I don't see any of the defects I'm familiar with on this film in your (very nice) example shots.
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 have plenty of sky shots that don't show issues, as above. Will post some later.
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
Do you know when your film was manufactured? I would love to shoot this film in 120 if they have fixed their quality issues.
May I know what developer do you use to push Fomapan 100 to EI 100-125 from it's real speed EI 64
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.
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!
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?
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!
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?