Very odd problem with Foma 400 bulk roll

koraks · Friday at 4:30 PM

It's not a coating or emulsion problem. You're wasting your time on that angle.

pentaxuser · Friday at 5:22 PM

Paul Howell said:
. The emulsion number is 012616-17 expiration date is March 20027. I will email Foma to see if they have any insight.

I was going to say this looks like a sensible idea but it looks as if Foma will give you a blunt "no problem here" answer based on koraks' post

Still however unlikely that it is a coating problem at least the expected answer from Foma rules a Foma fault out

pentaxuser

Sharktooth · Friday at 5:41 PM

As a sanity check, what are the edge markings identifying the film type. I'm assuming Foma film will have edge markings that identify it as Foma 400.

I say this, because I have a few different bulk rolls of film, but only one loader. My usual practise is to put a bulk roll in the loader, and then wind a few cassettes. I'll label the contents of the loader with masking tape. If I need load another film type, I'll take the bulk roll currently in the loader, and transfer it back into it's original tin. Now I can put the different film type in the bulk loader and roll some cassettes. It's easy to forget to change the label on the bulk loader to show it has different film inside, especially if it's been a while since you last rolled some cassettes.

Paul Howell · Friday at 6:27 PM

I have the can, but I just noticed that it is Arista Edu, not Foma brand, I know that Foma makes Arista films, but it will provide Foma a reason to say not ours. But given that 400 can only with a few developers can Foma 400 shoot near 400, while Foma 200 can be shot at 200 with most developers and has better grain, with higher LPM at 110, while Foma 400 is 90 LPM then I will stop buying 400 and just go with 200. As I understand it 200 is a hybrid emlusion, mix of T and tradtional grain.

F4U · Friday at 6:34 PM

I have an Arista 400 roll of developed film in my hand. There are no edge markings. so that is no help But a 100 foot roll of film just can't change speeds like that, even if there's 15 years of differnce. Something else has to be wrong. Unless the factory coating machine ran out of emulsion mix before someone noticed and refilled it which I suppose is possible. This is a new one, for sure.

Paul Howell · Friday at 7:48 PM

It must have been something I did, just cannot figure out what I did wrong, not just once, but 3 times.

Kino · Friday at 9:01 PM

Does this Foma have the usual anti-halation dyes? Green, I believe...

If not, maybe a defective clear AHU layer?

Nopo · Friday at 9:22 PM

Foma in 35 mm does not dye the developer green. This happens on 120 mm film.

Carlos

AnselMortensen · Friday at 9:31 PM

Arista EDU is Foma

Arista EDU DX is purportedly Kentmere.

Paul Howell · Friday at 9:51 PM

I have used both Kentmere and Ultrafine extreme in the past, but switched back to Foma as Foma has the anti-halation layer. Here in the low desert the glare can be a problem. Good to know that Arista EDU DX is Kentmere, I just bought a few rolls to use my Konica and Pentax point and shoots.

koraks · 2025-06-28T02:28:12-0400

Sharktooth said:
I'm assuming Foma film will have edge markings that identify it as Foma 400.

Bulk Foma has no markings.

Kino said:
Does this Foma have the usual anti-halation dyes? Green, I believe...

Only in 120 and sheet film. The 35mm product relies on anti-halation properties of the base.
And no, anti-halation being 'defective' doesn't explain a magic 3 stop speed loss. The anti-halation on Foma's 35mm products is moderately effective at best, btw.

Paul Howell said:
switched back to Foma as Foma has the anti-halation layer. Here in the low desert the glare can be a problem.

Then Foma films are not your best bet in 35mm, to be honest. You're better off with something like HP5+.

Paul Howell · 2025-06-28T12:10:18-0400

Until this last roll of bulk film I have not any issues with Foma, I stopped using it in MF due to the curl, but have several boxes in 4X5 and 2 1/2 by 3 1/4, which worked well at either 320 or 250 depending on the developer. This bulk roll worked well, shot at box speed with Diafine and Acufine, 250 in D76 and HC 110. The more I think about it I doubt that it is a coating issue, the many rolls would have been cut from the master roll and no other complaints. This afternoon I will pint my ring around shoot, just looking at the negatives ISO looks to be the best.

Paul Howell · 2025-06-28T16:34:51-0400

Well, just printed, I am now stumped, F76+, same time, same dilution, same temp, Minolta 202, Gossen SBC meter, 50mm 1.4 back to ISO 200. I thought it would be 100, but 200 is spot on, printed at 12 seconds, F11, Dektol, Foma Grade 3. The test chart shows some loss of dark tones, in ZS terms Zone 1 to 3 are hard to discern. So much for densitomer eyes. Next I will shoot a roll in my 800SI but bracket, 100, 200 and 400.

Agulliver · 2025-06-29T04:57:18-0400

Foma's antihalation isn't as good as those of Ilford or Kodak...but it is there and reduces halation. Probably sufficient for OP's needs.

As others say, Foma bulk film (whether sold as Foma or rebranded) has no edge markings so there's no way edge markings could help.

Like most other contributors, I just cannot see any way that a 100 foot roll could lose 2-3 stops part way through the roll. I am assuming OP has not found any splices in the roll. Though I do not believe Foma would splice short rolls together to make 100 foot bulk loads, that is surely the only way a 100 foot roll could change mid-roll.

I'm still going with user error but this really is a head-scratcher. Might be worth contacting Foma or Freestyle with a batch number just in case others have reported issues. But that seems *extremely* unlikely.

Very odd problem with Foma 400 bulk roll

koraks

Moderator

pentaxuser

Sharktooth

Paul Howell

F4U

Paul Howell

Kino

Nopo

AnselMortensen

Paul Howell

koraks

Moderator

Paul Howell

Paul Howell

Agulliver

Very odd problem with Foma 400 bulk roll

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency