problem with Fomapan 200 (120) negatives -

I just developed a roll of Fomapan 200 (120) from a recent purchase.

Although it came from a Fomapan box, the edge markings say Ultra 200 0107. Batch number on the box is 0107561, expiry 5/2015. I am presuming this was intended to be Arista.EDU for the US market but was reboxed for whatever reason.

Looking closely at the negatives I notice a pale line each side of the roll extending the full length of the roll. This does not form part of the normal rebate.

Haven't seen this with other rolls of other film types I have used (Ilford HP5, Shanghai GP3) in the same camera, however, and this is the first roll of Foma 200 in 120 I've ever used.

It was shot in a Fuji GS645S with a red 25A filter, underexposed by a stop or two because I didn't allow enough for the filter factor.
Developed in CaffenolCH(rs) for 15M@20C, 30 seconds initial inversions then 3x inversions at 60s intervals.
Water stop, then Ilford Rapid Fix (1+4) 4mins, and Ilford wash regime.

I have included a link to a photograph of the negative (on Flickr)to illustrate the issue.

Note that the lines are slightly inboard of the mask, and it is visible evenly along the entire length of the roll. I have slightly boosted contrast so that it's clear in the photograph, but it is easily visible to the naked eye. The example shows an "accidental" frame that happens to illustrate the issue clearly

I have tried refixing (just in case) but the wet negatives look identical. I'll inspect more closely when they are dry.

I know that Foma had QC issues with 120 film in the past, but there haven't been any recent reports that I have seen

Obviously I will be running further rolls of this batch through different cameras to identify if there might be a problem that has only just surfaced with the Fuji, but are there any comments folk might make in the meantime ?

200+ views and no-one expressing an opinion? usually a development query raises a deluge of replies!

It's not the camera as a second roll through a different camera shows identical lines.
So ... it's either my processing, the developer or the film, in that order of likelihood I guess.

I also posted this in Flickr "I shoot film" where replies suggested it is due to over-agitation, and sent a copy to the supplier (Silverprint).

Silverprint forwarded it to Foma, from whom I received a nice email this morning requesting me to send them samples by post.

Now I don't at all mind if the answer comes back "It's your bad technique and crappy developer", but it is really gratifying to have a response like this from the manufacturer.

So, thumbs up for Foma

Well hopefully foma gets you an answer and compensates you for the number of rolls you bought with a replacement.

I think you film was intended to be sold as ultra fine film which is marketed by photowarehouse. They are the low cost leader for cheapest 120 films.

As for possibilities it be could anything. 120 film is cut down from much larger rolls so it's probably not likely that those two areas were not coated properly. Maybe it could be contamination. If there is still a bit of fixer on your reels that area would be a contact point for the film and restrict full development. Who knows. Try the film in another camera and a very clean tank that's been scrubbed with a bit of hot soapy water and fully dried.

Thanks, yes as I say I've already run another roll in a different camera and I also used a different reel for that one, with identical results.
The curious thing is that the lines are slightly inboard of the slots on the reel ...
I've got another roll in camera at the moment and I'll try that with D76 when it's finished, which should rule in or out a developer issue.

Hard to see it being a problem with the film, otherwise surely the various internet forums would be awash with identical complaints from Foma 200 /120 users.

All foma 120 film is edge marked Ultra, and has been since I started using it a good few years ago now, it is in fact my main film, Without knowing what tank you use to develop the film suggesting a solution is difficult, but with 120 film and Patterson tanks I have sometimes had a problem with the reel sliding slightly up the center colum, and the top edge of the film sitting just out of the developer, the answer is to put a little more developer in the tank, that is if the suggested amount is 500ml then use 600 ml, or with the patterson tank use the twiddle stick for agitation, instead of inverting the tank, In fact I suggest the next film you process use an extra 100ml of solution and see if that helps, Good luck
Richard

Ah good info about all the 120 being edge-marked Ultra. No-one else had pointed this out.
Yes I'm using a Paterson Universal, and using 500ml.
I think if the lines were not identical at both edges, then I'd have assumed that there was not enough developer in the tank as you suggest.
It'll be interesting to see what Foma come up with.

I was getting exactly what you show with my negatives, not all the time, but sometimes, I find that the reel can slide up wit inversion agitation, I changed to turning with the twiddle stick and all was fine, went back to inversion one day when I could not find the stick, and got the underdeveloped edge, so tried putting in the extra 100 ml and it has not happened again since, I would think it must be developer related, if it was film then there would be many posts on many forums about this, and yours is the only one, It will be interesting to here what Foma has to say, but in the meantime try the extra 100 ml and see how it goes,
Richard

Yes, I said myself that if it were the film I'd expect the forums to be deluged, and they're not, so I expect it is me or the developer.

But I am still hard pressed to understand how, if it were insufficient volume of developer in the tank causing the problem, why it is on both edges, and not just on one edge - the one at the top of the tank?

Or am I just being dim here ?

You seem to have 3 different minimum densities there. One is the edge, which should be base + fog only, one is the center unexposed area which also should be base + fog, and the third is the pair of lines which are in question.

So, how come the b+f is so high, and has 2 values, one on the edge and one in the unexposed center area? If we can explain that, maybe the two edge lines can become more understandable.

Can you shed some light on this?

PE

pdeeh said:

Yes, I said myself that if it were the film I'd expect the forums to be deluged, and they're not, so I expect it is me or the developer.

But I am still hard pressed to understand how, if it were insufficient volume of developer in the tank causing the problem, why it is on both edges, and not just on one edge - the one at the top of the tank?

Or am I just being dim here ?

Click to expand...

Beyond that I am in the dark, as I said, I use a lot of Fomapan, it is my main go to film, I love the stuff, although I stick to the 400, I have yet to have QC problems with either 120 or 35mm, I believe there were some problems with the 200 when they re introudced it after they were forced to re formulate it, but it was in the fo, nothing rm of pin holes and scratches, nothing like your have, lets hope that Foma can help.
Richard

Photo Engineer said:

You seem to have 3 different minimum densities there ... If we can explain that, maybe the two edge lines can become more understandable.
Can you shed some light on this?

Click to expand...

That's a very acute observation.
It had not occurred to me to consider it in this way, but I'm sorry to say I have no light to shed - hence my posting!

It looks like agitation problems to me. Quite apart from the 3 bands, there's a cirrus-like streaking effect across the middle of that unexposed frame that speaks of either chemistry contamination or weird fluid-flow issues during development.

Are you doing inversions or the twirly-stick? How fast? How often? I would suggest testing in a commercial developer too in case your caffenol is causing problems.

The QC problems with Foma related to scratching, not unevenness.

As far as agitation goes, if you read my initial post carefully, you will see that:

pdeeh said:

30 seconds initial inversions then 3x inversions at 60s intervals.

Click to expand...

But of course I did not specify that I use what I class as "gentle" inversions.

As for use of a commercial developer goes, see my third post:

pdeeh said:

I've got another roll in camera at the moment and I'll try that with D76 when it's finished, which should rule in or out a developer issue.

Click to expand...

How viscous is this caffenol stuff? The film certainly doesn't look even in the middle of the blank frame - and that should be a completely smooth tone. Possibly that central variation comes from the piece of paper (or whatever) which you were using behind the negs?

Martin, I can't guarantee that that was a completely unexposed frame, plus the negative was indeed photographed against a sheet of paper.
I can't re-examine or re-photograph the negative on a lightbox as it is part of one of the strips I sent to Foma at their request.
Viscosity: Not very - imagine a cup of coffee!

in the meantime, I have another roll in my Fuji 645, and I have deliberately left an unexposed frame on that roll for comparison. It will go through D76 1:1 which should at least establish if it is a developer &/or technique problem, or an emulsion problem. I'm expecting the former rather than the latter.

Maybe there are two independant causes. The higher density at the rebates could be light fogging during signing. The line of minimum density could be of a reel induced effect due to lesser development. It might even be covered somewhat by the higher rebate density. (Looking at scans at my labtop-screen is a bit tricky.)

A processing with bare film, thus without reel, could yield more insight.

suspicion falls on the caffeine-fuelled culprit ...

I've now run another roll through in D76 1:1, 8:30@20C, 30s inversions + 5s inversions every 30s. Same Paterson Universal Tank.

As we can see from the attached negatives (shot on a lightbox with macro lens), the apparent uneven density is no longer apparent, and the "edge lines" are entirely absent.

So, it looks like it was Caffenol what done it, in the kitchen, with the tank ...

Pity, as I have had excellent results with Caffenol previously and found I prefer it to D76 (Caffenol's a bit "sharper" to my eye); however, this is the penalty of using non-standard developers. I still remain curious how such a uniform effect along the entire length of the rolls could have been formed in the first place.

It'll still be interesting to see what Foma's engineers have to say, but I shall drop them a note anyway with this finding.

The problem with Caffenol is that there is a fair list of films that do not really like it. Caffenol is still in the "alchemy" realm, meaning that no thorough scientific work has been published on it to date, and no company is backing it either. You are left to internet fora and own experimentation for information that is often contradictory and/or incomplete. Not that it is a reason not to use Caffenol, but you should do so with care, and for every new film be sure to test thoroughly. One thing to never do, is develop an important film roll in a developer previously untested for that film. That goes triply for Caffenol, because the guidelines are somewhat vague, to be honest, and much of the info is scattered all over the place instead of a comprehensive fact sheet. I made the mistake of developing TMax400 in Caffenol according to the general instructions, and overcooked it by at least two stops. It took me a while to find out that TMax400 is one of those films not to develop in Caffenol. In fact the inconsistency and unpredictability have put me off caffenol for a while. Not to mention the smell.

Yes, I researched Caffenol thoroughly before starting using it, and as I said, this sort of result is the penalty for using non-standard (by which I meant non-commercial) developers.
So long as one goes into it with one's eyes open, and one doesn't expect perfect and consistent results across all films, it's good fun.

I've stuck to Reinhold's blog for my source data, and the information he presents there is clear and consistent. There's certainly a lot of "just throwing in a spoonful of this and that" sort of information floating about elsewhere, which doesn't help the easily confused, of course. I'm quite surprised to find a problem with Fomapan 200 as many others are using it with Caffenol without problems. However, who knows what's in my coffee ?

Another one to avoid with Caffenol is Rollei Retro 400S, by the way

I have to say, I simply don't notice the smell as being any more noxious than other photochemicals, or indeed many household cleaners.

Caffenol is a bit "sharper" because it's not got much in way of silver solvents (sulfite). You can make D76 look more like that by using higher dilutions (and correspondingly longer times) to reduce the solvent effect. Or you can use Rodinal which has no solvent action at all.

polyglot said:

Caffenol is a bit "sharper" because it's not got much in way of silver solvents (sulfite). You can make D76 look more like that by using higher dilutions (and correspondingly longer times) to reduce the solvent effect. Or you can use Rodinal which has no solvent action at all.

Click to expand...

bringing this thread back to life...
i have shot a few rolls of fomapan 200 now.
all rolls from the same batch (expiring 2018)
on some rolls, some frames show a very thin very sharp line going through. one side or both sides in either 4 or 2 mm distance to the border.

cant really upload a pic now..
but it seems impossible that noone has noticed it as well?
development issue is definitely not the case.

anybody else?

edit:
sorry for the fuzz. i guess i was too quick.
just rechecked the strips.
could it be the little metal ball (paterson plastic reel) marking the film?... wow.
but if so, why it isnt the same for the whole roll?

i havent seen this with any film before.
maybe its time for new reels.. and an email to foma.
hmm

_*_ said:

bringing this thread back to life...
i have shot a few rolls of fomapan 200 now.
all rolls from the same batch (expiring 2018)
on some rolls, some frames show a very thin very sharp line going through. one side or both sides in either 4 or 2 mm distance to the border.

cant really upload a pic now..
but it seems impossible that noone has noticed it as well?
development issue is definitely not the case.

anybody else?

edit:
sorry for the fuzz. i guess i was too quick.
just rechecked the strips.
could it be the little metal ball (paterson plastic reel) marking the film?... wow.
but if so, why it isnt the same for the whole roll?

i havent seen this with any film before.
maybe its time for new reels.. and an email to foma.
hmm

Click to expand...

If you are using Paterson's "cheater reels" it might be. It could be something it the wide starter are just before the ball-bearing. The thing that I find strange is that you say it's on both sides. Do you mean both sides of the film, emulsion side and backing side? Or do you men each film edge? Foma film does have a slightly softer emulsion. At least that's my experience anyway. I know that if I didn't take care in my processing I'd end up with marks that were not from the manufacturing process, but from my process. I'd say check your reels and check your camera. Yes, it could be camera related too.

John Wiegerink said:

If you are using Paterson's "cheater reels" it might be. It could be something it the wide starter are just before the ball-bearing. The thing that I find strange is that you say it's on both sides. Do you mean both sides of the film, emulsion side and backing side? Or do you men each film edge? Foma film does have a slightly softer emulsion. At least that's my experience anyway. I know that if I didn't take care in my processing I'd end up with marks that were not from the manufacturing process, but from my process. I'd say check your reels and check your camera. Yes, it could be camera related too.

Click to expand...

how can it be camera related when its in the frame? mamiya rz67.
i meant both edges, not both sides.
in some frames its just one edge.
as if scratched with the tiniest pin, totally parallel.
will check the reel.

_*_ said:

how can it be camera related when its in the frame? mamiya rz67.
i meant both edges, not both sides.
in some frames its just one edge.
as if scratched with the tiniest pin, totally parallel.
will check the reel.

Click to expand...

Film backs can scratch film also. As the film is fed through the back it might be occasionally rubbing on a "burr" or sand/dirt particle.

It's not at all strange, and there's a large user community using caffenol perfectly successfully.
I started this thread forever ago and I haven't seen a repetition since.
I develop all my acros 120 in caffenol and every roll is developed exactly as I want or would wish.
You might as well dismiss all the users of pyro developers.