Fomapan Creative 200 120 Black dots and...streaks

[FotoD]

I'm curious if some designs of camera exacerbate it. I ran a roll through my Rollei TLR and the problem was far less pronounced than it was in my ETRS.

I think this may be a major part of it. Fomapan 200 was my main film for years and I never saw any problems in a Rolleicord TLR. But others seem to get get problems as soon as they use the film.

 

[koraks]

The mechanical stress a film endures is greater in a Hasselblad type camera's where the film path consists of various sharp turns and bends than in TLR or Pentax 67 style camera's where the path of the film does not contain any of those curves and bends.

This is what a friend of mine (a Hasselblad shooter) was told when he contacted Foma about the issue. I was aware of this, so made sure to test the film I had back then in not only my Bronica SQ, but also a chinese 6x12 film back. This is an all-manual contraption where the user is in full control of how much longitudinal force is exerted on the film. It's the mildest treatment I could put this film through. The defects were still there, just as much as in the SQ.

While I agree that I fear the problem is systematic, I'm skeptical that all of it is related to the longitudinal force hypothesis. At least it didn't seem that way back when I spent some time systematically testing the issue.

 

[removedacct3]

I'm skeptical that all of it is related to the longitudinal force hypothesis.

I am not an expert by any means, but my guess would be that the problem is, at least partially, caused by the difference in path length between the film base and the emulsion as the film travels in a circular fashion with the film base traveling the slightly shorter inner circle. For some reason or the other the emulsion is unable to stretch a tiny bit to overcome the path length difference and cracks open.

In a TLR or Pentax 67 style camera the film path is rather straight forward and the only two circulair paths at the film spool and take-up spool are such that the emulsion travels a slight shorter distance compared to the film base.

But hey, what do I know? I am as clueless as almost anybody else. All I know is that I really like Foma 200 but stopped using it for this single issue. The few 120 rolls that I have left over are being used for non-critical test purposes. And for the unopened bulk roll in the fridge .... I do not think I will open it anytime soon as I like to use the same film in both 35mm and 120 format.

 

[koraks]

I am not an expert by any means, but my guess would be that the problem is, at least partially, caused by the difference in path length between the film base and the emulsion as the film travels in a circular fashion with the film base traveling the slightly shorter inner circle. For some reason or the other the emulsion is unable to stretch a tiny bit to overcome the path length difference and cracks open.

Yeah, I get your reasoning and I've pondered into similar directions. But I also realize very well that I know very little how how very thin gelatin layers stacked on top of each other behave exactly. For all I know, it could just as well be cracking that arises as the film is dried immediately after coating - a sort of reticulation effect, in a way. It's also possible that a combination is the case - hairline cracks being there, exacerbated when the film is subjected to some forms of mechanical stress.

It's a pity the film hasn't proven to work reliably in 120 format. I quite enjoy using it in sheet film formats and have half a mind of getting a 100ft roll in 35mm as soon as my Foma 100 roll runs out, which shouldn't take all that long from now, I feel.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

It's a pity the film hasn't proven to work reliably in 120 format. I quite enjoy using it in sheet film formats and have half a mind of getting a 100ft roll in 35mm

FWIW I love the 35mm version of this film. It dries dead flat (unlike the 120 version) and has a pleasing grain and tone. If I were still shooting 35mm film, I’d be running through bricks of it.

 

[Spiny Norman]

It's a shame it does appear to be a design flaw in the film, I did quite like it and find 200asa to be quite a useful speed, although like the 400 I found it nowhere near that if developed for the suggested time, it needs a bit longer. I still have a few rolls unfortunately, guess I'll only use them to check a camera's basic operation rather than take any meaningful shots with them.
Back to FP4, the good old favourite.

 

[Steven Lee]

There is a post in the archives where a former Kodak employee and very knowledgeable former member of the community (PE or Photo Engineer) briefly talks about the problems Kodak faced with TMax 400 in 120 format when they first started making it. For some reason or the other t-grain emulsion is very susceptible to mechanical stress. The mechanical stress a film endures is greater in a Hasselblad type camera's where the film path consists of various sharp turns and bends than in TLR or Pentax 67 style camera's where the path of the film does not contain any of those curves and bends. That is why it manifests itself less in a Rollei TLR than in a Bronica ETRS.

Kodak fixed it. Foma did not. We can only speculate why Foma does not fix this issue. Maybe due to financial reasons or marketing stuff. Or perhaps, they do not have the technology to do so.

It is a bit blunt, or perhaps even rude, to say, but it is not a defective batch. It's been reported here and on other sites for years and years and we have never heard from Foma that they are working on it. Your next batch suffers from the same cracks. Perhaps not as prominent as this batch. In that case consider yourself lucky, but Foma 200 in 120 is a flawed product.

I saw those threads. As I said, I've been monitoring this situation for a few years. I am a dedicated Fomapan 200 fan who's willing to ruin a roll every 2-3 months to find a good batch. Two out of four cameras I've been shooting Foma 200 have a straight film path with minimal bending. Perhaps the degree of fragility varies between batches, but I have not observed any differences in results between cameras. The rolls I currently have (purchased last December at freestyle) look horrific [1] regardless of hardware.

I am planning to freeze 50-100 rolls next time I find a good batch. What they sold in 2019-20 was pretty good.


[1] It is worth noting that the "horrific" look is apparent only at high magnification. I have not tried, but I wouldn't be surprised if 8x10" prints wouldn't show these marks.

 

[albireo]

Which camera, if I can ask?

Yes, I'd like to know which camera also?

Apologies, I've only just seen this. My Fuji GA645, Pentax 645n and Fuji GW690III all give these results in my workflow on recent batches.

Another sample, same batch, different roll

Fomapan 200 in 120
Recent batch (013456-3 / 11.2024)
Self developed in D76 1+1
Water Bath
Fomafix 5' light inversions
AP tank, AP plastic reels with flaps
Foma Fotonal in distilled water, no squegee

Three attachments:
Scan from a 6x4.5 negative, resized
Detail 1 4000dpi
Detail 2 4000dpi

Linear inversion of the 16bit/channel raw positive produced by Vuescan, followed by standard monitor gamma correction. No edits, no software corrections apart from (own) choice of RGB channel to make gray, resizing of the full image and compression of the 16bit raw positive to 8bit jpeg.

 

[koraks]

Another sample, same batch, different roll

So, have you noticed the issue? Because I do recognize at least part of the problem I spotted some years ago.

Admittedly, it's not a significant problem in this frame and I wouldn't have noticed it if I didn't know what I was looking for. It's also there, to an even lesser extent, in the previous example you posted, but I missed it until just now.

It's evidently also not half as bad (not a tenth as bad, in fact) as the other examples we've seen in this thread. But I've seen both defects on the same roll, and they appeared to be related.

 

[albireo]

So, have you noticed the issue? Because I do recognize at least part of the problem I spotted some years ago.

Admittedly, it's not a significant problem in this frame and I wouldn't have noticed it if I didn't know what I was looking for. It's also there, to an even lesser extent, in the previous example you posted, but I missed it until just now.

It's evidently also not half as bad (not a tenth as bad, in fact) as the other examples we've seen in this thread. But I've seen both defects on the same roll, and they appeared to be related.

For me at least - an amateur photographer, and not a pixel peeper - this degree of impurity is perfectly acceptable. It is very different from the notorious parallel hairline scratches I and others have seen in previous batches. A universe away. I would not accept those.

Based on what I look for in analogue photography, I know that I'll be more likely to end up discarding a picture of mine because I'm unhappy with a composition, an exposure error, a development error, an out of focus error, and so on - than by any impurities at the level I've shown above.

Others may disagree, and it's perfectly fine.

 

[koraks]

Based on what I look for in analogue photography, I known that I'll be more likely to end up discarding a picture of mine because I'm unhappy with a composition, an exposure error, a development error, an out of focus error, and so on that by any impurities at the level I've shown above.

Oh, I agree.
It's just so damn hard sometimes to 'unsee' something.
What helps me is that I've stopped systematically scanning film a long time ago. I still do it from time to time, but not having my nose pressed against pixels does help. The other (worse) kind of defect shows up even on modestly sized prints, though. That was just bad. If it remains like the examples you're showing now, it's something I wouldn't lose any sleep over either.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There's a parallel thread about this over on the Large Format Forum, and some people are still having this same kind of problem repeatedly with sheet film too, or did, until they gave up on Foma 200 completely. So you might as well not waste your breath blaming the camera. At most, that just one more issue.

 

[koraks]

some people are still having this same kind of problem repeatedly with sheet film too

Here it is, that LFPF thread: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?171565-Foma-200

One person complained about 200 without making the format specific.
One person referred to an acquaintance who allegedly had problems, but this mostly seems to be scratching due to uncareful handling.
One person complained about Foma without making the film or nature of complaints specific.
One person complained about black spots on Foma 100 in a single box two years ago.
One person says they get black dots on the 200 sheet film as it ages, but not on fresh film.
One person incessantly complains about this film but has likely not bought any product from this manufacturer for years.

Actual verifiable problems with fomapan 200 sheet film in that thread: a grand total of one or two if I'm generous.

Several people have chimed in on that thread with the observation that the defects in the 120 version are absent in the sheet film format.

Exactly how many more times are you going to repeat the same thing, Drew? It's getting really old and tiresome. I wouldn't give a damn if not for the fact that some people may not critically assess what you write on this topic. It's a matter of coincidence that I was involved in the same thread and immediately recognized how you're blowing this out of proportion and saying things that are built on quicksand.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Were you there with me when I was lugging an 8x10 system and big maple tripod up to high altitude just to find zits and cracks all over the images afterwards? - pretty much every other sheet in the boxes with two different batches of the 200 product, several years apart, were flawed. What am I supposed to do, load six holder and hope for one or two good shots, with the light constantly changing? How many train wrecks does one have to go through to figure out that might not be the best way to travel? But I have NEVER had an analogous problem with Kodak, Ilford, or Fuji sheet film. And the only roll film problems I've ever had was with the last batch of Efke 25 just before they closed down permanently (yeah, I'm aware of the brief backing paper issue, but never encountered it myself).

Too much work goes into just getting to location to gamble with the film itself, even if the odds are now small, which I seriously doubt they are. The complaint(s) behind this thread is (are) only two years old. The only thing Foma Pseudo-200 has going for it is a cheaper price, and there's nothing cheap if you have to shoot at least two shots hoping one will turn out usable. Even the shots I was able to salvage from all kinds of locations generally required a lot of tricky retouching. Then, given its utterly miserable long exposure characteristics, it's a quite limited film. Too bad, because it has the longest straight line of any film currently on the market, and can handle extreme lighting situations particularly well.

You get what you pay for. End of story.

 

[FotoD]

Were you there with me when I was lugging an 8x10 system and big maple tripod up to high altitude just to find zits and cracks all over the images afterwards?

It was in 2012 was it not? Must have really made you disappointed.

End of story.

Somehow I doubt it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hard to say. I never put dates on anything anymore. I was still able to carry huge packs into the mountains until my late 60's, so I'd guess about 10 yrs ago, in my mid-60's. I drymounted one of those prints last year. Too much work retouching to let it go to waste. I had just a few minutes to set up before the clouds were gone. Glimmering ice in the foreground, a deep black crag above it, and really bright clouds behind. Used a deep 29 29 filter and got detail over the whole absurd range of at least 12 stops. That would have been tricky even for TMax 400; so I guess it fortuitous that I was toting the only film with an even longer scale, since Bergger 200 had pretty much gone extinct by then. It was a far better film, and a true 200. And I was lucky in this instance that all the emulsion zits were below the sky in complexly textured areas. A worse than usual headache to retouch in the print nonetheless. A second shot of dark volcanic rock and shimmering ice only, without any sky, was unblemished. Typical of that film - 50% good sheets, 50% flawed. An excess number of 8x10 holders is out of the question when you've already got 85lbs to content with.

I have hundreds of large format images from the mountains, many from remote off-trails areas. And no tram lines and heated restaurants atop high points like in the Alps, unless it's a ski resort. But yeah, it is somewhat the end of the story, sadly. I still sometimes use the 8x10 for day hiking and road shooting. But all the mountain work is now either lightweight 4X5 or med format.

 

[John Wiegerink]

If somebody can show the complainers that the problem of dots and dashes is no longer a problem, then the complaints will cease or at least slow down. I'm like Drew, in that I'm not going to keep gambling unless I know the odds are really in my favor. If I need a 200 ISO film, I'll just down-rate Delta 400 or HP5+. Both look very nice down-rated.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I've used Foma 35mm films off and on for 30ish years. I don't ever recall having a problem with them aside from scratches, but that isn't Foma's fault, well, not really. They could make a harder emulsion I guess.

I occasionnaly use 120 and 4x5. Back when I shot 4x5 more often I figured it would save me money and it was a nice film when it worked. Then one day I realized that I was shooting two sheets of everything to make sure I had one good one so the cost savings was pretty much mute. I went back to using Ilford.

A few years back I bought some Arista 200 120. I had lots of problems with that. First, it was clearly marked "100" in the margin. That cracked me up. I had lots of the black flecks. I shot it in my Holga pinhole camera so there is a possibility that camera caused it but I doubt it. That camera is a straight pull with zero tension on the film.

It is a shame too since the tonality of Foma films is really nice. These days film prices are a lot closer together here in the US so, aside from 35mm, I just don't bother with Foma.

 

[Cerebum]

I just did a roll of foma 200 in my 1946 Ikoflex and developed it in FX-39 (10mins @20c). I stopped it with water. The images aren't sharp but that is the camera, post war Zeiss lenses can be soft and mine are but I was prepared for that. What I wasn't happy with were the black spots. They are only visible on close inspection but like an earlier poster said, they are hard to unsee. This film was bought in April this year so the issue is a current one. I shoot foma200 35mm in bulk, never had a problem. It seems to be isolated to 120 or larger. I guess I need to email foma.

 

[koraks]

This film was bought in April this year so the issue is a current one.

Ok, thanks for confirming. Yes, what you've shown here are the typical Fomapan 200 120 format defects. I guess they haven't resolved the issue yet.

 

[Flighter]

I've had the black spots on all the Foma 200 120 roll film I've used.

The film was from batches 013456 2 exp 09 2024 and 013456 3 exp 12 2024 and 2 TLRs and a folder were used. Developers used have been Caffenol and Microphen, fixers Tetenal Super Fix Plus and Zone EcoFix, prewash and water stop.

and a 100% crop

 

[John Wiegerink]

Well, I guess I'll just have to be happy finishing my bulk 100' of Foma 200 35mm and forgo any 120 until, if ever, Foma fixes the problem. What a shame!

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I've had the black spots on all the Foma 200 120 roll film I've used.

The film was from batches 013456 2 exp 09 2024 and 013456 3 exp 12 2024 and 2 TLRs and a folder were used. Developers used have been Caffenol and Microphen, fixers Tetenal Super Fix Plus and Zone EcoFix, prewash and water stop.
View attachment 341587
and a 100% crop
View attachment 341588

Gosh that looks horrible.

I just shot a fresh 120 roll of Foma 200 this week, same batch as yours -- batch 013456 1, exp. 08/2024. I just looked through the scan of the sheet. None of my images have any marks like that. I shot mine with a Rolleiflex Automat MX, and stand-processed it in Rodinal. If my negatives looked like yours, I would be furious. I feel your pain.

 

[Flighter]

Gosh that looks horrible.

I just shot a fresh 120 roll of Foma 200 this week, same batch as yours -- batch 013456 1, exp. 08/2024. I just looked through the scan of the sheet. None of my images have any marks like that. I shot mine with a Rolleiflex Automat MX, and stand-processed it in Rodinal. If my negatives looked like yours, I would be furious. I feel your pain.

It does indeed.

What really puzzles me is that Foma 200 seems to work fine for some people like yourself but not for others like me. I don't think I'm that ham fisted and I haven't had any difficulty loading the film into the spirals of my (Paterson) tank and try to take dare to avoid stressing the film when loading.

Whilst the TLR film path has a 90° bend (Rolleiflex Automat K4B2 and OlympusFlex B-II) the film path of my folder (Olympus Chrome Six) is about as straight as you can get and there's no difference.

There's a theory that the black (on the positive/print) spots could be due to the acid fixer reacting with insufficiently cleared developer and blowing holes in the emulsion so the last couple of rolls I've used an alkaline fixer (Zone EcoFix) but no joy. I've always used a water stop bath, never acid.

Not sure what else to do other than switch to Kentmere 400 (a 10 pack has just arrived) - but it sure does bug me.

 

[albireo]

I've had the black spots on all the Foma 200 120 roll film I've used.

The film was from batches 013456 2 exp 09 2024 and 013456 3 exp 12 2024 and 2 TLRs and a folder were used. Developers used have been Caffenol and Microphen, fixers Tetenal Super Fix Plus and Zone EcoFix, prewash and water stop.

I'm currently going through a batch of 013456 3. I am not seeing anything like that.

Do you have an example scan with a film you trust/you're familiar with, processed in exactly the same workflow (same tank, same agitation, etc) and scanned+stored similarly?