Fomapan Creative 200 120 Black dots and...streaks

[Ernst-Jan]

The following are from older (2018-2019) batches which were IME not affected by the soft emulsion problem described in this thread.

It is not a problem of a certain batch but a property of the film itself. In some cameras you don't have any trouble at all

 

[Agulliver]

I've started using Fomapan 200 in 120 in various cameras - mostly vintage. I haven't noticed any of those spots but on other Foma medium format films I have twice had the larger pinhole type spot in five or so years of shooting Fomapan 100 and 400. I'll keep an eye out as I use more Fomapan 200 in medium format. I've shot quite a lot in 135 with no issues but I am aware this won't be exactly the same film as the 120. For the record I shoot at box speed and develop in ID-11 stock, and I use tap water as opposed to an acid stop. I'm very aware that Foma in particular do not recommend acid stop baths, and while I've experimented with them shooting film I've never found them particularly useful.

 

[albireo]

It is not a problem of a certain batch but a property of the film itself. In some cameras you don't have any trouble at all

No, in my experience it's a problem with certain batches only. For years I have used Foma 200 without the slightest hint of an issue; then, using exactly the same cameras and the same processing, I have experienced this issue with batch number 012856-1.

So yes, in my experience Foma has issues with inconsistency within product lines. When it all works, it's great. In 120, I found their most inconsistent product to be Foma 200, with Foma 100 being better, and Foma 400 and Retropan 320 being extremely consistent.

 

[DREW WILEY]

With 120 film paper backing issues, I never did get a bad roll of any variety, from either Kodak or Ilford. This is probably because the sources I was dealing with were responsible and promptly pulled any rolls of suspect batches, once the problem was identified. I was also working to a considerable extent with older inventory out of my freezer, prior to such issues. That was a brief subcontractor problem.

Sheet-film wise, Foma 200 is the only product I've ever had a quality problem with. But one has to be careful with the clamshell boxes any EU film comes in. They tend to be 2 pc with corners not completely light tight. So once you take the sheets out of the inner black poly bag, you want to put them in a three-part truly light tight clamshell from someone else, like Kodak or Ilford.

The third complaint with Foma sheets is that the edges and corners are downright sharp, so one has to be more careful in shuffle tray processing. There's no resistant overcoat either like with TMax sheet films. I remember back when FP4 (prior to FP4 plus) came with interleafing paper sheets between the film sheets due to emulsion fragility.

Still, Foma 200 is a unique film for this day and age, and I'd be willing to try it again in sheets if they ever do get the quality control consistent.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

All these defects in Foma films could be turned to advantage with the right subject matter, maybe along the lines of Walker Evans' shots of things in the gutter and other such rough matter.

 

[Auer]

All these defects in Foma films could be turned to advantage with the right subject matter, maybe along the lines of Walker Evans' shots of things in the gutter and other such rough matter.

Positive thinking, I'll keep that in mind for the rolls I have left.

 

[Auer]

With 120 film paper backing issues, I never did get a bad roll of any variety, from either Kodak or Ilford. This is probably because the sources I was dealing with were responsible and promptly pulled any rolls of suspect batches, once the problem was identified. I was also working to a considerable extent with older inventory out of my freezer, prior to such issues. That was a brief subcontractor problem.

Sheet-film wise, Foma 200 is the only product I've ever had a quality problem with. But one has to be careful with the clamshell boxes any EU film comes in. They tend to be 2 pc with corners not completely light tight. So once you take the sheets out of the inner black poly bag, you want to put them in a three-part truly light tight clamshell from someone else, like Kodak or Ilford.

The third complaint with Foma sheets is that the edges and corners are downright sharp, so one has to be more careful in shuffle tray processing. There's no resistant overcoat either like with TMax sheet films. I remember back when FP4 (prior to FP4 plus) came with interleafing paper sheets between the film sheets due to emulsion fragility.

Still, Foma 200 is a unique film for this day and age, and I'd be willing to try it again in sheets if they ever do get the quality control consistent.

I had both Ilford Pan F and FP4+ in 120 with the backing paper mottling deal. A few weeks ago actually.

Maybe I just need to shoot Tri-X from now on haha, so far I never had an issue with that. (loud knocks on wood)

 

[DREW WILEY]

Tri-X is great if you want the look of buckshot in your enlargements instead of birdshot. Nobody will notice mottle.

 

[distributed]

I have developed 2 rolls of Fomapan 200 in 120 with Xtol 1+1, one treated with indicator stop bath and one stopped with just water. The former shows defects like the black holes* in the sky in the right third your image. The latter has some black holes, but less. I did not see comet shaped defects like @Jonno85uk.

* I.e. very transparent in the negative.

 

[DREW WILEY]

If some scratches and zits are suitable for certain kinds of subject matter, why not just stomp on the film with a muddy boot instead? Steel wool? Actual shotgun holes? I wouldn't use any film like that if it was free. But maybe if one awakes from the gutter on Skid Row and sees something at the same eye level as a rat, no telling what kind of creative instincts might arrive.

 

[chris77]

If some scratches and zits are suitable for certain kinds of subject matter, why not just stomp on the film with a muddy boot instead? Steel wool? Actual shotgun holes? I wouldn't use any film like that if it was free. But maybe if one awakes from the gutter on Skid Row and sees something at the same eye level as a rat, no telling what kind of creative instincts might arrive.

Hahaha I get it
After using foma films since years I can only say that fomapan200 in 120 is unreliable for mentioned reasons.
In 135 it's great, sheetfilm too.
EI 100 is more like it though.. which is ok for me.
Enjoy

 

[Jonno85uk]

at the risk of getting that one who is now on the ignore list to drone on, @distributed that was a crop on 35mm.

I've shot dozens of rolls of 200+400 and for the handful of frames with these singular spots i'm not too concerned. I like the results I get with the film in xtol (above was HC). If I could get neopan400pr again, i'd only shoot that.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I do wonder if Foma 200's problems relate to similar issues that the early t-grain emulsions faced with the thinner 120 support causing the emulsions to suffer physical stress/ grain cracking much more readily - and whether it could be resolved by coating on the 135 base instead.

I also think that the backing paper problems are being exacerbated in general by people feeling a need to refrigerate and freeze films in a variety of incompetent ways - as well as not paying attention to environmental humidity/ temperature stresses they (or retailers) are subjecting the films to.

@DREW WILEY those last batches of Efke weren't suffering dust problems, it seemed much more like a plant issue with incomplete melting and/ or 'aggregation' from insufficient gelatin at making or coating (at least on the R100 I encountered) - aka the very real form of grain clumping, rather than the strange things certain developer tasters keep thinking they're seeing down their cheap microscopes. It was pretty visible on the faster films, especially if you developed to higher CI's.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Thanks for that Ekfe observation, Lachlan. I heard from someone who visited the factory around then that it was in such a state of disrepair that "cleanroom" conditions around the coating line consisted of hung sheets of black polyethylene. But random embedded tiny fragments of unfiltered gelatin do exist on my sheets of Efke dye transfer matrix film, far less visibly of course than when enlarged from a tiny frame of 120 film, where it could look like the Goodyear Blimp in the sky.

The issue with Foma 200, on the other hand, was mainly fine cracking predictably parallel to the edges. This was rumored to be due to the emulsion not being fully cured when it was cut down to sheet sizes off the master roll. It apparently needs to aged awhile just like cheese. There were also little pinhole "zits" creating white spots in the print. It is possible that neither of these issues would be a deal breaker to an 8x10 contact printer, but even modest enlargements made them unbearably obnoxious. In fact, very fine hairline cracks are the hardest to retouch out.

I can't address backing paper issues on roll film. It's never happened to me in my entire life.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Old Gregg - how dare you compare my favorite film to digital anything! May fuzzy furry little bewhiskered pixels run around and dig holes in your front lawn!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Do you mean the critter is evolving? Makes sense; something is obviously feeding on our brains and sending us the other direction, backwards. Black dots in our heads.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Thanks for that Ekfe observation, Lachlan. I heard from someone who visited the factory around then that it was in such a state of disrepair that "cleanroom" conditions around the coating line consisted of hung sheets of black polyethylene. But random embedded tiny fragments of unfiltered gelatin do exist on my sheets of Efke dye transfer matrix film, far less visibly of course than when enlarged from a tiny frame of 120 film, where it could look like the Goodyear Blimp in the sky.

I'd have believed dust too, but embedded dust doesn't vary in size with development... It doesn't surprise me that loose bits of gelatin crept in on the matrix film - the pre-coating melt step seemed to be what slowly failed, either leaving clumping or bits of totally unmelted gel. I don't think the Efke QC system was necessarily sophisticated enough to detect that until it started to reach grossly visible levels. From what I have read, the 'go for coating' step was determined by pretty simple means, largely unchanged since early 50's Schleussner/ Dupont technology - which was already 20 years obsolete even then. Slow dip-coating and simpler drying festoons won't stir up the air as much as the impingement drying tunnels, air bearings and newer coating hoppers (some using vacuums) will - though I recall reading in the BIOS/ FIAT reports that the air cleaning facilities/ sequestration of coating plant at Schleussner and Perutz at the end of WWII were felt to be nowhere near as good as at Agfa - and even then, Agfa's air scrubbing technology is implied to be less good than what the inspectors thought it should be. There are photographs of the Schleussner coater and they look remarkably similar to the layout of the Efke machine.

The issue with Foma 200, on the other hand, was mainly fine cracking predictably parallel to the edges. This was rumored to be due to the emulsion not being fully cured when it was cut down to sheet sizes off the master roll. It apparently needs to aged awhile just like cheese. There were also little pinhole "zits" creating white spots in the print. It is possible that neither of these issues would be a deal breaker to an 8x10 contact printer, but even modest enlargements made them unbearably obnoxious. In fact, very fine hairline cracks are the hardest to retouch out.

As weird as it may seem, I don't necessarily think that's insufficient hardening, but possibly the emulsion being too dry, or otherwise not flexible enough - for example Formalin can actually overharden and make the emulsion become more brittle - combine that with an emulsion type more prone to being physically damaged because of the inherent grain structure it uses and...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hard to say if the less than ideal gelatin filtering situation at Forte resembled that at the old Efke plant. Fine cracking was encountered on 120 film as well as sheet film. I just can't risk it when there are more versatile films available with very high levels of quality control.

 

[fabulousrice]

Pretty much the whole roll looks like this.
RO9 one shot 1:50 68c 8 minutes continuos rotation (Lab Box) (Fresh Bottle)
Eco-Pro clear Stop bath 1:32 2 minutes
Cinestill F96 Fixer 2 minutes

Bessa 46. Never seen anything like it with either Ilford or Kodak films in same camera.
Clarification: Never seen anything like it with D76. Could it be the acidic stop bath? Pinholes?

Any thoughts?

You could take it to a professional lab and see if the film is faulty

 

[Auer]

You could take it to a professional lab and see if the film is faulty

Did you read the thread at all?

 

[fabulousrice]

Did you read the thread at all?

That's a lot of work... I recently complained about that somewhere else

Did you read the thread at all?

I can't even read a whole bottle of Dr Bronner's

 

[Auer]

I got an E-Mail reply from Foma:

"Thank you for your sent details.
We are sorry for our later reply in our busy time.

Our Quality dept. confirms that the claimed scratches are caused by interaction of metal mechanics of the camera with our more sensitive emulsion layer of FOMAPAN 200. We recommend to our clients to use another camera/s if possible and polish thoroughly the metal parts of the camera which are in direct contact with the film to reduce partially unfavourable effects.

Anyway we are ready to provide you with our replacement of your bought 6 film rolls. Considering that we haven´t other quality of FOMAPAN 200 in 120 size, we suggest to you substituting with our 120 rolls in other sensitivity, i.e. FOMAPAN 100, FOMAPAN 400 or RETROPAN 320, alternatively FOMAPAN 200 in 35 mm or 4x5". Please, specify your preference and also your delivery address.

We are indeed sorry for made inconveniences to you & Waiting for your reply as for our replacement."

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I mentioned this in another thread. If you like the scratched look you can buy pre-scratched film from https://shop.revolog.net/
It looks like they supply film with just about any manufacturing defect you can name. All 35mm CN, I'm afraid - I imagine they cater to the Lomo crowd.

 

[**Walter]

I've recently experienced these 'black spots/marks' on Fomapan 200 (120 format - Batch 012956 1). Developed in Rodinal 1:50 with 1 min weak acidic stop and 5 minute fix and wash
The attached crop is but one example.
I developed Fomapan 400 on the following day (also with Rodinal) and the image are all clear of such marks.
Like others, I've requested follow-up from Fomapan on the cause / remedy.

 

[Jonno85uk]

Thanks for including the batch no. I've got a roll from the same batch. I'll see how it'll turn out in time.