Fomapan Creative 200 120 Black dots and...streaks

[John Wiegerink]

You surely must be joking mr. Wiegerink!

Actually, that post was a tongue-in-cheek post since I don't Foma has any idea as to what is the magic camera.

 

[removedacct3]

Actually, that post was a tongue-in-cheek post since I don't Foma has any idea as to what is the magic camera.

Of course! Hence, the reference to this cult classic.

 

[Dusty Negative]

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.

Drew -

Would you please describe the “linear emulsion cracks” you experienced in 8x10?

 

[DREW WILEY]

All of mine were about an inch in from the sides of the 8X10 sheets, parallel to the sides on about every other sheet. So I suspected brittleness in relation to roller compression somewhere in the sizing or packaging workflow. A scratch or tear in the emulsion would have been been wider and no doubt jagged. These were very thin (and hard to retouch in the print). There are reports going way back, surmising that this is due to cutting the film prematurely before it has sufficiently cured. And hence at that time it was more common on the Arista label - the postulate being, they'd make a large bulk cut for Freestyle first, allowing Foma to financially break even on the run, and only later do their own Foma-branded cut from the same master roll. How much or this was rumor, and how much actually informed, I have no idea; but it does fit the symptoms.

 

[Dusty Negative]

All of mine were about an inch in from the sides of the 8X10 sheets, parallel to the sides on about every other sheet. So I suspected brittleness in relation to roller compression somewhere in the sizing or packaging workflow. A scratch or tear in the emulsion would have been been wider and no doubt jagged. These were very thin (and hard to retouch in the print). There are reports going way back, surmising that this is due to cutting the film prematurely before it has sufficiently cured. And hence at that time it was more common on the Arista label - the postulate being, they'd make a large bulk cut for Freestyle first, allowing Foma to financially break even on the run, and only later do their own Foma-branded cut from the same master roll. How much or this was rumor, and how much actually informed, I have no idea; but it does fit the symptoms.

Drew,

Did they look like these:

 

[DREW WILEY]

No. I had long linear lines nearly the full width of the film, and always a distinct direction parallel to the long edge. So there is no way I could have done it. But one would expect different symptoms on thick sheet film versus roll film, even if the underlying cause was similar. Plus I had distinct "zits" of missing sensitized emulsion - not craters like one might expect using too strong a stop bath - just nothing photosensitive there, up to a mm or so across in random places. That was less common than the crack or scratch marks. Pretty disappointing. I figured that, even with headache print retouching, only about one out of every three exposures was usable - it sure didn't turn out to be an "affordable" film in that respect !

Then I gave them the benefit of the doubt, and tried another box of 8X10 200 Foma about five years later. Same problems. Too bad. It is otherwise an interesting unique product with a tremendous contrast range.

I'm not particularly fond of their 400 speed film, which seems so-so garden-variety, but at least I never had a defective sheet of that.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I just shot another 120 roll of Fomapan 200. I shot with an early Rolleiflex Automat, and stand-processed in Rodinal. Scanned at 2400dpi and viewed at 100%, no defects are visible. Batch No. 013456 (exp 08/2024).

It was shot with harsh backlight -- here's the scan:

 

[Flighter]

I just shot another 120 roll of Fomapan 200. I shot with an early Rolleiflex Automat, and stand-processed in Rodinal. Scanned at 2400dpi and viewed at 100%, no defects are visible. Batch No. 013456 (exp 08/2024).

It was shot with harsh backlight -- here's the scan:

That looks excellent, and a world of difference from what I got from the roll of Foma 200 that I put through my Rolleiflex Automat (Model 3 - K4B2) which had the usual (for me) black dots everywhere. Batch no 013456 2 (exp 09/2024) developed in Microphen for 6 minutes.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Same camera

That looks excellent, and a world of difference from what I got from the roll of Foma 200 that I put through my Rolleiflex Automat (Model 3 - K4B2) which had the usual (for me) black dots everywhere. Batch no 013456 2 (exp 09/2024) developed in Microphen for 6 minutes.

Same camera! Same batch! It MUST be something that manifests in development. If you have some Rodinal, can you shoot a roll and stand process it (1:100 for an hour) and see if you get spots?

 

[koraks]

It MUST be something that manifests in development.

How does that align with Foma saying it's either the film (my case) or the camera (other people's experiences)?
Or maybe some rolls are affected and not others, perhaps depending on what side of the master roll they were on, whether they were close to the core of the master roll or more to the outside, etc.

PS: not the same batch, either:
Batch no 013456 2 (exp 09/2024) vs Batch No. 013456 (exp 08/2024)

 

[Flighter]

Same camera


Same camera! Same batch! It MUST be something that manifests in development. If you have some Rodinal, can you shoot a roll and stand process it (1:100 for an hour) and see if you get spots?

I've still got a couple of rolls left so will try stand development and see what happens.

 

[Flighter]

How does that align with Foma saying it's either the film (my case) or the camera (other people's experiences)?
Or maybe some rolls are affected and not others, perhaps depending on what side of the master roll they were on, whether they were close to the core of the master roll or more to the outside, etc.

PS: not the same batch, either:
Batch no 013456 2 (exp 09/2024) vs Batch No. 013456 (exp 08/2024)

I'm struggling to see that it can be the camera, I've had no luck with either a TLR or a folder. It could be, however, that if the film is slightly affected (dependent on whereabouts in the master roll it was cut from) that the 90° bend in a TLR (will most TLRs - I understand that the Mamiya C3 and similar have a flat film path) exacerbates the problem. Maybe the same goes for the development process?

 

[koraks]

I'm struggling to see that it can be the camera

Of course. The root cause is not the camera.
And for the same reason, the root cause is also not the development. Even if development would exacerbate the problem (it doesn't; I've tested this extensively back when I ran into these issues), it would still be a major problem if a film worked only with e.g. stand development (and again, this is not the case, but anyone's free to try).

 

[Flighter]

Of course. The root cause is not the camera.
And for the same reason, the root cause is also not the development. Even if development would exacerbate the problem (it doesn't; I've tested this extensively back when I ran into these issues), it would still be a major problem if a film worked only with e.g. stand development (and again, this is not the case, but anyone's free to try).

I just wonder why, if it’s the film, that Foma haven't done something now to resolve the issue as it seems to be a long standing problem. Anyway, I've got a couple of rolls left which otherwise can't be used so will give it a try.

 

[koraks]

I just wonder why, if it’s the film, that Foma haven't done something now to resolve the issue as it seems to be a long standing problem.

Apparently they can still make money selling the product even though some/most of it is defective.
I also suspect it's a really difficult/expensive problem to fix, so they just haven't prioritized it.

 

[petrk]

I just wonder why, if it’s the film, that Foma haven't done something now to resolve the issue as it seems to be a long standing problem. Anyway, I've got a couple of rolls left which otherwise can't be used so will give it a try.

Foma is trying, but has few resources for extensive development. We had a discussion about it here, but the thread seems to have been deleted. Foma tries to improve the quality in certain periods, so it is good to compare the experience with the product that is currently on sale.

 

[removedacct3]

Foma tries to improve the quality in certain periods, so it is good to compare the experience with the product that is currently on sale.

What do you mean by 'in certain periods'? Are they working on it off and on? That would be news to me.

And the last part of your sentence, shouldn't that be rephrased as: "it is good to compare the experience with the latest batch produced"? Comparing with old stock, or earlier batches, that is currently being sold does not make sense to me.

Another option could be that my non-native English reading skills are letting me down. So please elaborate if you will as I am genuinely curious to know.

 

[koraks]

We had a discussion about it here, but the thread seems to have been deleted.

It couldn't have been very recently; do you remember when this was? We don't usually delete threads, especially not if anything useful is said in it.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Foma tries to improve the quality in certain periods, so it is good to compare the experience with the product that is currently on sale.

Petr, that is exactly what we’ve done here. Flighter and I both shot rolls from the current production runs. We both shot it using Rolleiflex Automat MX cameras. He got spots. I did not. We differed only in how we developed the film.

I agree with Koraks: It is not the consumer’s burden to do Foma’s QC research. Still, I am curious as to why others experience this problem, and documented it, but I have not. As a practical matter, Foma has lost me as a customer — there are viable replacements from Ilford and others so why risk a bad outcome in the future, since Foma seems unable or unwilling to address this problem?

 

[John Wiegerink]

I don't really understand why different developer/techniques would have anything to do with the emulsion/speck problem, but who am I to say one way or the other. Is it possible? I suppose so, but I find it hard to believe.
As for Foma fixing the problem, well we're all waiting for that. I have a feeling they are dragging their feet since they probably have several master rolls already made and in storage. Yup, what would you do with all that "bad" stock? You can either sell it to a third party to make "LOMO" film or try to sell it as if nothing is wrong with it. If you do the latter your sales will slow when people find out what we already know. For me, I'll wait for an "all-clear" from folks here before I buy anymore Foma 200. It's a really nice film if you don't mind long fly turds on your negatives.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I don't really understand why different developer/techniques would have anything to do with the emulsion/speck problem, but who am I to say one way or the other. Is it possible? I suppose so, but I find it hard to believe.

I stand process my film in Rodinal. Maybe the agitation with some developers triggers the problem? I agree with Koraks that there must be some defect in the film that makes it susceptible to these problems. That said, there must also be a reason why it manifests with some users but not others.

 

[koraks]

That said, there must also be a reason why it manifests with some users but not others.

Yes, but I still want to keep the possibility open that the problem manifests itself for everyone alike, but only in affected rolls of film. I find it quite plausible that not every roll would have defects, and it's consequently also completely reasonable that someone has consistently skirted the problem through sheer luck.

Don't forget that there's likely a bias towards overreporting problems; people who use this film and have never seen a problem are less likely to go on a forum and talk about it.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes, but I still want to keep the possibility open that the problem manifests itself for everyone alike, but only in affected rolls of film. I find it quite plausible that not every roll would have defects, and it's consequently also completely reasonable that someone has consistently skirted the problem through sheer luck.

Don't forget that there's likely a bias towards overreporting problems; people who use this film and have never seen a problem are less likely to go on a forum and talk about it.

If I understand what you are saying, then where the slitter slits the master roll might have something to do with who has problems and who doesn't. Like maybe all the 120 film slit from the left side of the master spool is good, but the film coating on the right side is defective? Just a guess????

 

[petrk]

He got spots. I did not. We differed only in how we developed the film.

In that case, spots should have rounded edges under a high magnification with microscope, this would confirm it. Sharp edges would indicate a factory defect. There was also discussion here about the relation of development and black holes in a past.

 

[petrk]

I don't really understand why different developer/techniques would have anything to do with the emulsion/speck problem, but who am I to say one way or the other. Is it possible? I suppose so, but I find it hard to believe.

I am not an expert so I have no my own knowledge, but from discussion here on Photrio I understand, that it is a real problem and can be seen on films of other manufacturers too.