I give up!

[Gerald C Koch]

Haven't you forgotten Agfa-Gevaert a company that makes Ilford and parts of Kodak look like dwarfs, a company that still produces B/W Film, Aerial Film, Microfilm, Glass Plates and last but not least motion picture release stock (equal to Kodaks). I understand your point but if everyone thought so Kodak would loose it's business outside of the US causing instant Bankcruptcy and I wonder how many of Kodak's biggest stock(share)holders actually are US citizens or companies? Buying because the Q.C. is better than the competitors is ok but buying for nationalistic reasons means shooting oneself in the foot.

Dominik

Agfa has been out of the camera film business for some years. There is some old stock around but that really doesn't count. Gevaert makes specialty films such as microfilm and x-ray film.

Why is it shooting one's self in the foot? In the present economic climate with high unemployment in America and the UK I see nothing wrong with being nationalistic. I'm talking about jobs not share holders. There is an old proverb, "If I don't help myself who will." Buying American or british helps keep jobs in each country. Kodak no longer makes Pan-X so when I need a slow film I buy Ilford Pan F.

 

[bascom49]

The original poster is peeved because a budget priced film did not give him premium priced results and suffered one roll of fogged film
after an apparently high success rate previously. Then to opine for a higher level of quality control but complain when the manufacturer
seeks a fair market price for its product that could possibly finance a better product seems ludicrous.

 

[lesm]

Amen, Brother bascom49. At least Foma are still making film for us. For that reason alone I'll give them my few dollar's worth. I haven't had a bad roll yet but if I were at all uncertain I've always got other cameras loaded with other films. That's always an option, with film cameras so cheap these days. Support 'em all, I say!

 

[Steve Smith]

I personally don't believe that the fact that you were born in a country means that everything you buy has to come from that country. However, I was born on the planet Earth and so far, everything I have bought has come from that planet!


Steve.

 

[MattKing]

I personally don't believe that the fact that you were born in a country means that everything you buy has to come from that country. However, I was born on the planet Earth and so far, everything I have bought has come from that planet!


Steve.

Are you sure ....?:munch:

 

[Steve Smith]

Are you sure ....?

No.. I think I have some fixer from Jupiter.


Steve.

 

[Diapositivo]

I keep hearing that Agfa is still around, but the whole confused muddle of who sells what is bewildering. And, as far as I know they are not producing color film.

I read somewhere, probably on APUG, that Rollei CR200 (a reversal film) is actually an aerial photography film produced by Agfa-Gevaert NV (Mortsel, Belgium), i.e. Agfa Aviphot Chrome 200, supposed to be the old RSX 200 emulsion on a polyester base.

The Rollei CN200 (a colour negative film) might also be produced by Agfa-Gevaert.

The Ferrania site seems to be down (it used to be at the domain ferraniait.com) which leads me to believe that, sadly, Ferrania film closed its doors.

This leaves the planet with only 3 colour film producers.

Fabrizio

 

[Roger Cole]

Doesn't Lucky produce color film on Chins too?

 

[sandermarijn]

I give up too...

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

 

[davidmasek]

I wonder what you do with those films... I use Foma all the time, both in 120 (Fomapan 100, 400) and 35mm (100, 200), I don't remember having a problem. So, I guess, I am not giving up.

 

[Helinophoto]

I've only had one problem with random specks on Foma, and that was because my Fixer had loads of silver(?) flakes in it, visible to the eye even, scratching the film.
The accordion-bottle I had, had accumulated a lot of fixer gunk trough the years and it had started to come loose after I blended a new fixer and messed around with the bottle a lot. (causing scratches as well as embedded silver(?) specks in the emulsion.)

After I blended a fresh fixer in a new, clean, bottle, I haven't seen anything similar.

Have you tried filtering your fixer lately, to check for foreign elements? (the emulsion of Foma is quite soft).

 

[donkee]

Just picked a 100' roll of Ultra 400. If i ever get away from work we'll see what happens with it and will report back.

 

[sandermarijn]

I've only had one problem with random specks on Foma, and that was because my Fixer had loads of silver(?) flakes in it, visible to the eye even, scratching the film.
The accordion-bottle I had, had accumulated a lot of fixer gunk trough the years and it had started to come loose after I blended a new fixer and messed around with the bottle a lot. (causing scratches as well as embedded silver(?) specks in the emulsion.)

After I blended a fresh fixer in a new, clean, bottle, I haven't seen anything similar.

Have you tried filtering your fixer lately, to check for foreign elements? (the emulsion of Foma is quite soft).

I stoppped using accordion-bottles a long time ago. The fixer I used had seen only a couple of films and should not at all have been able to hurt the emulsion (though it might have).

I've spent a lot of time trying to get Foma 100-120 to work without scratches, everything to no avail. Foma T200-120 has therefore hit my patience limit straight away.

That's not to say that Foma films are crap. Lots of people use them to perfect satisfaction. Just not me one of them, apparently.

I will stick to Kodak and Ilford (and to the loads of Fuji in my fridge/freezer). Love(d) Neopan 400 in Rodinal

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I have used exactly two rolls of Foma 200 in 120 format in my life, and both of them had exactly the patterns in the emulsion that 'sandermarijn' shows above.
On the other hand, I have used at least 100 rolls of Foma 100, and at least 100 rolls of the 400, and they have all been perfectly fine. Foma did acknowledge problems with the 200 speed emulsion a while back, and they pulled the film from their product line to reformulate it. It was re-released earlier this year.

I'm not sure what to think of it. I've been a dedicated TMY-II and Acros shooter for some time now, recently started using Tri-X again, because of wanting to use PMK and Tri-X stains so nicely.
But once in a while I have bought a few rolls of Foma film, preferably the 400, just to give it a try, and I love how the prints look. But, all this talk about their quality does have an impact on me. It is making me apprehensive, even though I have results that are always perfect, roll after roll, batch after batch...

A part of me feels this negative publicity isn't good for Foma. They have employees that are working hard to make a living, same as Kodak and Ilford. I don't want to post negative results as it may damage their reputation. At the same time I think that fellow photographers need to know. Especially those that heavily rely on their film to work and it MUST not fail.

Tough decision. But we all must do what we feel is right, and support the film manufacturers that give us the products that we both like, and are reliable enough for our needs.
As long as I can I'll continue to use Kodak and Fuji, because I love my results with them. But I think I'll also continue to throw in a roll of Foma 400 once in a while, just because it's fun and I love the prints.

 

[Bertil]

For 35 mm B/W I have never used anything I liked better than TMY-2; for 120 I go most for TMY-2, some Acros 100, and colour: Fuji Velvia 50, Kodak Ektar 100; in these format the price is quite competitive.

For sheet film 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 I find Fomapan 100 sufficiently good and much cheaper than good (or perhaps better) alternatives – at least in Europe; have never had any problem with Fomapan 100 sheet film, never tried their roll films (for handheld 4x5 with my Graphics I prefer TMY-2, but haven't tried alternative fast sheet film).

For color 4x5, Ektar 100 is very nice.

Have nothing against Ilford films, just a fact that Kodak, Fuji and Foma are cheaper, at least in Sweden (use a lot of Ilford/Harman papers, though old Kodak Polyfiber was a favourite years ago).

BTW, I think people in all countries need job!

/Bertil

 

[pbromaghin]

Buy what works best for you at the best price. The company whose product you don't buy will get the message. The reason there are so many really good American cars now is because so many of us bought all those super-dependable Japanese cars instead of the junk the big 3 were producing in the 80s and 90s.

 

[sandermarijn]

A part of me feels this negative publicity isn't good for Foma. They have employees that are working hard to make a living, same as Kodak and Ilford. I don't want to post negative results as it may damage their reputation. At the same time I think that fellow photographers need to know. Especially those that heavily rely on their film to work and it MUST not fail.

Tough decision.

While I share your empathic considerations towards the Foma workers, I do not think that in the long run these same people will be helped if Foma is allowed to continue its current 'strategy'. I obviously don't mean to imply that Foma is willingly planning to ruin our pictures; rather that they choose to be near-completely deaf to user feedback. You don't want to know how hard I've tried to get my problems with Foma 100-120 across to them. The response: nada, ingenting, nothing. Such a company does not deserve my support. I feel sorry for the workers, because they loose both work and pride. But not a tough decision on my part at all. I simply will not pay for poor products.

How hard can it be to listen to your customers, to those who give you your money? Ilford shows that & how it can be done.

If you listen Foma: please improve your product consistency, please improve your communication. Then I'll come back. Behind the defects your films are beautiful.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

While I share your empathic considerations towards the Foma workers, I do not think that in the long run these same people will be helped if Foma is allowed to continue its current 'strategy'. I obviously don't mean to imply that Foma is willingly planning to ruin our pictures; rather that they choose to be near-completely deaf to user feedback. You don't want to know how hard I've tried to get my problems with Foma 100-120 across to them. The response: nada, ingenting, nothing. Such a company does not deserve my support. I feel sorry for the workers, because they loose both work and pride. But not a tough decision on my part at all. I simply will not pay for poor products.

How hard can it be to listen to your customers, to those who give you your money? Ilford shows that & how it can be done.

If you listen Foma: please improve your product consistency, please improve your communication. Then I'll come back. Behind the defects your films are beautiful.

That's a very well argued point, and I acknowledge you were able to stretch your thoughts beyond my capability. I agree with you.

 

[Bertil]

Sandermarijn, having now spent some hours (yes hours!) reading the whole old thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists), that you above referred to and initiated concerning problems with Foma 100 -120 film. Very interesting and exciting reading, I must say.

I just want to express my deep admiration for your most patient way trying to find the problem/solution with this Foma material, AND also your very nice and gentle way of handling both Foma and this long, sometimes slightly infected, discussion – admirable ethical qualities in performing a forum discussion! It isn't very hard to understand that you "give up" on the Foma brand of 120-film.

Even though Foma doesn't seem to really understand the good point in reasonable communication with their costumers, I hope they understand the need to soon improve their 120-film. I regularly use and like Fomapan 100 sheet film (4x5, 5,7, 8x10), and if the brand gets a bad reputation for lack of quality in such an important product as 120-film (particularly among us who really use film!), they will soon, I'm afraid, run into problems selling other of their products - and most of it is very good, and we don't want to loose them!
/Bertil

 

[wblynch]

Be happy we have film, from so many suppliers.

Well at least I am.

 

[sandermarijn]

Bertil, thanks for your kind words. Obviously you've never met with me in real life

And thanks for reading the full thread. It happens all too often that people make statements based on reading only the first and last pages.

The thing I'm sad about right now is that all my complaining (and others') seems to have had no effect at all. Last week I tried another Foma 100-120 film, a fresh one from a much newer batch than the one that my post relates to. This newer film shows the exact same pattern of scratches (when used in my Hasselblad). Alas.

The good story is that I've never had problems with Foma films in 135 and that many people around the world have no problems with Foma films whatsoever. It may also be to Foma's credit that low-budget analogue photographers are allowed a niche to work/play around in. For that reason alone we shouldn't want to loose Foma.

Best to you in the dark North (just two more weeks to the solstice!),
Sander

 

[Bertil]

Thanks Sander, don't think I would have a problem meeting you in real life :–)
About Foma, perhaps the combination base type/emulsion/back paper for 120-film in relation to mechanical pressure is a very deep problem in their production procedure. Perhaps based on older parameters, that requires very radical changes in order to cope with the obvious problem they have with 120-film. 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. And, no doubt, they must realize that, but perhaps not easy to correct.
We may hope they make sufficiently good business with their other very high quality products, such that they are able to correct for the 120-film. Or they conclude being content with supplying quite cheap film for people with middle formats old folders – but I doubt that!
BTW, in view of there being many people using the film without having OR seeing this problem, perhaps the best policy for the company is to keep quiet and doing something about it, rather than announcing fault with their product – it seems to have happen before by big companies! Just a suggestion.

But today some snow – makes it somewhat less dark, but we have to wait for long before light coming back!
/Bertil

 

[sandermarijn]

But today some snow – makes it somewhat less dark, but we have to wait for long before light coming back

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

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.

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

 

[Helinophoto]

I'll try and scan some Foma 100 120 format when I get home tonight.
This film was shot last Sunday developed in Tet Ultrafin and fixed.

I only made wet prints from them, 30cm*40cm and Lith'ed so I saw nothing special, but it might be easier to spot imperfections on a 4000 dpi scan, well see, I'll report back tonight.

Oh, by the way, I use one of these to filter the water Dead Link Removed , very convenient and does a good job cleaning the water. Not saying that this is the culprit though, just a general tip =)

 

[redrockcoulee]

The first time I tried Foma film was when I ran out in Prague, other than the extensive curl on the 120 film I had no problem with the few rolls I tried there. Since then I have used some Foma and Arista,edu.ultra in 135, 120 and 4X5 and have found no defects in the products. In 120 we use it mainly in the toy cameras and I normally use Acros in the Hasselblad. I do not remember ever getting defective film from any company, all photographic problems I have incurred have been self-inflicted, except for some TMAX400 120 that I was given that must of been soaked in water at some stage in its life but that was due to bad storage not Kodak's fault. I shoot Kodak colour and some B&W and a little of Ilford and EFKE. If we switch to protectionism as consumers I guess with the US being the single largest market Kokak wins and we would lose out not only some great films but choice itself and even those living in smaller countries now producing films may end up without those companies.

By the way in 120 both Acros and Artista.edu.ultra are considerably less expensive than Kodak's products, I think about $2 a roll less, the Acros being I think about 40 cents more than Freestyle's brand.