Fomapan Issues

[Rolleiflexible]

Would perhaps be a good idea to clearly split Foma and Arista threads.

I've been using Foma film for the past years and I've experienced none of the issues Arista users report when they're actually using Arista, leading me to suspect that, if Arista is (or has been at some point) Foma, it's probably old stock or b-stock Foma sold cheaper to the American market for a reason.

Indeed, it's impossible to track down Arista batch numbers as it doesn't track Foma's numbering.

If you can choose - pick the real deal, and in case of any issue file a report to the manufacturer indicating the batch number.

Just like Ilford with the famous backing paper mottling issue, Foma is very quick to reply and replace any rolls found to be problematic.

FWIW a number of reports here about the Foma 200 emulsion issue (which I have never encountered) were with Foma-branded films from then-current batches. See, e.g.,

Fomapan Creative 200 120 Black dots and...streaks

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...

www.photrio.com

It’s an older thread but you contributed to it and yourself noted (post 28) the same defect in a then-current batch:

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.

 

[albireo]

FWIW a number of reports here about the Foma 200 emulsion issue (which I have never encountered) were with Foma-branded films from then-current batches. See, e.g.,

Fomapan Creative 200 120 Black dots and...streaks

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...

www.photrio.com

It’s an older thread but you contributed to it and yourself noted (post 28) the same defect in a then-current batch:

I was referring mostly to the Foma 400 issues with mottling discussed at some point in this thread and with other reports of Foma 100 issues. Sorry I should have been clearer.

I've posted a few samples of Foma 200 in 120 from recent stocks in the past (possibly in the thread you quote, I cannot check now due to spotty mobile connection) and they have been problem free for me.

I did encounter issues with two old batches of Foma 200 and it's unclear how Arista batches map to those, so I think my suggestion to clearly split problem reports for the two brands is still valid.

 

[chuckroast]

Would perhaps be a good idea to clearly split Foma and Arista threads.

I've been using Foma film for the past years and I've experienced none of the issues Arista users report when they're actually using Arista, leading me to suspect that, if Arista is (or has been at some point) Foma, it's probably old stock or b-stock Foma sold cheaper to the American market for a reason.

Indeed, it's impossible to track down Arista batch numbers as it doesn't track Foma's numbering.

If you can choose - pick the real deal, and in case of any issue file a report to the manufacturer indicating the batch number.

Just like Ilford with the famous backing paper mottling issue, Foma is very quick to reply and replace any rolls found to be problematic.

Some years ago, I bought a brick of Fomapan 200 120 and discovered it was having problems with small emulsion chipping that manifested itself as small black specks in the prints.

I contacted Foma directly and they told me that Fomapan 200 emulsion is a combination of traditional and T-grain components. They were aware of this problem and sent me a box of 4x5 (which I'd never had a problem with) and a lovely Foma calendar in compensations. 100% satisfied with their customer service.

 

[albireo]

Some years ago, I bought a brick of Fomapan 200 120 and discovered it was having problems with small emulsion chipping that manifested itself as small black specks in the prints.

I contacted Foma directly and they told me that Fomapan 200 emulsion is a combination of traditional and T-grain components. They were aware of this problem and sent me a box of 4x5 (which I'd never had a problem with) and a lovely Foma calendar in compensations. 100% satisfied with their customer service.

My current view on them as a customer of many years and overall a big fan of their products is that the company is able to make excellent film - you and I were once discussing the look of Foma 200 in D23 if I remember correctly, which is jaw dropping in the right light. Foma 100 in Rodinal is another favourite of mine. I think the company is also capable of pretty consistent customer service IME.

What I really wish they'd address is product specs consistency. For instance I've noticed I've had to retune my exposure and development chains a few times based on the batch of stuff I'm using. I'm not a professional so this doesn't impact me too much, but I can see how someone trying to rely on their products for paid work would be at best slightly frustrated.

But in general I just can't stop using their film. I've been exploring further their 35mm offer recently. I shot a roll of Foma 100 back to back with a roll of Adox CHS II 100, both developed in Adox D76. I was shocked to find I preferred the Foma 100 by far, much finer grained and slightly higher EI in my setup. And half the price of CHS II which doesn't hurt.

 

[koraks]

I think my suggestion to clearly split problem reports for the two brands is still valid.

I'm not against it if someone were to start another thread about Arista film problems, but I predict that within the first page, people will start talking about Foma as well. At that point, we'd either have to keep that thread 'clean', which I imagine participants may not appreciate much, and personally, I'd feel bad about enforcing such a split because I still don't see a compelling argument why they're sufficiently different products. I'm aware of the allegations and speculations, and they've been around for years, but there's just never been any firm evidence or even an in my view plausible reasoning provided for it.

But in general I just can't stop using their film.

That makes two of us.

 

[loccdor]

I don't see it. I do see what appears to be a rather underexposed negative.
That's not to say there's no mottling - just that it's not apparent from this example.

It's subtle. Shot at 1600 and pushed, so it is pretty underexposed. I think I'll stick to 800 in the future at most.