Fomapan Issues

[silvergelatin]

I've been using Foma 400 for many years, but mostly the Arista version. Since moving to another country, I've had easier access to the Foma-branded version, and have had some problems - chunks of emulsion missing towards the end of the roll, brittle film leaders that easily break off in the bag (really old emulsion labeled as a new batch?), uneven development (I've used the same technique for decades), etc. I do not have these issues with Arista or the Japanese Marix rebranded versions. Is this just an isolated bad batch, or do the rebranded versions go through some extra QC? Anyone know the inside story on this? I love this film, and not just because of the price, so I want to make sure I can continue using it reliably. Thanks.

 

[revdoc]

I've used both the Arista Edu and Foma branded films, with zero issues, and certainly nothing like what you described. In which country did you buy the film?

 

[silvergelatin]

I've used both the Arista Edu and Foma branded films, with zero issues, and certainly nothing like what you described. In which country did you buy the film?

Bought in Japan, and the expiration date is 2026

 

[koraks]

It's been years since I used Foma 400, but never ran into the problems you describe. I'd contact Foma and send some samples to them: https://www.foma.cz/en/contact-us-photo
I did this years ago due to the notorious Fomapan 200 120 roll film problem and found Dana to be responsive and forthcoming in trying to help out.

 

[chuckroast]

I've been using Foma 400 for many years, but mostly the Arista version. Since moving to another country, I've had easier access to the Foma-branded version, and have had some problems - chunks of emulsion missing towards the end of the roll, brittle film leaders that easily break off in the bag (really old emulsion labeled as a new batch?), uneven development (I've used the same technique for decades), etc. I do not have these issues with Arista or the Japanese Marix rebranded versions. Is this just an isolated bad batch, or do the rebranded versions go through some extra QC? Anyone know the inside story on this? I love this film, and not just because of the price, so I want to make sure I can continue using it reliably. Thanks.

I've never used the 400, but I have used the 200 a fair bit.

I've had problems with Foma 200 in 120 to the point where I will not use it at all.

I've just started using up a roll of 35mm bulk Foma 200 and it may also have problems, still investigating.

I have no problems whatsoever with Foma 200 in sheet film.

 

[Agulliver]

I've been using Foma 400 for about 8 years and have never experienced anything remotely like your issues. I've used Foma and Arista branded film, both factory cassettes and bulk. I've also used Foma 400 in 120 quite a bit. The worst I can say is that my first attempt at using the film, I wasn't especially impressed with it's performance in strong light outdoors but I think that turned out to be the lens I was using being very soft, and my developing technique ot really being strict enough on temp/time. Foma can be more picky than other brands in that regard.

I once had a bulk roll of Fomapan 200 where there were some issues with the emulsion in the middle of the roll, like it had stuck to itself possibly. It affected probably six frames in total? Not ideal but nothing like what you've experienced.

Is this one batch of films you've had problems with? Can you contact Foma about it?

 

[Paul Howell]

I've used Fomra films off and on for over 20 years, branded and rebranded, 35mm, 120 and 4X5 in 100, 200, 400 and discontinued 800 Tgrained. Other than the old blue base of the 120 emulsions I had only a single sheet of 4X5 200 that had issues with specks missing from the emulsion. On the other hand there have been many posts concerning Q.C issues with Foma films.

 

[silvergelatin]

Thanks, everyone. This is likely just a bad batch, I'm thinking.

I also just developed a new brick of Marix 400, which is Foma. First time ever in about 25 years got black mottling in the skies. I mean, my developing technique is simple, but consistent - 1:50, 10 minutes, 4 inversions every minute. It's possible it's some other factor, but I've never had issues like this before. I'm using Silverchrome Seronal (rodinal) and their rapid fix, and I haven't had any problems at all until the last few bricks of film.

Also, the Marix cassettes leak over the first five frames or so. I might have to try to force myself to like HP5.

 

[Paul Howell]

What we don't know is, does Foma like Harmont custom coats. Meaning that Foma will coat a roll for others at a discount, for these orders Foma does not maintain the it's normal QC. Also means that the film is not packaged by Foma which could explain the light leaks. I have Foma Action Pan 400 in 35mm, the 3 rolls I have developed in HC 110 have been fine.

 

[pentaxuser]

What we don't know is, does Foma like Harmont custom coats. Meaning that Foma will coat a roll for others at a discount, for these orders Foma does not maintain the it's normal QC.

Shouldn't the last sentence have a ? Do we know if Foma custom coats and if it does. then what evidence is there that it does not maintain its QC for that product? Why coat and then not bother to use proper QC if it wants to make money our of coating for other's films?

It seem highly unlikely that it is anything other than a coincidence that the OP has never had a problem with Arista but has one now with Foma unless it is a batch issue that would have affected any of its films it was making at that time.


pentaxuser

 

[Paul Howell]

Your are right we don't know, the issue has been debated for a while. ,

 

[Augustus Caesar]

What is wrong with Ansco or Perutz film?

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Thanks, everyone. This is likely just a bad batch, I'm thinking.

I also just developed a new brick of Marix 400, which is Foma. First time ever in about 25 years got black mottling in the skies. I mean, my developing technique is simple, but consistent - 1:50, 10 minutes, 4 inversions every minute. It's possible it's some other factor, but I've never had issues like this before. I'm using Silverchrome Seronal (rodinal) and their rapid fix, and I haven't had any problems at all until the last few bricks of film.

Also, the Marix cassettes leak over the first five frames or so. I might have to try to force myself to like HP5.

Foma 200 is a nice choice in 35mm. And have you given TMax 400 a try? Unless you are going for a lot of visible grain, there are better alternatives for 35mm.

 

[silvergelatin]

Foma 200 is a nice choice in 35mm. And have you given TMax 400 a try? Unless you are going for a lot of visible grain, there are better alternatives for 35mm.

Foma 400 has been magic for me. Nothing else looks the same, so I'm going to try to work this out. I haven't tried the 200, though. I'm guessing any QC issues would likely be present there as well. Kodak is a no-go here in Japan, as the prices are absurd.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Foma 400 has been magic for me. Nothing else looks the same, so I'm going to try to work this out. I haven't tried the 200, though. I'm guessing any QC issues would likely be present there as well. Kodak is a no-go here in Japan, as the prices are absurd.

The 200 is a different emulsion, with much finer grain than the 400 while still having a traditional film look. I shot a ton of Foma 200 in my 35mm days and loved it.

 

[silvergelatin]

The 200 is a different emulsion, with much finer grain than the 400 while still having a traditional film look. I shot a ton of Foma 200 in my 35mm days and loved it.

I'll grab a roll one of these days. I don't mind the grain in 400. It works well with the tonality, I think. More furry than speckly. I don't expect that to make sense to anyone but me .

 

[Pioneer]

I have used Arista EDU and Foma in ISO 400 for years and it has been a very reliable product IMHO. I will say that I hand roll 35mm most of the time so I am using 100 foot bulk rolls most of the time. The 120 roll film has also been very good though I do not use as much. It does have more grain than some other emulsions but I don't mind that as I rarely enlarge past 8x10 and even when I do enlarge past that size film grain is rarely a problem unless I crop more than I should.

 

[loccdor]

I just developed some fresh Arista EDU Ultra 400 in 120 and I can see some backing paper imprint texture on the negatives. This is film I bought from Freestyle only a few months ago. Haven't had it happen with Fomapan before now. Makes the negative look a bit like parchment paper. Will scan soon and see how much it affects the photos.

 

[Paul Howell]

The 200 is a different emulsion, with much finer grain than the 400 while still having a traditional film look. I shot a ton of Foma 200 in my 35mm days and loved it.

200 is hybrid of traditional and tgains. 200 also comes closest to box film speed with most developers.

 

[Chuck1]

Just wondering about quality (emulsion)
With the 200 speed 120 film,
And reciprocity seems nightmarish (from what I've read)

 

[chuckroast]

200 is hybrid of traditional and tgains. 200 also comes closest to box film speed with most developers.

It's a lovely film, but in 120 I've had nightmarish problems with emulsion flaking causing small pinholes. I'm not the only one. Double X is a better choice by far.

 

[loccdor]

Yep... there is a little mottling in the shadow details of this fresh 120 film.

 

[Chuck1]

Foma and Arista are the same film?

 

[koraks]

there is a little mottling in the shadow details of this fresh 120 film.

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.

Foma and Arista are the same film?

Today, yes. In the past, Arista apparently rebadged Kodak and Ilford film as well, but that's decades ago.

 

[albireo]

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.