Fomapan Creative 200 120 Black dots and...streaks

[removedacct3]

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.

Somewhere in the archives of Photrio there is a post of a highly respected former forum member and former Kodak employee Photo Engineer wherein he reveals that Kodak suffered from emulsion cracks while they were developing (as in engineering) TMAX films. From what I can remember his description of the problem was very similar to the Foma 200 cracks.

Obviously Kodak managed to remedy the problem.

 

[Flighter]

Somewhere in the archives of Photrio there is a post of a highly respected former forum member and former Kodak employee Photo Engineer wherein he reveals that Kodak suffered from emulsion cracks while they were developing (as in engineering) TMAX films. From what I can remember his description of the problem was very similar to the Foma 200 cracks.

Obviously Kodak managed to remedy the problem.

I have found these mentions by Photo Engineer regarding the fragility of tabular grains

It has been shown that t-grains with a large diameter can be stressed in film when the film turns around rollers in cameras during winding. This cracking effect causes fog. This may be one limitation in the design of high speed t-grain films.

Also, the higher the efficiency of a coupler, the more dense a dye speck becomes. This can tend to increase the appearance of granularity. This is another of the obstacles placed in front of the engineer.

Higher speed films are more sensitive to the X-ray units used in airports and other terminals. With more X-ray checks and higher energy devices, this also increases problems faced by film manufacturers.

As you can see, this involves a series of tradeoffs.

Another spectrum of problems are faced when desiging slow speed high definition films.

PE

Seriously, t-grains all lie flat and parallel to the plane of the film support. Surprise, surprise.

The real problem is preventing them from cracking as they go around the rollers in 120 film cameras. The turn is too sharp for some grains and will cause cracking and fog. Kodak has eliminated this, but IDK if others have except for Fuji and Ilford.

PE

Denise, the early t-grain emulsions were so fragile that when the film was wound around the tiny 120 camera rollers the grains cracked. Emulsifiers and blenders can crack even large K-grains if run fast enough and that is why the Kodak PEPA has no blades so it mixes well without cracking. Yeah, we had a lot of problems "cracking" that problem. We no longer used prop mixers either due to the high speeds needed to make the more modern emulsions.

The foam certainly is reduced by filtration, but I am talking about foam present during the addition of silver nitrate. That causes bubbles on the surface in which a 2D model of pptn. takes place forming odd crystals when you don't want them and it also exposes the forming grain to the atmosphere over a large surface area. These are not the bubbles that may be present during coating.

PE

I have looked at it again and again and I feel that the defects are too sharp and well defined to be bromide drag. I remember now where I saw something similar to this. When the first t-grain coatings were made in 120 format, they had similar defects due to the sharp curvature of the 120 back rollers in some cameras. The coating formula had to be revised to allow more flex in the gelatin so that grains were not cracked by turning the sharp corners.

Bromide drag is often used for similar effects by developer and pH as I mentioned here earlier. It can also be regular and symmetrical, but it is rarely, if ever, sharply defined.

PE

It's still odd that using the same camera I get problems but Rolleiflexible doesn't - is it all down to luck as to which part of the master roll any particular 120 roll comes from?

 

[MattKing]

The problem might also be related to inconsistencies in the backing paper that Foma is using.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

The problem might also be related to inconsistencies in the backing paper that Foma is using.

I hope not — there is speculation that Ferrania’s new 120 films are using Foma’s backing paper.

 

[petrk]

I have found these mentions by Photo Engineer regarding the fragility of tabular grains

Maybe make a look at these threads:

"Old" Rodinal = pinholes?

Hello! Recently I've gotten pinholes on almost every film I've developed. Just two or three holes, but still. I use different films, but have shot mostly Adox CHM400 Pro and CHM 125 Pro (HP5 and FP4) lately. I use Rodinal 1+50 for all my processing. The Rodinal bottle is soon empty...

www.photrio.com

Stop Using Stop? - Pinhole Frustrations

I know there are are a few threads on this, but I coudn't find exactly what I was after by doing a search. Pinholes are starting to frustrate me more. I have always used acid stop bath. Last week I developed a 120 roll of Retro 400 and about five of the frames contained pinholes, mostly very...

www.photrio.com

 

[koraks]

I hope not — there is speculation that Ferrania’s new 120 films are using Foma’s backing paper.

The backing paper seems to do just fine on the other Foma films. I would t worry about this too much.

 

[Flighter]

Maybe make a look at these threads:

"Old" Rodinal = pinholes?

Hello! Recently I've gotten pinholes on almost every film I've developed. Just two or three holes, but still. I use different films, but have shot mostly Adox CHM400 Pro and CHM 125 Pro (HP5 and FP4) lately. I use Rodinal 1+50 for all my processing. The Rodinal bottle is soon empty...

www.photrio.com

Stop Using Stop? - Pinhole Frustrations

I know there are are a few threads on this, but I coudn't find exactly what I was after by doing a search. Pinholes are starting to frustrate me more. I have always used acid stop bath. Last week I developed a 120 roll of Retro 400 and about five of the frames contained pinholes, mostly very...

www.photrio.com

Thanks for that, I had seen one of those threads before and that was what prompted me to try an alkaline fixer for the last roll I developed but I still got black spots. I've always used a pre-bath and water stop. I started with Caffenol but for my last two rolls have used Microphen but every time I have got black spots. Fixers have been Tetenal Superfix Plus for all but the last roll which used Eco Zonefix. Film has been batches 013456-3 exp 12/2024 and 013456 2 exp 09/2024.

 

[albireo]

Someone in this thread was alleging issues with the 35mm version of this film. I've shot little of it in the past, as I've always found Foma film to get better as you go up in format. Also, here in Europe we're lucky to have a wide range of cheap-ish 35mm BW film available (Agfaphoto APX, Kentmere, Rollei RPX etc) so I've never felt the pressing need of using Foma 200 in 35mm. Those times I have however, I have had zero issues with it, and it's been worth it. For those people out there who are not familiar with Foma 200, you're going to get a good approximation of the spectral response you get with Trix, minus 1 or so stops (depending on your technique/equipment) and at 1/4th of the price.

So anyway I got myself a few rolls of Foma 200 35mm batch 014415-03 (exp 04/26). Developed in Adox XT+3 1+1, stopped in Fomacitro, fixed in Fomafix. Final wash in distilled water with (a little too much) Fotonal. Here are two unedited 3200dpi scans from the roll - inversion method as explained in my earlier posts.

Some observations:

The negatives are, mark- and scratch-wise, perfect throughout the roll, with only minor dust and drying marks of my own making. No vertical lines, no horizontal lines, no 'zits', no pigeon droppings, no fruit fly tails, etc.
(Note to self-1: seems like Foma 200 in 35mm is extremely sensitive to excessive wetting agent, which results in tiny dry droplets on the negatives here and there.)

I did not particularly like the XT-3 developer, but I already knew that: with the 35mm film I've tried, it doesn't give me results I like. I much prefer D76 or D23, so I will use those instead for my future tests.
(Note to self-2: stop buying/testing Xtol clones, D76 and D23 do all you need really)

My current conclusion: Foma 200 in 35mm is fine in my workflow and my cameras. I'm also happy with current batches of the 120 product (as I've shown in a couple of mostly ignored posts further up in the thread).

I will happily keep using both products and refining my workflow further to optimise the chain.

 

[Flighter]

I've had no issues with Foma 200 in 35mm form. However, I've had no luck with it in 120 form. I've a couple of 120 rolls left but won't be replacing them and will move to Kentmere, Foma just isn't working for me.

 

[albireo]

I've had no issues with Foma 200 in 35mm form. However, I've had no luck with it in 120 form. I've a couple of 120 rolls left but won't be replacing them and will move to Kentmere, Foma just isn't working for me.

Good luck! Harman makes excellent film. I will keep using both Kentmere and Foma in 120, as they both work fine for me and give subtly different results that I like.

 

[Dusty Negative]

Thanks for that, I had seen one of those threads before and that was what prompted me to try an alkaline fixer for the last roll I developed but I still got black spots. I've always used a pre-bath and water stop. I started with Caffenol but for my last two rolls have used Microphen but every time I have got black spots. Fixers have been Tetenal Superfix Plus for all but the last roll which used Eco Zonefix. Film has been batches 013456-3 exp 12/2024 and 013456 2 exp 09/2024.

I think the fixer angle has been shown to be irrelevant. Several of us in earlier threads have mentioned getting the scratches while not/not using fixer at all, such as in my case.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I've had no issues with Foma 200 in 35mm form. However, I've had no luck with it in 120 form. I've a couple of 120 rolls left but won't be replacing them and will move to Kentmere, Foma just isn't working for me.

Likewise! I have a bulk roll of Foma 200 35mm and it's fine, but I can't say the same for Foma 200 120. I've tried about four different rolls over a long time period and they were all bad. Hmmm, must be why I never, ever win anything on my lottery tickets? I'm just unlucky I guess.

 

[abruzzi]

The backing paper seems to do just fine on the other Foma films. I would t worry about this too much.

I know a sample size of one isn't statistically relavant, but my first roll of P30 in 120 had no issues I didn't cause myself (some under exposed frames because I didn't have a meter, so was guessing exposure.)

 

[John Wiegerink]

I know a sample size of one isn't statistically relavant, but my first roll of P30 in 120 had no issues I didn't cause myself (some under exposed frames because I didn't have a meter, so was guessing exposure.)

That's good to know. I'm not going to rush out and buy some or change my main films, but I surely will give it a try. Who knows, I might just like it. I really like Foma 100 at EI 100-125 for its tones and grain structure, but black specks are just too much to overlook.

 

[MattKing]

The backing paper seems to do just fine on the other Foma films. I would t worry about this too much.

Unless, of course, the problems are similar to the problems that Kodak had with wrapper offset - an interaction between particular emulsions, ink and the paper.

 

[koraks]

Unless, of course, the problems are similar to the problems that Kodak had with wrapper offset - an interaction between particular emulsions, ink and the paper.

That's theoretically possible, but it doesn't seem very likely given the nature of the defects. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Steven Lee]

@albireo not to derail this Fomapan-focused thread, but what didn't you like about XT-3? I am curious because I found Xtol and D76 to be extremely similar with all films I used them with. I may even go as far as saying that they can be identical with some dilution+exposure experimentation. And XT-3 is supposed to be identical to Xtol.

 

[albireo]

@albireo not to derail this Fomapan-focused thread, but what didn't you like about XT-3? I am curious because I found Xtol and D76 to be extremely similar with all films I used them with. I may even go as far as saying that they can be identical with some dilution+exposure experimentation. And XT-3 is supposed to be identical to Xtol.

Steven, it's minor effects for sure. And as you say, I'm sure most differences could be ironed out with some experimentation. However - this is what I'm seeing currently (with both Fomapan 200 and Kentmere 400)

• grain looks different. Much finer with XT-3 for sure. But I don't particularly like extra fine grain. I like the well defined grain I see with D23/D76. XT-3 seems to 'smudge' detail (for the lack of a better term)? I use Rodinal all the time, and find D23/D76 to give finer grain than Rodinal but really good detail as well. For some reason, XT-3 looks a little less detailed than D76 or D23?
• I have slightly more difficulty controlling the highlights with XT-3 than with D76, and much more difficulty that with D23.

The advantage I'm seeing with XT-3 is slightly better shadow detail than with D23 given same EI. Not that fussed about a 1/3 or 2/3rd stop increase, as I tend to do photography only in good available light.

So overall I don't see a clear advantage of XT-3 1+1 over D23/D76 1+1 for my use. Perhaps I should try XT-3 in 1+3 configuration.

 

[chuckroast]

Steven, it's minor effects for sure. And as you say, I'm sure most differences could be ironed out with some experimentation. However - this is what I'm seeing currently (with both Fomapan 200 and Kentmere 400)

• grain looks different. Much finer with XT-3 for sure. But I don't particularly like extra fine grain. I like the well defined grain I see with D23/D76. XT-3 seems to 'smudge' detail (for the lack of a better term)? I use Rodinal all the time, and find D23/D76 to give finer grain than Rodinal but really good detail as well. For some reason, XT-3 looks a little less detailed than D76 or D23?
• I have slightly more difficulty controlling the highlights with XT-3 than with D76, and much more difficulty that with D23.

The advantage I'm seeing with XT-3 is slightly better shadow detail than with D23 given same EI. Not that fussed about a 1/3 or 2/3rd stop increase, as I tend to do photography only in good available light.

So overall I don't see a clear advantage of XT-3 1+1 over D23/D76 1+1 for my use. Perhaps I should try XT-3 in 1+3 configuration.

Try D-23 1:9 and add 0.5g/liter of lye (handle lye carefully, it's highly alkaline and will burn eyes, hands, and skin badly). You will get ultrasharp negs with good highlight compensation.

 

[albireo]

Try D-23 1:9 and add 0.5g/liter of lye (handle lye carefully, it's highly alkaline and will burn eyes, hands, and skin badly). You will get ultrasharp negs with good highlight compensation.

Thank you!

 

[chuckroast]

Thank you!

There is a longer recent discussion thread on this here:

https://www.5x4.co.uk/threads/a-lye-r-s-tale-dilutions-of-grandeur.2212/

 

[DREW WILEY]

Other than the distinction between 5X4 and 4X5 which seems to occur at the International Date Line, the distinction which needs to be made here is between the kind of inherent visual defects potentially at play in the case of Foma 200 film, and those caused by pH or temperature shock with certain emulsions particularly sensitive to that, which look entirely different. For example, Ekfe 25 roll film was notorious for spalling off tiny bits of emulsion if the stop bath was too strong. A simple fix - just dilute it more. But it you get cracking or zits due to emulsion issues at the factory itself, there is no simple remedy.

 

[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 had a go at stand processing last weekend using Foma's version of Rodinal (Fomadon R09) - 1:100 for 60 mins, 10 inversions at start and 2 inversions at 30min, fixed in Eco ZoneFix - but still have the black spots).

On the plus, side, it's introduced me to Rodinal (many thanks Sanders) and I'll be using the 1:100 dilution again with other films, used it yesterday with a short test roll (6 exposures) of Exeter Pan XX yesterday to check a new acquisition, a Kiev 4AM, which has been revealed to be having an issue with its shutter.

James

 

[albireo]

Quick test of a Fomapan 200 roll in 120 format, batch 013856-3 (06-25).

Camera was a Fujifilm GW 690 III rangefinder. Tank was a plastic Kaiser tank with plastic reels. D23 1+1 one shot, Kodak agitation, water stop bath, Fomacitro 1+5 as per manufacturer's leaflet, and finally Foma Fotonal 1:200 in distilled water. Negative strip hung to dry without any squegeeing. Linear raw 16bit/channel Vuescan negative scan all as previously detailed in this thread. No automatic post-processing apart from crop + set black point + resize.

My working conclusion still stands: Fomapan 200 works fine for me, I like the results in Adox Rodinal 1+50 and D23 (both regularly, but gently, agitated) and the very minor imperfections in the emulsion are not limiting my results at all (or at least incommensurably less than my exposure, processing, and composition mistakes).

I will gladly keep buying it and using it.

 

[koraks]

I don't see any of the defects I'm familiar with on this film in your (very nice) example shots.