Fomapan Creative 200 120 Black dots and...streaks

[Auer]

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.View attachment 269712

What camera?

 

[absalom1951]

I developed a roll of Fomapan 200 from batch 012856 1 , it has the same problem. I shot it in a Mamiya 6 folder and from a previous post the manufacturer thought it could possibly be the camera ? I will try shooting a roll through a Mamiya 23 press and see what happens .

 

[**Walter]

What camera?

Franka Solida III (the model with uncoupled rangefinder)

 

[markjwyatt]

@**Walter mentioned he used a "weak acidic stop". Would that be citric acid? That is what I have been using. I have 4 rolls of Foma 400 in 120. Good to hear the one roll was ok.

 

[Auer]

Seems a lot of older folders have this issue, just too soft of an emulsion for them. @Lachlan Young

 

[Jonno85uk]

Seems a lot of older folders have this issue, just too soft of an emulsion for them. @Lachlan Young

Is it definitely the film though? I had a very similar issue in the past with a Braun Paxina and multiple rolls of FP4+ i put through it. I eventually discovered the flocking paint was coming off and settling on the emulsion.

 

[Auer]

Is it definitely the film though? I had a very similar issue in the past with a Braun Paxina and multiple rolls of FP4+ i put through it. I eventually discovered the flocking paint was coming off and settling on the emulsion.

I had it in two camera's now, my Bessa 46 and Isolette II. It's only with the Fomapan 200. In 120.

 

[Jonno85uk]

What makes the folders prone to this issue? I've just a roll from the same batch into my ETRS to see if I get the same problem.

 

[Auer]

What makes the folders prone to this issue? I've just a roll from the same batch into my ETRS to see if I get the same problem.

Possibly the way the film travels and what it touches? And opening and closing the bellows does create air movement that can move the film too. Folders "Exhale" and "Inhale".
I have no deeper knowledge about it, just a guess.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Possibly the way the film travels and what it touches?

I think it may need further investigation, if only to eliminate it as a cause - if other Foma emulsions work OK, then I suspect that it isn't a general hardening issue - especially as the emulsions at the time these cameras were designed were not as well hardened as current Foma emulsions, let alone Ilford/ Kodak etc. However, if the grains were 'cracking' the resultant fog would increase density on the neg, whereas these marks are essentially producing clear areas that print as black. Unless something really bizarre is happening and the film is becoming statically charged & thus attracting all the dust from within the camera - possibly from the velvet light trapping in many of these old cameras and low humidity?

I've just a roll from the same batch into my ETRS to see if I get the same problem.

That should (hopefully) answer some questions about how well it handles the double bend those backs impose on the film.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I think it may need further investigation, if only to eliminate it as a cause

I've never used a Foma 120 film, but saw this type of effect with some Rollei branded MACO film.

 

[**Walter]

@**Walter mentioned he used a "weak acidic stop". Would that be citric acid? That is what I have been using. I have 4 rolls of Foma 400 in 120. Good to hear the one roll was ok.

Yes @markjwyatt, that's citric acid - 1/2 teaspoon in 500ml distilled water.

 

[Jonno85uk]

Yup. It's the film.
I burnt through the roll at lunch with my ETRS. My roll from the same batch has these issues too.
I don't get these issues with Foma 400 (or any other film,ever), which is a shame as i prefer 200.
XTOL-R 7mins. 30s citric stop.

Here's a crop from a 35mm frame in a roll put through a Zorki 4K i recently CLAd. A couple black spots. The mass of white spots are because I thought i'd give the Ilford wash method another chance. I'm done trying with that.

edit: after scanning the entire 120 roll, some frames were spotless. Very weird.

 

[absalom1951]

I shot this roll through a Mamiya Press ,6x7 film back. The photo with the 1 on it is a 8x10

cropped from a 20x20 enlargement.
I printed these in my darkroom , then scanned them. Film was developed in D-76 for 8.5 minutes . water stop bath , TF-4 fixer.

 

[marcmarc]

Foma is crap film. I hate to be so blunt about it but I've had intermittent problems with their films over the years and if you search through the archives on any number of photography sites you'll see that their films have had QC issues for years and years. One would think by now they would have gotten their act together and fixed these problems but nope, as long as people still buy their films I guess they see no reason to try and put reliable products out. This is true for the Foma branded films as well as the Freestyle branded films. I will say that when you get a flawless roll in 100 and develop in Rodinal it really has a nice look to it but why take the chance on getting a crap roll? I would only their prices really aren't that much less then more reliable films from other brands which amazes me. If you're a student and need rolls for learning purposes then Foma is fine. Anything else of any importance I suggest going with Kodak, Ilford, or Fuji.

 

[albireo]

I find Foma to be generally fine, apart from the odd quality control issue (even Ilford and Kodak have them by the way). I like that they replace any faulty stock immediately, when contacted. Great customer service.

I have found that the most vocal critics of Foma are usually crap photographers who would take crap photos even with Ilford, Tmax, or a digital camera. It's just that they take more with Foma, perhaps because it's cheaper in some parts of the world.

Foma's low price and perceived 'educational' value is both a blessing and a curse - there's a significant selection bias at play within its social media-aware user base.

 

[R.Gould]

having used Foma film, mainly 400, for many years as my only film, I have yet to have any QC problems, yes I have had problems, but mostly user error, I have had as many QC control problems with Ilford and Kodak, no matter how good the QC is mistakes happen, and Foma will replace film if there is a problem without question, I have had 3 replaced due to QC problems in at least 25 years, and they reply quickly to any questions, they have been making films since 1921, sucessfuly so they must be doing something right, I would not change my films even if the prices reached Ilford levels, and as far as being a cheaper option, Ilford HP5* 120 costs MORE than Fomapan 400 120 over here

 

[absalom1951]

Crap film ? I don't think so . In my opinion , your opinion is crap. I just recently tried Foma 200 in 120 and I rather like the looks of it. I have used Foma 100 & 400 and have never had any problems. I use Kodak , Ilford , and Foma. They each have their own personality . The problem I had with Foma 200 was my own error and I corrected it. It would be very easy for me to blame my bad photos on the film but in 100% of the time its my errors that result in my bad photos .

 

[Auer]

Foma is absolutely not "crap film".
Foma is aware and admits that the 120 200ISO has issues in some camera's and will replace it with something else if asked about it.

 

[Wallendo]

I once purchased a bulk roll of Arista EDU 200 which was scratched - a documented problem with that particular batch. I have had a few rolls of 35mm Kodak film which had issues with the cassettes bind the film. I have had a roll of Fuji trigger the automatic rewind of my camera half-way through the roll. I have had mottling with Ilford 120 film.

I routinely shoot Fomapan 100 because I like the way it looks, not because of its price. On a pure price basis, it is hard to beat the UltraFine films - which are actually quite good. I don't shoot Fomapan 200 because I find the film too finicky for my taste. It looks great when properly exposed, but looks pretty bad when no properly exposed. Foma 100, in my experience, is a much more forgiving film.

Judging by online chatter, Foma does seems to have more issues than others. Whether this is a real issue or simply online bias, I can't tell.

 

[koraks]

Foma does seems to have more issues than others.

I have to agree, although I've used a fair amount of 100, 400 and also 200 in various sizes from 35mm up to 8x10 often to my satisfaction. 100 and 200 are fine films particularly in 4x5" IMO. In 35mm both 100 and 200 are low cost options that give little to no trouble, but keeping in mind that it's quite old tech, so for the critical user it'll be very noticeable that it isn't tmax, delta or even fp4+. The 100 also does very well in 120 format, but I personally stay away from the 200 in that size due to the issues highlighted in this thread, which sadly are a recurring problem with this particular film. The 400 I'm not a fan of; too slow and grainy for me. Haven't tried the 320 and don't plan to, either.

 

[Wallendo]

If you find Foma 400 too grainy, definitely avoid the 320. I didn't use the special developer for this but using other published development times, the film came out with very low contrast and marked grain. I fear if I push development to increase contrast, the grain will become even more prominent. Retropan Soft 320 is definitely a niche film, it is simply a niche that doesn't appeal to me.

 

[marcmarc]

For those of you have never had QC issues with Foma great. How lucky for you. However, for me and all the others I've read about of the years who have had faulty rolls I guess it just sucks to be us. Look, maybe Foma is happy to replace defective rolls. The last time I tried to give their 100 iso film a chance I bought about 30 rolls of 120 and within the first several rolls I had odd markings on the film. Mind you I have been developing and printing for almost 20 years now thus I don't think it was user error. I sent the remaining Foma rolls back to store I ordered them from. Sure Kodak and Ilford may have had issues in the past but not to the extent Foma has. The bottom line is I cannot go back and re-take a picture I previously took because I'm using a film that didn't deliver for me. I've never had any issues with Kodak, Ilford, or Fiji films so it's a no-brainer to me to stick with those choices. We take care of our cameras keeping them properly serviced so we can rely on them and use them with confidence. To use a film that has a bad track record seems to defeat this purpose and honestly I place too much importance on my work to take that chance. As always, your mileage may vary.

 

[Auer]

For those of you have never had QC issues with Foma great. How lucky for you. However, for me and all the others I've read about of the years who have had faulty rolls I guess it just sucks to be us. Look, maybe Foma is happy to replace defective rolls. The last time I tried to give their 100 iso film a chance I bought about 30 rolls of 120 and within the first several rolls I had odd markings on the film. Mind you I have been developing and printing for almost 20 years now thus I don't think it was user error. I sent the remaining Foma rolls back to store I ordered them from. Sure Kodak and Ilford may have had issues in the past but not to the extent Foma has. The bottom line is I cannot go back and re-take a picture I previously took because I'm using a film that didn't deliver for me. I've never had any issues with Kodak, Ilford, or Fiji films so it's a no-brainer to me to stick with those choices. We take care of our cameras keeping them properly serviced so we can rely on them and use them with confidence. To use a film that has a bad track record seems to defeat this purpose and honestly I place too much importance on my work to take that chance. As always, your mileage may vary.

In January I had this exchange with Ilford about the mottling on their 120 stock I experienced:

Dear XXXX

Thank you for submitting your product feedback form. I work within our Technical Services department, but I also handle customer quality issues/complaints.

Based on the description you’ve given, and from seeing your image - the unfortunate findings on your FP4+ roll film links to the issue we raised on our website. ie our statement posted 02/03/20 - https://www.ilfordphoto.com/statement-120-roll-film/

So we definitely will be posting out replacement films to you. Though we will try our best to do this asap, it may take 2-3 weeks before you receive them. (I appreciate however, that replacement items don’t take away the disappointment of losing images).

I havent heard from them since. And no replacement as of yet.

Would you use Ilford if you had this experience?

Here's a crop:

 

[Jonno85uk]

Just wondering as I just had a realisation. Have people had QC issues with Fuji? I've had them with Kodak, Foma & Ilford over the years. Not Fuji.