Fomapan Creative 200 120 Black dots and...streaks

[Flighter]

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?

Unfortunately not, as this is really my first foray into MF, the only other 120 film I've developed was C41 Lomo CN100 which had no problems. I've kept the Foma 200 in the deepfreeze but no telling how it was kept before then but purchased through Amazon UK. Both the Lomo and Foma were scanned with a Canoscan 9900F - no issues with the Lomo scans.

Other than that my developing has mainly been 35mm, a mix of colour film (developed with Digibase C41) and Foma 100, 200 and 400 B&W, all developed in Caffenol with no issues.

 

[koraks]

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

Yeah, that's a nice theory. I don't think it has anything to do with this problem, though. The last emulsion I heard being prone to this was 1990s (maybe up to early 2000s?) Efke. Btw, I specifically tested the acid stop bath theory when I first ran into the Foma 200 problems; you know, using a water 'stop' bath and whatnot. Didn't make any difference whatsoever. Contacted Foma and they unequivocally told me it was a manufacturing problem with the film, and sent me replacement rolls (with the same defects).

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Yeah, that's a nice theory. I don't think it has anything to do with this problem, though. The last emulsion I heard being prone to this was 1990s (maybe up to early 2000s?) Efke. Btw, I specifically tested the acid stop bath theory when I first ran into the Foma 200 problems; you know, using a water 'stop' bath and whatnot. Didn't make any difference whatsoever. Contacted Foma and they unequivocally told me it was a manufacturing problem with the film, and sent me replacement rolls (with the same defects).

I'm an idiot when it comes to the industrial aspects of film production so please don't laugh if this is a dumb idea. But I note that there seems to be (at least) three batches of the current Foma run. Mine was batch 013456 1 (exp. 08/2024) -- no problems. Flighter had problems with batches 013456 2 (exp 09/2024) and 013456 3 (exp 12/2024).

Could it be that the suffix denotes cuts from a master roll? That mine was the first cut from roll 013456, while Flighter's were the second and third cuts from roll 013456? If that is true, then perhaps the outer roll has no problems, but lengths from the middle and end of the roll exhibit this problem? Either because the the diameter of the roll decreases as it approaches the spool, or because of some other aspect of the production process that escapes me?

Anybody? Bueller?

 

[MattKing]

The batch codes could also refer to confectioning/finishing batches, which might mean that film from the same batch came from more than one master roll.
That isn't how Kodak does it, and it may very well not be how Foma does it.

 

[P C Headland]

I shot a roll of Fomapan 200 for the first time earlier this month (batch 014056 (4), expiry 09-2025) and got really bad streaks/scratches across the majority of the 8 frames I shot on a Moskva 5. It was developed in PC-TEA 1+50 at 20C. I don't recall whether I used a water stop or indicator stop. Fixer was Ilford Rapid Fix.

The scratches can be seen easily enough under a loupe on the image area, but I can't see any similar scratches outside of the image/frame area. The rollers on the camera are clean and smooth and rotate easily.

I've not seen any similar problems before with Fomapan 100 or 400, or any other 120 film, expired or not. I've not had any problems with scratches before with this camera, even with Efke films.

I initially put this down as user error on my part, but having seen others, including here, reporting similar issues, now I'm wondering if it's more likely a manufacturing fault.

The example image is a crop of a negative scan, this frame being the second to last frame on the roll.

 

[Steven Lee]

To cheer everyone up, I am happy to report that Fomapan 200 in 35mm format has been upgraded to their 120 manufacturing standards and now features the dark streaks similar to what I've seen on my 120 rolls. They're MUCH less common though, and tend to show up in clusters of 3-4. Trivial to correct during scanning. I had maybe 4-5 shots affected on a roll. Not too bad so I'll continue to use this unique film in 35mm.

 

[Dusty Negative]

To cheer everyone up, I am happy to report that Fomapan 200 in 35mm format has been upgraded to their 120 manufacturing standards and now features the dark streaks similar to what I've seen on my 120 rolls. They're MUCH less common though, and tend to show up in clusters of 3-4. Trivial to correct during scanning. I had maybe 4-5 shots affected on a roll. Not too bad so I'll continue to use this unique film in 35mm.

What!????

 

[Cerebum]

I had the dots so wrote to foma. I have attached ascreenshot of the reply. The datasheet suggests you check the film's compatibility before using it but dont suggest what cameras are an issue, which, as advice goes, is pretty useless! So, i will keep using my bulk roll of foma200 35mm but wont be buying 120 again.

 

[koraks]

Oh man, they keep giving back that "it happens with certain cameras" stuff...well, maybe part of it is correct, but back when I had this problem with Foma 200 in 120 format, I was sure to test several camera systems, including one that has absolutely no sharp bends or exerts any significant pull force on the film. Same problem. Frankly, it's a bit exasperating they keep falling back on this "you know, maybe it's the camera" excuse.
/rant. Apologies.

 

[Cerebum]

Oh man, they keep giving back that "it happens with certain cameras" stuff...well, maybe part of it is correct, but back when I had this problem with Foma 200 in 120 format, I was sure to test several camera systems, including one that has absolutely no sharp bends or exerts any significant pull force on the film. Same problem. Frankly, it's a bit exasperating they keep falling back on this "you know, maybe it's the camera" excuse.
/rant. Apologies.

Yeah, i was quite taken aback. I mean, other than buying the film, using it and swearing how do you check compatibility! Do they have the same issues with 100 & 400 because i wont be buying any more 200

 

[koraks]

Do they have the same issues with 100 & 400

No; the issue is specific to Fomapan 200. It used to be isolated to the 120 version, but if you read above there are now reports of similar defects on the 135 as well. However, it's still only Foma 200 that's affected.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yeah, i was quite taken aback. I mean, other than buying the film, using it and swearing how do you check compatibility! Do they have the same issues with 100 & 400 because i wont be buying any more 200

Well, I think Foma is blowing a little smoke about compatibility issues with certain cameras and not others. In fact, I'll call their bluff on that one. Ok Foma.eu tell me which cameras your 120 film is compatible with? I'll buy that camera, or I may already have said camera, which I will then test for myself and see if you are telling the truth or not. I say not! Not only that, but I've tried the film in old Kodak folders that have straight film paths and almost no tension upon advancement. Yup, still the same problem. That's why I say "not" to their camera compatibility issue. Like I said, if there is a camera or cameras that this 120 film works in, please tell folks which camera/cameras they are to save people a lot of grief and $$$,

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Well, I think Foma is blowing a little smoke about compatibility issues with certain cameras and not others. In fact, I'll call their bluff on that one. Ok Foma.eu tell me which cameras your 120 film is compatible with? I'll buy that camera, or I may already have said camera, which I will then test for myself and see if you are telling the truth or not. I say not! Not only that, but I've tried the film in old Kodak folders that have straight film paths and almost no tension upon advancement. Yup, still the same problem. That's why I say "not" to their camera compatibility issue. Like I said, if there is a camera or cameras that this 120 film works in, please tell folks which camera/cameras they are to save people a lot of grief and $$$,

I doubt it is the camera — I am guessing it has something to do with how the film is stored, or how it is processed. Obviously, some people are having horrible experiences with it. I have yet to see the problems in the rolls I have shot. And I have shot it in a variety of cameras, most recently in three different Rolleiflexes/ Rolleicords, a Brooks-Plaubel Veriwide 100, and a 1950s Hapo 66 folder.

I stand process the film in Rodinal — 1:100, tap water temp, one hour, a few gentle inversions halfway through. I wonder whether agitation in development might play a role in this? It would be interesting for someone who is experiencing this problem to shoot a roll, stand process the roll, and see if the problem recurs.

 

[koraks]

I am guessing it has something to do with how the film is stored, or how it is processed.

It's a manufacturing problem. Foma admitted this to me years ago when I had the same problems. I sent sample negatives of mine over to the Foma plant and was contacted two weeks later or so by a representative of theirs. They literally stated that the problem was on their side. The nature of the defects was the same as what we're still saying today, although there is considerable variation in the severity (number of defects per surface area) and also in the geometry. I am willing to accept that the very long (>1mm) horizontal lines may have something to do with film transport and forces applied to the film during use, in the sense that they are probably pre-existing cracks in the emulsion that are exacerbated under certain circumstances, but would still show up under any condition, just a little more subtle.

There's no way this has anything to do with processing of the film. It just doesn't add up, there's no evidence that points in that direction and it goes counter to what Foma themselves have said throughout the years about this.

I'm sorry for picking on this so specifically, but I find it important to emphasize since users may otherwise spend an insubordinate amount of time trying to troubleshoot a problem they believe is on their side, while in fact it isn't. Having gone through that experience, I know how much time it can cost to systematically isolate the problem. I did the A/B tests of testing this film in different cameras, testing it with different processing regimes and different types of chemistry, testing other film in the same conditions to replicate the problem, etc.

By all means, go through all that again if you must, but it's a dead-end street.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

It's a manufacturing problem

Agreed. But the question remains why the defect ruins some negatives but not others. Foma says it’s the camera. Anecdotes from users do not bear this out. I suppose it could be random. But I find it odd that I have never seen the defect in my negatives, while others see it whenever they shoot and process the film.

Something must explain this disparity In user experiences.

 

[koraks]

Well, the problem occurs worse so in certain part of the same roll than in others, at least in the rolls I've had in my own hands. There's an intermittency to it that in my experience does not relate to processing, equipment used etc.

Again, I'm very willing to accept that certain ways of handling can exacerbate the inherent problems. I don't see how it's very relevant to explore that given the fact that the problems keep popping up, they have done so for years, and the perfectly reliable fix that works for everyone is to just use a different product in this format. For me, personally, it's just a waste of time trying to nail down the exact nature of a manufacturing problem that I have no influence on. If Foma were to undertake this, more power to them. Bluntly put, I'm not going to do their R&D and I don't see why anyone else but them should.

Of course, it's a free world and all that, so I wouldn't want to (or even could) stop anyone from trying to figure this out. I'd be happy to share my observations so far; I have some illustrations somewhere of the defects as I encountered them. But they're already online in a few places, so shouldn't be too hard to track down.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes, if somebody here or anywhere wants to solve the problem that occurs with Foma 200, more power to them. I'm just not going to waste anymore of my time or money trying to figure it out. Very good film with a very bad defect. I still wish Foma would tell us which cameras to use this film in since they obviously know.

 

[removedacct3]

I still wish Foma would tell us which cameras to use this film in since they obviously know.

You surely must be joking mr. Wiegerink!

 

[Steven Lee]

I doubt it is the camera — I am guessing it has something to do with how the film is stored, or how it is processed. Obviously, some people are having horrible experiences with it. I have yet to see the problems in the rolls I have shot. And I have shot it in a variety of cameras, most recently in three different Rolleiflexes/ Rolleicords

Do you scan or wet print? Asking because the streaks are actually quite thin. They've visible on scans at 100% but I doubt they'll be noticeable on a common sized print.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Agreed. But the question remains why the defect ruins some negatives but not others

Ah, the defect itself is defective...

The first step in fixing an intermittent problem is to find out how to get it to appear on demand with 100% reliability. But, that is only worth it if you have been tasked with (and will be paid for) fixing it.

Otherwise, I'm with Mr. Koraks - just use another film and take photographs.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Do you scan or wet print? Asking because the streaks are actually quite thin. They've visible on scans at 100% but I doubt they'll be noticeable on a common sized print.

I scan, always. I make enlarged digital negatives for contact-printing. I'm working with 2400dpi or 4800dpi scans displayed at 100% size on the screen, so if the marks were in my negatives, they would be obvious.

 

[chuckroast]

I shot a roll of Fomapan 200 for the first time earlier this month (batch 014056 (4), expiry 09-2025) and got really bad streaks/scratches across the majority of the 8 frames I shot on a Moskva 5. It was developed in PC-TEA 1+50 at 20C. I don't recall whether I used a water stop or indicator stop. Fixer was Ilford Rapid Fix.

The scratches can be seen easily enough under a loupe on the image area, but I can't see any similar scratches outside of the image/frame area. The rollers on the camera are clean and smooth and rotate easily.

I've not seen any similar problems before with Fomapan 100 or 400, or any other 120 film, expired or not. I've not had any problems with scratches before with this camera, even with Efke films.

I initially put this down as user error on my part, but having seen others, including here, reporting similar issues, now I'm wondering if it's more likely a manufacturing fault.

The example image is a crop of a negative scan, this frame being the second to last frame on the roll.

View attachment 342115

Fomapan 200 in 120 is unusable. Foma sent me an equivalent stock of other film after I complained that the 10 rolls I bought had these problems. They claim that the film is a hybrid traditional/T-grain and the t-grains can "fall off".


I have had no problems with the film in 35mm or 4x5, however.

 

[albireo]

Loving the Foma 200 bashfest in this thread.

Ultimately it's a good thing, as it helps keeping the prices low for a unique product, one that works well for loads of us out there.

Keep it going!

 

[chuckroast]

Loving the Foma 200 bashfest in this thread.

Ultimately it's a good thing, as it helps keeping the prices low for a unique product, one that works well for loads of us out there.

Keep it going!

Hardly a bashfest. Foma treated me very well when I found my lot of 120. They not only replaced it with an equivalent value alternative product but sent me a lovely calendar of photographs made on their products AND paid for shipping to the US.

They make some really fine products. Their Fomabrom VC Variant 111 is one of the very best papers I've ever printed on, easily the equal of some of the bigger brand name products I've used over the years. Fomapan 200 in 35 and 4x5 is great. Foman 100 in 9x12 is similarly good.

But when they have issues, they need to know about it so they can fix it.

Oh, and I'm fine if they raise prices just to keep them and their products around for us to use.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I had the same two issues with Foma 200 8X10 sheet film, two different batches. So blaming camera rollers in the case of 120 film is probably not the answer. More like linear emulsion cracks than scratches per se; and the zits in the emulsion were big enough to be conspicuously evident in anything larger than a contact print. That was quite awhile back, so I can't speak about recent batches. But the recurrence of these problems here and there is enough to keep we away.