Fomapan Creative 200 120 Black dots and...streaks

[Auer]

That last image is awesome @Old Gregg

 

[Jonno85uk]

@Auer Do you have the batch # for that roll?

 

[Auer]

@Auer Do you have the batch # for that roll?

0 12756 3
Six rolls of this batch, the same thru the whole thread here for me.
It might not matter, Foma seems to acknowledge that this is what the 200 120 Emulsion is like, regardless of batch.

In other words, it's a characteristic of this film and not a defect that is tracable by batch #
It's ok in some cameras, totally fucked up in others

 

[Auer]

Thank you, although that sliced-in-half lady on the paddleboard drives me nuts. Could have cropped her out, but this was one of those no-cropping-allowed rolls

I think its cool, Things like the half lady give depth and suggestion, leads the mind on.

 

[Jonno85uk]

@Auer Cheers.
I'm going to try it a couple more times with at least one more through my TLR because I like how Foma 200 looks after all the 35mm i've shot with it.
I'll have to buy some more as I only bought 1 roll to get my order amount up for free shipping.

 

[Jonno85uk]

Ok. So after the recent "i'm done with Fompan" thread I decided to finally get round to trying Fomapan 200 in 120 one last time. This time in my Walzflex TLR instead of my ETRS.
Yeah...Not much better this time.

No presoak. 8.5mins in XTOL-R. 1min water stop. 3mins rapid fix. 4 changes of water + deionised water wash. Emulsion not touched at any point. Just left to hang-dry.
Film batch #: 012856 1

Full size:

Crop:

 

[Dusty Negative]

Ok. So after the recent "i'm done with Fompan" thread I decided to finally get round to trying Fomapan 200 in 120 one last time. This time in my Walzflex TLR instead of my ETRS.
Yeah...Not much better this time.

No presoak. 8.5mins in XTOL-R. 1min water stop. 3mins rapid fix. 4 changes of water + deionised water wash. Emulsion not touched at any point. Just left to hang-dry.
Film batch #: 012856 1

Full size:
View attachment 282284

Crop:

View attachment 282285

Yep, there they are!

 

[Spiny Norman]

Sorry for the thread bump but I just found this thread through Google after developing a roll of Foma 200 120 and getting the exact same results.
I used to work in a pro darkroom and have been back to home developing B&W for a while so I like to think I have a reasonable idea what I'm doing, but was totally stumped after scanning the film and seeing these marks all over it, I've never seen anything like it before.
Developed in fresh ID11, I never use a stop bath just water, fixed in Fomafix. Same as I do with every B&W film I shoot whether on 35mm or my new (to me) Bronica ETRS.
Looks like the other rolls of this stuff I have will be going in the bin...
Enlarged section of a frame, but the whole film looks like this on the light parts.

 

[Dusty Negative]

Sorry for the thread bump but I just found this thread through Google after developing a roll of Foma 200 120 and getting the exact same results.
I used to work in a pro darkroom and have been back to home developing B&W for a while so I like to think I have a reasonable idea what I'm doing, but was totally stumped after scanning the film and seeing these marks all over it, I've never seen anything like it before.
Developed in fresh ID11, I never use a stop bath just water, fixed in Fomafix. Same as I do with every B&W film I shoot whether on 35mm or my new (to me) Bronica ETRS.
Looks like the other rolls of this stuff I have will be going in the bin...
Enlarged section of a frame, but the whole film looks like this on the light parts.

That’s the “creative” part of the film.

135 does not have this issue, by the way.

 

[aparat]

Ok. So after the recent "i'm done with Fompan" thread I decided to finally get round to trying Fomapan 200 in 120 one last time. This time in my Walzflex TLR instead of my ETRS.
Yeah...Not much better this time.

No presoak. 8.5mins in XTOL-R. 1min water stop. 3mins rapid fix. 4 changes of water + deionised water wash. Emulsion not touched at any point. Just left to hang-dry.
Film batch #: 012856 1

I have seen something like that before on a Fomapan film. It's too bad. That's a really cool photograph!

 

[Anon Ymous]

That’s the “creative” part of the film.

135 does not have this issue, by the way.

I've only shot a single Fomapan 200 135 film and mine did. Lucky me!

 

[koraks]

Enlarged section of a frame, but the whole film looks like this on the light parts.

Yup, that's typical Fomapan 200 in 120 format. As said, this particular defect does not occur generally on 135, neither does it happen with sheet film.

Welcome to Photrio, I hope you stick around

 

[albireo]

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.

A few marks here and there but nothing more than in other film brands/types, IME.

Works for me. I will keep using it.

 

[petrk]

Works for me. I will keep using it.

Which camera, if I can ask?

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes, I'd like to know which camera also? I have a bulk roll of 35mm, but won't buy 120 until I know Foma has fixed the problem. Of course, if there is a work-around, such as using a certain camera or back, then I'm all ears. Yes, I like the film that much.

 

[absalom1951]

I use a Mamiya Press camera, the 23 or Universal, with either a 6x7 or 6x9 back and have had no issues with the Foma 120- 200 film. I use the 200 in 35mm also- I rather like the film.

 

[Kino]

I would suggest the users who are having problems carefully check their camera/magazine rollers that come into contact with the emulsion for possible dirt or emulsion build-up. Sometimes it's hard to spot and it doesn't take much to cause damage to soft emulsions.

Also check that the rollers spin freely; they can crud-up with fine emulsion and "skiving" particles from the slitting process that will cause this kind of damage you won't see on more hardened film.

Older style emulsions require quite a bit more care to avoid damage. Even loading them in the ratchet-style plastic reels can be problematic if you don't wear gloves when you touch the emulsion.

If you suspect damage being done in the development state, investigate a chrome alum bath prior to processing. It's an extra 5 minutes added to the total processing time, but that's not a lot when it can save your images.

I am sure everyone knows this, but I will state it for beginners who may find this thread on a search, NEVER "cinch" the film by pulling on the leader to tighten the wind of the film on the spool. You will certainly get scratches on soft emulsion film stocks and probably really hardened stocks as well.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I use a Mamiya Press camera, the 23 or Universal, with either a 6x7 or 6x9 back and have had no issues with the Foma 120- 200 film. I use the 200 in 35mm also- I rather like the film.

I'll have to get a roll to try in my Mamiya Super 23. The roll holders for the Press and Super 23 are a pretty much straight feed type holder with no sharp bends to the film. I had no luck with my Rolleiflex or Hasselblad cameras. I have a Pentax 67 that might work with Foma 200. Guess I'll have to buy two rolls to try, one for the Mamiya and one for the P67.

 

[Steven Lee]

I would suggest the users who are having problems carefully check their camera/magazine rollers that come into contact with the emulsion for possible dirt or emulsion build-up. Sometimes it's hard to spot and it doesn't take much to cause damage to soft emulsions.

Also check that the rollers spin freely; they can crud-up with fine emulsion and "skiving" particles from the slitting process that will cause this kind of damage you won't see on more hardened film.

I love the look of Fomapan 200, and I've been consuming huge amounts of it with 4 different cameras (and several backs) and have been seeing these streaks in all cameras. Two of them were CLAd by Hasselblad NJ and Fleenor within a year. Other films are fine. Let's not develop unnecessary paranoia about our equipment. It's clear as day that Foma had a defective batch and couldn't afford to recall it. There is no such group as "users who are having problems". All users have been having these problems with Fomapan 200 in 120. The problems started towards the end of 2021 and @albireo's post gives us hope that a new batch is entering circulation.

 

[Kino]

I love the look of Fomapan 200, and I've been consuming huge amounts of it with 4 different cameras (and several backs) and have been seeing these streaks in all cameras. Two of them were CLAd by Hasselblad NJ and Fleenor within a year. Other films are fine. Let's not develop unnecessary paranoia about our equipment. It's clear as day that Foma had a defective batch and couldn't afford to recall it. There is no such group as "users who are having problems". All users have been having these problems with Fomapan 200 in 120. The problems started towards the end of 2021 and @albireo's post gives us hope that a new batch is entering circulation.

[...] the principals are good ones to explore if you are having problems with a soft emulsion film.

Thanks for the censorship. There IS apparently a group of users who are having a problem and they are posting within this thread.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

The problems started towards the end of 2021 and @albireo's post gives us hope that a new batch is entering circulation.

I can’t speak to earlier batches. But I have shot the current batch on the market (purchased in December from Freestyle) and have not seen this issue in film shot through an old Rolleicord II.

Given that this has been an issue in the past, it would be helpful if posters stated when and where they bought the affected film.

 

[koraks]

The problems started towards the end of 2021

No, the problems with this film date back many years. My own experiences pre-date 2021 by a few years, and even then the problem had mentioned by people online for several years. It has been at least an intermittent problem, and possibly an enduring one for many years.
It would be great if it's all good now. Given the positive reports I'm seeing here, I'm tempted to get a couple of rolls again to see what's up.

 

[Spiny Norman]

I can’t speak to earlier batches. But I have shot the current batch on the market (purchased in December from Freestyle) and have not seen this issue in film shot through an old Rolleicord II.

Given that this has been an issue in the past, it would be helpful if posters stated when and where they bought the affected film.

I bought the film from a UK supplier on eBay, it's a fresh batch, dated 09/2025 with a batch number of 014056 4
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.

Might the fact that the ETRS back winds the film tightly backwards around two rollers almost 180 degrees against its original wound direction on the spool while the Rollei has one 90 degree bend that goes with the way it's wound, if that makes sense, be causing the film extra stress?
I did check the film back on the ETRS and it's still spotlessly clean after I cleaned it when I got the camera a couple of months ago. Also the emulsion side doesn't appear to touch anything as it travels across the film gate in an ETRS, only the paper.

 

[Steven Lee]

No, the problems with this film date back many years. My own experiences pre-date 2021 by a few years, and even then the problem had mentioned by people online for several years. It has been at least an intermittent problem, and possibly an enduring one for many years.
It would be great if it's all good now. Given the positive reports I'm seeing here, I'm tempted to get a couple of rolls again to see what's up.

Good to know. I started shooting it around 2010-ish, and after about 2 years it started showing these artifacts for me, regardless of which retailer I purchased it from. I keep trying every few months, waiting for the defective batch to go away.

In all fairness, the streaks aren't visible up at modest magnifications.

 

[removedacct3]

I keep trying every few months, waiting for the defective batch to go away.

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.