I give up!

sandermarijn said:

Tried my first Foma T200-120 film last week. Very careful with the emulsion, no stop bath used (only water). Still highlights littered with 'debris' (not dust, not birds).

Add that to this: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

... and I give up on Foma, in 120 at least Never had problems in 135

Click to expand...

Same "phenomena" achieved on Fomapan 400 sheet 4x5, rotary R09 1:50 dev. stopped with plain H2O, fixed with fresh Agfa Fix 1:5.
That means I quit FOMA for I hate being surprised like that.

Maybe you just need to put a faucet filter on to eliminate any particulates in your system. BTW, last night I had some particles show up in an old bottle of Rodinal, caught it when mixing, quick run through a coffee filter cleaned it up.

Rick A said:

Maybe you just need to put a faucet filter on to eliminate any particulates in your system. BTW, last night I had some particles show up in an old bottle of Rodinal, caught it when mixing, quick run through a coffee filter cleaned it up.

Click to expand...

Hi Rick,
That can be a wise precaution, but I'd consider it a special care ONLY when it comes to Fomapan handling; I've been using Rodinal for over 10 years now (Agfa and Adox) and never had a problem like that with other films (Ilford, Kodak, Adox, Efke). Beyond that, the bottle of Rodinal is a year old only.

Ok, checked one of my negs from last Sunday and I didn't have to look long, one of the four scans I did had some scratching.

It's not as visible as yours perhaps, but they are there, also you can see that one of the scratch-groups is lined up vertically in the photo, while the scratches shemselves goes horizontaly, pointing to that the film probably rolled over some roll at the factory, was maybe stopped (for cutting??) and then started again?
Shot with Mamiya RZ67





Impossible to tell.

They arent that bad and I am unsure how visible they are in prints form the darkroom.
Batch number of the tree photo is: 017056 2 with exp date 1 2014, so it should be pretty fresh.

The photo of the model is from my first foma-shoot, I thought the scratches came from loose fixer material in the bottle, but seemengly not. Here you can see it much more clearly.
Not sure what batch number this was (pack tossed 2 months ago), but I've bought all my Foma stuff pretty recently (within the past 3 months)





Shot with Hasselblad 503CW

I have a lot of foma left, but if I experience some unprintable negs, I have the option to scan and correct them....still, I am a sceptic now indeed as well, correcting a model pic like this for big enlargements would be a real pain.

Oh and I unroll and load the film exactly like this, but standing up and with the film hanging and NO PINKY finger inside the film, I'm very paranoid about the emulsion side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cD8eP8kjdo . No problem what so ever.

This issue we are seeing is either real scratches from the factory or maybe even static electricity while un-coiling the film before loading or something related to the backing paper, it's just too similar to appear all over the place with so many variations in handling and developing schemes.

Helinophoto said:

This issue we are seeing is either real scratches from the factory or maybe even static electricity while un-coiling the film before loading or something related to the backing paper, it's just too similar to appear all over the place with so many variations in handling and developing schemes.

Click to expand...

If the problem is that bad you may want to invest one or two rolls of this film to investigate that a little bit further. You could

1. Take a fresh roll, unwrap it carefully in broad daylight and look at the film surface under an angle, possibly with the help of a loupe. If you see scratches, document what you see and contact the folks who sold this roll to you
2. In complete darkness take a fresh roll, load it onto the developer tank spindle like you always do and run it through your dev process. If you see scratches now, either your film doesn't like the tank spindle or your method of loading film, or the dev/stop/fix/wash process introduced these scratches. If the film was prefogged by static electricity, this should look very different from regular scratches, and since the film should become completely clear with this procedure, it should be very easy to spot either scratches or local fogging.
3. If none of these procedures creates scratches in your film, there is a chance your camera is too rough to your film.

In the original thread talking about this issue, there have been attempts doing what you say with no conclusive results.

It's some roller in the factory for sure, the uniformity of direction, size and thickness of the scratches are all tell-tale signs of an automatic process, not your random handling. And since it's similar between cameras, you can rule out internal camera stuff as well.

I've developed efke films which is softer than this emulsion and I haven't seen stuff like this ever when using the dev-spool and tank and chemicals, so that rules that out as well.

This is a factory issue and Foma has so far just given the classic "Yieess, you send, we fix, we fix", that was about 1 year ago.

Perhaps Gerald meant -- buy as local as you can. I try to do that, not because locals are morally superior (whether 'local' is my town, state or country) but because they're my neighbors, and community matters.

It all seems a waste of time and energy. If you don't like the film then move on. What's the purpose here?

If I eat at McDonalds and don't like the food I simply do not return. Despite the 'warnings' many people still choose to eat at McDonalds.

Many people, me included, still choose to use Foma film.

I love Foma, but people should be made aware about it's quirks and latent problems, what's the big issue with that?

I have stopped using Foma 120 because of scratches - and I did finally sacrifice a new, unshot undeveloped roll (after pulling many hairs trying to track it down) - yes, it was scratched. I don't use enough 120 to have it make a much of a difference, so I buy whatever's on sale, as I need.

On the other hand, I have no problems with Foma 135 - I buy 100' fomapan 100 and 400 from Freestyle and have been very happy with both films.

Another source for scratches is the development reel over time a lot of junk or crystals from the chemicals can accumulate on the reels an scratch the film.
Still use Foma films had some problems with scratches just like with Ilford, Kodak and Efke films, found out that I had sand in my camera causing the scratches.

Dominik

MDR said:

Another source for scratches is the development reel over time a lot of junk or crystals from the chemicals can accumulate on the reels an scratch the film.
Still use Foma films had some problems with scratches just like with Ilford, Kodak and Efke films, found out that I had sand in my camera causing the scratches.

Click to expand...

1) You shouldn't allow "junk" or "crystals" to accumulate on reels. Always WASH THEM after processing!
2) The reels touch only the edges of the film. They do not scratch the image area.

Loading procedure might induce a scratch or two if you accidentally touch the film, but if you have scratches everywhere and you are not using any squeegee, there are really just two possibilities: film manufacturing error or a camera error. If some films are completely without scratches and some have a lot of them and this pattern repeats many times, the manufacturing error becomes highly possible.

sandermarijn said:

We all know about the moon and the polar light Bertil- go fool somebody else

That's one of the things I don't get: why aren't many more people reporting problems like the one I have? I tried two batches of film, both showed the issue. I tried several cameras, all of them showed the issue. An APUG-member from near my place shot (in his own camera) and processed one my films, which reproduced the issue.
Am I extremely unlucky with the film batches that I buy? Am I too critical and do most photographers not feel so bothered by the defects? These are questions I am left with.

I was on a hike in the NW of your country last September. In the middle of night I had to leave the tent for a pee. That's when I first saw the Aurora. Not a very impressive version of it, but impressive enough to the virgin observer. In the tent was my Rolleiflex loaded with Tri-x. I contemplated, doubted, decided that the strong moon would outshine the weak aurora, and went back to 'bed'. Still having doubts about that decision

Just to put things into perspective: will I bring Foma film with me into the mountains? No, never. Too unreliable. Will I use Foma film 'around the house', just for fun? No, I have had it with this brand. As long as there is Kodak and Ilford I will use their films. That is unless Foma improve, but I doubt they will, and I won't play guinea pig any longer to find out whenif they finally have.

Sander

Click to expand...

1) OK, night light - but still dark!!!

2) Perhaps I expressed my self badly, when I said "If a lot of people working with the most leading brands of middle format cameras have the kind of problems you have made obvious, Foma have a serious quality problem with this product.". I didn't meant that they have this problem but don't care, probably a lot of them don't use this film, perhaps some do and don't have the problem and some just don't have seen it! But of course Foma has a problem if their 120 film can't be used with reasonable results with these cameras.

3) Shoot first, think later! Hope you had a nice hike!

4) I once made a rather though two weeks hike in Sarek (Swedish national park) carrying a quite heavy Hasselblad equipment loaded with ORWO 22 (100 Iso); I had made some testing rolls developed to full satisfaction in Rodinal. But coming home after the hike and finding several shots more or less destroyed by dirt in the emulsion I gave that film up! On the other hand made a trip to Lofoten last summer and shot a lot of 4x5 sheets of Fomapan 100 and can't see any problem with that emulsion (and I have exposed more than 1000 4x5 sheets during the last 5-6 years), so I don't give that up. (Yes I once got some problem with a new batch of sheets that destroyed some nice shots, but the problem disappeared when I pre wet the film before development, something I now always do with this film). But I haven't used Foma's 120-film, and don't think I will because I normally don't like grain, and with 120-film I prefer TMY-2 and Acros!
/Bertil

so far...

Wow!, I didn't think anyone would care. Thanks for all the comments. Sorry I've been offline for a while. I work 6 and 7 days a week. That said, I can certainly empathize with the workers at Foma, but a company that risks running itself out of business certainly does not help them either. I don't have to do photography for a living so it's not going to kill me if something doesn't turn out, but the little time I have to myself that is wasted cannot be measured in money. I lost years of my life to a traumatic experience so I know the value of time. Money wise, I work for every penny and I'll be damned if I pay for first class and then take a seat in the steerage. So maybe I'm whining and moaning but would the two posters out there shell out their money to buy the lesser product if the two cost the same? I saw Foma with sporadic faults in their film (emulsion defects just as Sandermarijn got and the legendary scratches and now total loss due to fog)and chemistry (leaky packs and bottles filled to different levels), over an 8 year period, selling for the same or even more than Kodak, Ilford, Fuji with zero faults in 30 years in any product line. So which product will I buy now? As Sandermarijn pointed out, if the Foma company isn't going to change it's attitude why shouldn't I change mine? But as I thought I made clear, I love the results I get with Foma and I even had enough confidence at one time to use it for my sister's wedding. If I get an inkling that change is happening at Foma whether it be on APUG or the company shows it cares like Ilford does, or whatever, I'll have another go at it and gladly pay what they ask.

Photo wise, the first thing I looked for was my own fault because I don't want to make the same mistake again! I've spent many a spare moment thinking about what I might have done. I still can't think of any since fog has never been a problem for me in the 30 or so years of shooting black and white and of doing my own processing. I've run more film through the same camera and I've used the same developing tank and reels and run the same process procedure with those films and no problem. I looked at the negatives again and as the fog is very generalized and even like real fog on a rainy day, I can only guess chemical fog on my part or manufacturing error. Camera or tank leaks don't look like that as far as I know. The camera was with me at all times and it's a bottom loading Leica MP so the fog should have dispersed according to the light pattern, and it's very hard to open the bottom of a Leica by accident. You'd have to twist the knob completely around and then pull the entire plate off with a slight wiggle. For all rolls I used Microphen developer that was allowed to sit for a few days after mixing to ensure complete dissolution, and then diluted it 1+1 just before one shot use. As the fix and stop were still good, I used the same batches as the fogged roll and no problem there. I've even considered maybe my own body heat from holding the tank causing local overdevelopment but I only hold it to fill and agitate and I had gloves on too. So if it is my error as some have said, is there something that you and I have not thought of yet? I've gone through the whole list of suspects. I'll keep on shooting and processing only Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji from now on and see how that goes. The only time I've gotten bad results it was clearly my error when I first started out and didn't know what I was doing, or malfunctioning equipment (sticky shutter, broken meter) or just accident or stupid things. I still have more Foma film bought about the same time as the fogged roll 2 months ago. I'm afraid to use them for any holiday/family shots but if I get time to kill I'll give it a go. In the meantime I got a few bricks of Tri-X and some HP5 value 3 packs, the very same films I've known and trusted since childhood. It's because of them I assumed all film was error free, until against all warning I tried ORWO film in the 80's. I loved it, but the 120 size was a problem. I finally unrolled some unused NP15 and could already see emulsion defects and scratches and even miswound backing paper, without my having done anything to it. The East German company was very sympathetic and helpful when I wrote to them. I still used their 35mm film after that and would still be if they didn't go the way of Agfa.

37th Exposure said:

..... I still used their 35mm film after that and would still be if they didn't go the way of Agfa.

Click to expand...

ORWO is still in the business http://www.filmotec.de/
AGFA is also still in the business.., a few companies in Germany pack films made by Agfa-Gevaert.
http://www.agfa.com/en/sp/solutions/aerialphotography/index.jsp
http://www.agfa.com/en/sp/solutions/microfilm/index.jsp

I was thinking of this tread the other day, while I was developing some 120 film.

I don't use much 120 but ended up with three rolls, Ilford FP4+, a EDU.Ultra 100 (Foma) and a Lucky SHD100.

I found the coarsness of the backing paper was ranked in the above order, the Ilford was very smooth, almost plastic like while the Lucky was rough. Likewise the film was also in the same rank for curlyness with the Lucky not wanting to stay flat in the storage page while the Ilford was almost completly flat.

The only outstanding part was the Foma is an a very Blue tinted base, the other two were almost clear.

I got to wondering why someone would find the smothness of the base would have any effect as the film does not slide over the base. although I did notice if I was not careful the film back could rub against the paper if I unrolled it slowly.

My printing is why behind but I will tr to make it a point to look for any marks on the foma under high magnification.

cmacd123 said:

I got to wondering why someone would find the smothness of the base would have any effect as the film does not slide over the base

Click to expand...

There's always going to be some friction between paper and film in any camera. Some cameras are nastier this way than others. Hasselblad being 'worse' than a Rolleiflex TLR, for example.

sandermarijn said:

Hasselblad being 'worse' than a Rolleiflex TLR, for example.

Click to expand...

Never had the Money to even look at a Hasselblad up close, so that may be why I have not encountered that effect, I understand that they roll up the film Emulsion Out like some movie cameras, so that might have some tension effects. I Suppose.

Going back to the OP, I also tried Fomapan in various sizes and speeds and had problems with their QC. When it worked well the tonality is beautiful but the results were too variable overall and I went back to Ilford (and sometimes Kodak).
But I do question the logic of searching out the cheapest film you can find and then complaining about the quality! You get what you choose to pay for. I would (and do) pay top dollar for the best quality I can find. I don't want my photography compromised by being a cheapskate when I buy film or chemicals. If good film is costing you too much, check how many keepers you're getting per roll and perhaps work on improving your technique and shooting fewer frames.
As for the complaint that Foma and Efke are now equal in price to US-sourced Kodak, you only have to look as far as the decline in buying power of the US dollar compared to almost every other currency. It's not Foma's fault that the US economy has tanked!

Leigh Youdale said:

But I do question the logic of searching out the cheapest film you can find and then complaining about the quality! (...) As for the complaint that Foma and Efke are now equal in price to US-sourced Kodak, you only have to look as far as the decline in buying power of the US dollar compared to almost every other currency. It's not Foma's fault that the US economy has tanked!

Click to expand...

There's nothing cheap about Foma, also not in Europe. Per 26 December 2011, from macodirect.de:
- 10x Fomapan 100 120: 31.89 euros,
- 10x Ilford FP4+ 120: 36.90 euros,
- 10x Kodak Tri-x 120: 38.28 euros.
These are negligible differences considering overall cost/frame.

Leigh Youdale said:

Going back to the OP, I also tried Fomapan in various sizes and speeds and had problems with their QC. When it worked well the tonality is beautiful but the results were too variable overall and I went back to Ilford (and sometimes Kodak).
But I do question the logic of searching out the cheapest film you can find and then complaining about the quality! You get what you choose to pay for. I would (and do) pay top dollar for the best quality I can find. I don't want my photography compromised by being a cheapskate when I buy film or chemicals. If good film is costing you too much, check how many keepers you're getting per roll and perhaps work on improving your technique and shooting fewer frames.
As for the complaint that Foma and Efke are now equal in price to US-sourced Kodak, you only have to look as far as the decline in buying power of the US dollar compared to almost every other currency. It's not Foma's fault that the US economy has tanked!

Click to expand...

I don't know where I might have said that I buy the cheapest media I can find. That bad Foma film was shot in a Leica MP with Leica lens, run in a Kindermann tank and reels, to be enlarged on a Beseler with Schneider Componon-S lenses, everything bought brand new combined with 30 years of shooting black and white, so I'm well aware of what-you-pay-is-what-you-get. I bought the cheap Foma films just to play with and ended up loving the results, and I'd keep on buying them at any price, and use nothing else, if the quality control was decent. Foma is great, when it works. Now that it costs as much as products that always work, why buy Foma anymore? In fact, I wouldn't use Foma if it was free, given what came out on the roll that inspired the original post. Having said that, just for curiosity could you please tell me where in the world Foma is still sold at the price levels of the better days of the U.S. economy, with comparisons to Kodak, Ilford, etc? Sandermarijn and I obviously don't know where that would be.

Gerald C Koch said:

With the present state of the US economy and the loss of jobs in this country lets start supporting Kodak. They are an American company; Ilford, Foma and all the others are not. We lost Kodak papers awhile back and I really miss them. Now Plus-X in 120 size was discontinued recently. Pay a few cents more and buy American.

Click to expand...

DITTO

was intrigued...

wblynch said:

It all seems a waste of time and energy. If you don't like the film then move on. What's the purpose here?

If I eat at McDonalds and don't like the food I simply do not return. Despite the 'warnings' many people still choose to eat at McDonalds.

Many people, me included, still choose to use Foma film.

Click to expand...

never used foma but was interested by what others said about it and thought i'd give it a try...

so i appreciate seeing this thread and understanding the problems (quirks or nuances?) with the film.

i produce enough image problems, i don't need the manufacturer adding their disappointments - i'll wait till the reports turn positive!

thanks, all

I have to applaud the OP. It's exactly my feelings.

I have been majorly disappointed by Foma as soon as I've opened the 120 pack: cheap smelly cardboard packaging, cheap backing paper, I couldn't tear the little tape without tearing the whole backin paper... Their QC is horrendous. I already miss Kodak's PERFECT products if they keep on ditching heavenly good products. I love Ilford. But geez, film prices need to go down.

sandermarijn said:

There's nothing cheap about Foma, also not in Europe. Per 26 December 2011, from macodirect.de:
- 10x Fomapan 100 120: 31.89 euros,
- 10x Ilford FP4+ 120: 36.90 euros,
- 10x Kodak Tri-x 120: 38.28 euros.
These are negligible differences considering overall cost/frame.

Click to expand...

Strange?!!! I found a website where i can buy 10x Fomapan 100 120 for 23 euro, say 25 euro and it is still cheaper than those of Kodak/Ilford, 10x Fomapan 400 120 is about 28 euro, closer to about 10 euro cheaper than Kodak Tri-X

I bought many different 120 films and stored them in the fridge/freezer just for future use, i may buy more but sheets this time, then i will never worry if the film prices will increase or some films will be discontinued, have loads of them stored and i will take time to use/expose them one by one.