading to a good outcome:

1. Your batch will be defect-free. Congratulations, you're done.
2. You see defects. Send the scans to Foma Bohemia support. They will ship you replacement rolls. Takes about 2 months IIRC.

 

[albireo]

May I know what developer do you use to push Fomapan 100 to EI 100-125 from it's real speed EI 64

I would suggest a good calibration of your exposure meter and of all the shutters of the cameras you're using.

 

[albireo]

I see what you mean, and I also agree that these are hardly objectionable at all. In fact, if these were my photos and I wasn't specifically looking for any defects, it would have taken me a very long time to spot them - if I ever got to that point. They're incomparable in size, frequency and magnitude to what I saw before on this film. What I cannot tell, of course, is if you're consistently rather lucky in encountering relatively defect-free rolls, or if Foma has finally managed to minimize the problem.

One detail I forgot to include. I always dry my negatives overnight. That's several hours (>8h) in which the negatives haven't been touched following distilled water + Fotonal bath. In the morning, I will then cut the strips and slide into archival sleeves.

Just mentioning it because one of the culprits often mentioned is 'soft emulsion'. I wonder if the emulsion needs a while to 'properly' dry and touching it in any way when it's not properly dry will result in at least some of the marks encountered by some.

 

[koraks]

Maybe, but in my case - I never touch the emulsion side of B&W negatives while the film is still wet. In my case, it certainly didn't contribute to the problem. Especially on these emulsions with relatively low degree of hardening and/or a soft topcoating, touching the wet emulsion is definitely playing with fire!

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Maybe, but in my case - I never touch the emulsion side of B&W negatives while the film is still wet. In my case, it certainly didn't contribute to the problem. Especially on these emulsions with relatively low degree of hardening and/or a soft topcoating, touching the wet emulsion is definitely playing with fire!

Funny: I don't think twice about squeegeeing negatives dry between my fingers. Never caused a problem for me, with Foma 200 or any other film.

I wonder if water pH has anything to do with Foma 200's problems. My water is on the acidic side. Maybe alkalinity plays a role?

 

[koraks]

I wonder if water pH has anything to do with Foma 200's problems. My water is on the acidic side. Maybe alkalinity plays a role?

This notion comes up from time to time. The buffer capacity of water is so minimal, even if it's really hard water, as to play no meaningful role in photographic processing, other than hard water leaving drying marks.

 

[Flighter]

I haven't squeegeed mine, just removed from the reel and hung up to dry overnight. My first rolls were developed using tap-water, for the later ones the water from the dehumidifier was used - black spots either way.

 

[mzjo]

I have come to this thread (and forum) because I have had two wildly varying results with Foma 200 120 rolls.I am not currently serious enough to have decent equipment. My first roll was in a Kodak Brownie 620 and was to my view brilliant, mainly for the exposure latitude (which is a very useful characteristic with a fixed aperture and shutter speed!). Just recently I found (in a jumble sale) a 1934 Lumière folder and loaded another roll of Foma 200. The results have come out with longitudinal scratches (I assume them to be scratches rather than cracks, not being able to tell the difference) which can be seen from first to last frames but not in the support between the frames. I don't think my handling in developing should have caused them. I use a changing bag to load film which is not that easy but I have not scratched any other film recently and the two FP4 rolls in 120 that were 25 years old were a lot harder to load than the Foma which was fresh. Examination of the guide rollers in the Lumière shows slight pitting but nothing consistent with the scratches and the guides seem to turn very nicely. They can't in any case be worse than the guides in the Brownie. The folder also has a much straighter film path than the box camera! Everything points to either enormous clumsiness on my part or a very variable QC within the batch of film (I am not sure if I kept the film carton, not normally being bothered by batch numbers but I am reasonably certain that both rolls were from the same batch).
I will undoubtedly put another roll through the Brownie this autumn. I have a roll of Rollei Retro 400S to try in the folder. If I can't use the Foma in the folder I will be turning to either Rollei or Agfa to get a few shots. FWIW both cameras are 6x9 format.

 

[koraks]

Welcome to photrio, @mzjo! I'm sorry to hear about your foma 200 problem. Is there any chance of seeing a scan of the affected images and the unaffected film between the frames? It may be helpful to have a visual illustration along with your written account. Thanks!

 

[MattKing]

Welcome to photrio, @mzjo! I'm sorry to hear about your foma 200 problem. Is there any chance of seeing a scan of the affected images and the unaffected film between the frames? It may be helpful to have a visual illustration along with your written account. Thanks!

Or even better, a scan, and a backlit digital photo of those negatives, showing right out into the rebate, and the area between the frames.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I have come to this thread (and forum) because I have had two wildly varying results with Foma 200 120 rolls.I am not currently serious enough to have decent equipment. My first roll was in a Kodak Brownie 620 and was to my view brilliant, mainly for the exposure latitude (which is a very useful characteristic with a fixed aperture and shutter speed!). Just recently I found (in a jumble sale) a 1934 Lumière folder and loaded another roll of Foma 200. The results have come out with longitudinal scratches (I assume them to be scratches rather than cracks, not being able to tell the difference) which can be seen from first to last frames but not in the support between the frames. I don't think my handling in developing should have caused them. I use a changing bag to load film which is not that easy but I have not scratched any other film recently and the two FP4 rolls in 120 that were 25 years old were a lot harder to load than the Foma which was fresh. Examination of the guide rollers in the Lumière shows slight pitting but nothing consistent with the scratches and the guides seem to turn very nicely. They can't in any case be worse than the guides in the Brownie. The folder also has a much straighter film path than the box camera! Everything points to either enormous clumsiness on my part or a very variable QC within the batch of film (I am not sure if I kept the film carton, not normally being bothered by batch numbers but I am reasonably certain that both rolls were from the same batch).
I will undoubtedly put another roll through the Brownie this autumn. I have a roll of Rollei Retro 400S to try in the folder. If I can't use the Foma in the folder I will be turning to either Rollei or Agfa to get a few shots. FWIW both cameras are 6x9 format.

Many of these old folders and other roll film cameras, have small diameter rollers just before and just after the film gate opening. If one or both of these rollers is frozen and not turning, it can leave scratches or marks on the negatives similar to what you describe. Also, run your fingers over all areas of the inside of the camera where the film rides as it advances onto the take-up spool. Any burr or sharp edge you find is likely to be your problem.
In my post #214 I said I liked Foma 100 at EI/ISO 100-125. That was a typo and was supposed to say "I like Foma 200 rated at ISO 100-125". I do really like Foma 200< but not in 120. For now anyway!

 

[mzjo]

Sorry for the delay. My scanning on the latest (scratched) negs was a bit more crappy than the first ones so I rescanned them the same way as the first ones. This is all a bit lo-fi since I'm a lo-fi sort of person - camera scanned with a Lumix TZ-82 compact (haven't got the lenses sorted out for scanning with my cheap Pentax DSLR) with a neon-tubed lightbox as light source. I have worked on the negs with Gimp to give a positive but you can always have the basic negs if you want. I am using Imgur links for showing them here, I hope that is a permitted way of showing photos.
Anyway first up a couple of Brownie shots done last may

,

, a bit dusty but no evident scratches (to my imperfect eyes). Now the shots taken with the folder beginning of this month with another roll bought at the same time as the first and processed with the same chemistry

,

. Just to complete things here is the film path of the Brownie

and of the Lumière

. I would reckon the film rollers of the Brownie in less good condition than the Lumière as well as being a lot less flat, which means to my eye that suggestions that a tighter angled film path gives more damaged emulsions is incorrect.
I have been giving this a bit of thought from my side of things. The one big difference between these two films is temperature. The first was exposed and developed soon after purchase and with an ambient temperature of around 18-19°C. (I work at ambient temperature with just the thermometer to check and adjust developer times). The second film was processed with an ambient temperature of 22°C after having been kept out of the fridge all summer and may have had a slightly warm pre-developer wash (I didn't pre-wash films back in the day, just poured the developer straight in, but since I have read up a bit. I am not convinced and will probably go back to my old habits). I have not had any problems with the 25yr old FP4 roll films I have done recently (other than with loading them into the spiral; worse than a tightly wound coil!). But it is quite likely I think that the Foma 200 emulsion got softened with the second film and that just my habit of clearing the water with a fresh wadge of kitchen towel was sufficient to mark it. I think that Foma 200 probably doesn't like any sort of warming (probably needs keeping below 20°C for processing to avoid softening the emulsion - which is bad news for me who had to wait 5 months before even attempting to develop a film this summer and autumn with the heat!). That doesn't mean that I will stop using it in the Brownie but I will have to keep it in the fridge until things really get cool enough to process it. I will undoubtedly try something else in the folder, perhaps go back to FP4.
For now I have loaded more Foma 200 into both cameras, the same batch - 012956 2 - which I will treat the same. The ideal would be loading them into the tank together but I don't have a second spiral to hand. I don't think there is a problem with the folder's guide rollers, it was one of the things that sprang to mind to the extent that I removed the film that was in it to inspect them under an 8x loup!
Incidentally the film that I am using is packaged in the Foma 100th Anniversary boxes. It comes just slightly cheaper than the stuff in the regular boxes. A cynic could be led to read things into that fact that one would hope was not true!

 

[mzjo]

A quick look shows that that is not the way to attach photos. Oh dear! I will have to look up how else to do it!

 

[lfjack]

I was hoping to join in a better mood, but I found the same issues (black spots and cracks) in Fomapan 400 (4x5). The batch number is 012054-07, expiry date 2026-4. I could live with emulsion cracks and fix them in Photoshop, but I cannot tolerate black spots. I am disappointed. This experience brought back memories of disappointment with my early attempts at film photography from my childhood when I was seeing similar issues in my prints. I ordered a box of Ilford HP5 (4x5) to see if it is me or the film.

 

[koraks]

Welcome to Photrio, @lfjack Sorry to hear about your experience with Foma 400. I haven't shot it all that much in sheet film format; maybe one or two boxes.
Have you contacted Foma about the problem? And is it feasible to share some examples here? This may help other photographers recognize the problem if they happen to run into it. Thanks!

 

[Kino]

Anyway first up a couple of Brownie shots done last may , , a bit dusty but no evident scratches (to my imperfect eyes). Now the shots taken with the folder beginning of this month with another roll bought at the same time as the first and processed with the same chemistry , . Just to complete things here is the film path of the Brownie and of the Lumière . I would reckon the film rollers of the Brownie in less good condition than the Lumière as well as being a lot less flat, which means to my eye that suggestions that a tighter angled film path gives more damaged emulsions is incorrect.

Mzjo,

Just a few observations from a man who's vast majority of cameras were obtained from thrift stores, garage sales and junk bins...

As has been noted before, even if the rollers appear to turn smoothly any pitting or tiny drops of emulsion fused to the roller will become emulsion gouging monsters upon closing the back of the film and applying pressure.

I have a routine of deep cleaning a camera and evaluating functions before I use the camera.

1. Evaluate every moving part in the film path. Look for pitting, raised edges and emulsion build-up on rollers. Using an orange wood stick, gently scrape off any possible deposits after wetting them with alcohol or water (not much).

2. Examine roller bearing holes for deformation. Sometimes the shafts can deform the hole of the shaft end and allow the roller to drop down below the surface of the normal path and allow the emulsion to scrape on the edge of the aperture OR it can cause the roller to bind and scrape the emulsion.

3. Using a fine metal polish, clean the film guides and rollers to insure no possible contamination. Follow up with alcohol to insure all traces of metal polish are removed from the film path.

4. Open the camera, remove any aperture masks, empty film spools and extend any bellows to blow out the interior of the camera body gently with a blow bulb or compressed air (at a very low velocity). Turn the camera upside down so the debris falls to the floor and not back into the camera.

5. Wipe down as much of the interior of the camera body as is possible with a water dampened, lint free cloth and blow dry immediately. Be careful with bellows; they can be fragile and not tolerate much physical manipulation before tearing so just use a blower to clean the interior.

6. Examine the interior again for any deteriorating seals or bellows material. If the camera is a folder, fold and unfold the camera several times then examine again carefully to see if new debris has emerged. If so, try to determine what is deteriorated, if it can be replaced or mitigated because this material can be deposited on the film emulsion as you shoot, scratch the surface and then fall out when you remove the film to develop it.

7. Take a dummy roll of film or backing paper and exercise the camera several times through a full shooting cycle. Examine the camera after each roll and try to see if there is any obvious deposits of emulsion or paper shredding from the dummy roll that might point to a problem area.

It takes a bit of work, but eventually you should be able to get all but the most hopeless camera back in smooth operating condition, with little to no scratching.

Try to avoid easy to scratch emulsion films like Foma and Efke at the start; they can be difficult to shoot without scratching even with a well running camera.

Good luck.

 

[Dusty Negative]

Mzjo,

Just a few observations from a man who's vast majority of cameras were obtained from thrift stores, garage sales and junk bins...

As has been noted before, even if the rollers appear to turn smoothly any pitting or tiny drops of emulsion fused to the roller will become emulsion gouging monsters upon closing the back of the film and applying pressure.

I have a routine of deep cleaning a camera and evaluating functions before I use the camera.

1. Evaluate every moving part in the film path. Look for pitting, raised edges and emulsion build-up on rollers. Using an orange wood stick, gently scrape off any possible deposits after wetting them with alcohol or water (not much).

2. Examine roller bearing holes for deformation. Sometimes the shafts can deform the hole of the shaft end and allow the roller to drop down below the surface of the normal path and allow the emulsion to scrape on the edge of the aperture OR it can cause the roller to bind and scrape the emulsion.

3. Using a fine metal polish, clean the film guides and rollers to insure no possible contamination. Follow up with alcohol to insure all traces of metal polish are removed from the film path.

4. Open the camera, remove any aperture masks, empty film spools and extend any bellows to blow out the interior of the camera body gently with a blow bulb or compressed air (at a very low velocity). Turn the camera upside down so the debris falls to the floor and not back into the camera.

5. Wipe down as much of the interior of the camera body as is possible with a water dampened, lint free cloth and blow dry immediately. Be careful with bellows; they can be fragile and not tolerate much physical manipulation before tearing so just use a blower to clean the interior.

6. Examine the interior again for any deteriorating seals or bellows material. If the camera is a folder, fold and unfold the camera several times then examine again carefully to see if new debris has emerged. If so, try to determine what is deteriorated, if it can be replaced or mitigated because this material can be deposited on the film emulsion as you shoot, scratch the surface and then fall out when you remove the film to develop it.

7. Take a dummy roll of film or backing paper and exercise the camera several times through a full shooting cycle. Examine the camera after each roll and try to see if there is any obvious deposits of emulsion or paper shredding from the dummy roll that might point to a problem area.

It takes a bit of work, but eventually you should be able to get all but the most hopeless camera back in smooth operating condition, with little to no scratching.

Try to avoid easy to scratch emulsion films like Foma and Efke at the start; they can be difficult to shoot without scratching even with a well running camera.

Good luck.

That's a great cleaning workflow. Thank you for posting.

 

[mzjo]

Thank you Kino. Your workflow follows pretty much the route I've been down with the folder but with a lot more detail! I will be referring back to that when I have the results of the next film (which has yet to be shot!)
My current ideas are as follows. The acetate support for the 120 rolls of Foma 200 are not the same as the 35mm or 5x4 films (but 35 and 5x4 apparently share the same support). This may make the 120 rolls more delicate in processing. For some reason, while Foma RO9 (Rodinal for them) does have a developing time recommendation for Foma 200 the developer recommendations in the packaging for Foma 200 do not include Foma RO9. This is of course the developer that I have been using all along - except I now think for the first film out of the Brownie which was developed in some out of date but unopened Ultrafin Plus (not the T Plus) which of course is no longer made. I was perhaps a bit too quick to throw out the rest of the Ultrafin thinking - without good reason - that it must be too tired to continue using! I think the RO9 must be quite aggressive as a developer; I have found the freshly processed (not yet dry) emulsion of APX400 35mm quite tacky. That was without a rinse-aid.
The last film I put through the folder was one that started at Disneyland, then got taken out with two frames shot and was put back in to finish on a light painting exercise with the club. While the film was out I checked the film transport and didn't find anything to interest me so cleaning and back to go. The two frames of Disney were scratched but the negs were quite dense (and also not really in focus, my distance estimating leaves a bit to be desired). The light painting shots were very thin to non-existent (I ended up with three frames with an image but that's life when you experiment!) but not a scratch to be seen!
The path I will now follow: 1 I am using rinse aid and cutting out the stop bath, just water.
2 I am stopping using kitchen wipe as a squeegee, just my fingers (I have done this with a 35mm Foma 100 and am pleased with the technique)
3 I have a batch of ID11 waiting to be mixed up (I used ID11 a lot 40years ago!)
4 I am now convinced that within reasonable limits processing and washing temperatures aren't responsible for my scratching but I do think it is inappropriate processing and I have to adapt.
The next film won't get processed until end of february or beginning of march as I am away from home at the moment. When I see what I've got I will think what to do next - change film, re-clean film transport etc. When I have that straight I may do another film with RO9 to see what happens. I have 3 films plus a Rollei 400 to use then I may well go back to FP4