Why I'm giving up on Fortepan

[MMfoto]

I've been shooting Fortepan 400 occasionally for the last couple of years. I like the look of this film and have enjoyed it's flexibility and it's graininess with Rodinal and Pyrocat HD. With these grainy combos I've been able to live with the occasional pinhole in the emulsion (no I don't use stop bath), as these are usually masked by the grain.

Currently I am wrapping up developing a half dozen rolls of Fortepan 100, a film I've never used before, that I bought overseas after running out of film on a trip. On top of the one roll that tore off the end of the spool and was lost in the field, many, many frames from this batch have what I would call separation lines in the emulsion. These breaks in the emulsion look as if the emulsion pulled away from itself while drying. Fortunately many frames that I really cared about are spared from this defect, however others are not.

So from now on I'm sticking to safer waters, like the Neopan SS I also picked up on this trip that is proving to be good stuff indeed.

Happy New Years

 

[dxphoto]

i found fomapan are so much better.

 

[hal9000]

This is disheartening - I just ordered 6 x 25 sheet packs of 4x5" fortepan 200 film. Have others also had such bad quality reports?

 

[copake_ham]

With all due respects, isn't your comparison unfair?

Why would anyone expect Fortepan to compare favorably to Neopan?

There is a reason why some folks are willing to spend more for Neopan - it's because of better quality!

 

[john_s]

With all due respects, isn't your comparison unfair?

Why would anyone expect Fortepan to compare favorably to Neopan?

There is a reason why some folks are willing to spend more for Neopan - it's because of better quality!

I guess that's right, in a way, but doesn't the customer have the right to expect freedom from such defects (even if the film is "not as good as" a top brand)?

This might not matter much, except that it might be these small companies on which we will rely in the future when the big names give up making film (and paper).

 

[Neal]

Dear MMfoto,

I suggest you contact Foma. My guess is that once they see the problem they will replace the film at a minimum, maybe throw some free film in on top.

Neal Wydra

 

[Photo Engineer]

And this is what to expect from photo products from second and third tier photo companies.

PE

 

[uraniumnitrate]

not a one way street

Guys, guys, I have worked on Forte in ages both 135 up to 8x10 sheets. I only got problem twice and one of that wasn’t Fortes failure it was those who manufactured the base it was defected by poor quality. I also got problem with Ilford, Kodak and Efke too! So it’s not a one way street as those “big three” saying! It’s a lot of cover up too!
Can somebody tell me why I got blue stain on my 120 Ilford???? Or why they reciprocity table doesn't work and why It doesn't work in difficult light situations?

 

[Ian Grant]

Actually Ron sometimes photographers blame the films when actually it's the way they handle exposure and process of the products.

After all a lot of people really don't like and can't get on with Tmax and it's equivalents while many of us think Tmax is superb film.

I can only speak from personal experience and have never had problems with EFKE 25 in 35mm up to 10"x8", having said that I've only ever wanted to used their best & unique film, aiming for the highest quality, with its excellent definintion and extremely fine grain. I'm not sure if I'd use Forte 200 in smaller sizes but my experiences with 10"x8" film have been excellent.

What people forget is films vary in behaviour and it's far more important to find what suits your work and stick with it.

Before knocking former eastern block manufacturers for having older and less robust coating plants it is important to realize that a great many photographers are making excellent images with their films and papers, and having no problems with their products.

Finally Ron, Kodak is no longer a first tier manufacturer as they have left the ball park no longer making B&W papers, and onstantly losing their market share of colour materials to Fuji. Let's face it their B&W papers had been so inconsistent in product range particularly in Europe that we gave up using them.

Ian

And this is what to expect from photo products from second and third tier photo companies.
PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ian, just because they have left B&W paper behind does not class them as 2nd tier. Is Ilford 2nd tier because they make no color film or motion picture?

I think that your premise is wrong.

You are right that some photographers are to blame for their results though.

However, I would like you to look at the attached scan of a piece of LF raw stock from a 2nd or 3rd tier company. This is scanned through the silver halide to show uniformity. Yes, that sine wave pattern is real. The film is virtually unusable for that reason except for a very busy scene which might mask some of the defects.

The Newtons Rings in the lower left are an artifact introduced by scanning.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

Ok we'll split hairs Kodak haven't dropped tiers rather their marketing and management have lost the plot, and given up parts of their market to others.

But they have now become no 2 to the far more savvy and better run japanese rival Fuji, who sub contract some B&W manufacture . . . .

Be careful posting about poor manufacture, some US companies are quite bad about the truth of what they are actually importing and selling under their brand names. After all Adox film comes from Ilford, EFKE, FORTE and probably China as well in the US, which can be quite confusing.

A product sold under a brand name in Europe can be quite differently sourced to the same brand named film sold in the US and a recent example was some rebadged but quite poor chinese film, and this may be what you've been looking at.

Ian

 

[juan]

I have found exactly the problem Ron illustrates, and another photographer who lives nearby has, too. Mine was with the most recent batch of PL100 film. Fortunately, most of my photographs are of extremely busy scenes, so the effect is masked, but if I try to shoot something with lots of sky or smooth water, I get that banding. It looks as though I will be looking for another film.
juan

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ian;

Two things.

I know who made the film I scanned in. I know what their coating problems are. I will not give out the name though for obvious reasons. They do make good product, but it varies. Much more so than Kodak, Ilford and Fuji products.

Now, lets take a look at the survey of whos film is most popular. Ilford wins for B&W and I know why. Its good stuff! But, Kodak came in second and Fuji was third. (at least that was the ranking in the poll last I looked about 3 or 4 days ago).

So Ian, I will have to call it a polite disagreement and leave it at that about Kodak. Actually, I prefer Ilford products myself, but then thats another story. One thing though is that it does not make me biased, at least that is my opinion.

PE

 

[MMfoto]

With all due respects, isn't your comparison unfair?

Why would anyone expect Fortepan to compare favorably to Neopan?

There is a reason why some folks are willing to spend more for Neopan - it's because of better quality!

I wasn't really making a comparison, just stating for emphasis the fact that the other low price film I bought from a trusted film manufacturer had no problem. Of course this doesn't have a lot of meaning.

I will say however that in the US I can buy Neopan SS for substantially less than I can Fortepan 100, so a comparison would be more than fair if someone wanted to make one.

 

[uraniumnitrate]

The film is virtually unusable for that reason except for a very busy scene which might mask some of the defects.

The Newtons Rings in the lower left are an artifact introduced by scanning.

PE

Not even there!

 

[Photo Engineer]

I wasn't really making a comparison, just stating for emphasis the fact that the other low price film I bought from a trusted film manufacturer had no problem. Of course this doesn't have a lot of meaning.

I will say however that in the US I can buy Neopan SS for substantially less than I can Fortepan 100, so a comparison would be more than fair if someone wanted to make one.

It goes to the issue of variability. Film coating and paper coating can vary all over the map if you don't control humidity and temperature during coating and making. Some second and third tier companies have poor conditioning of these very important factors and therefore their products vary.

It goes to the issue of chemical purity. If chemicals vary from batch to batch you stand to have different results from these batches.

BTDT.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

Ron while you won't substantiate your posts about films from other manufacturers your comments are totally irrelevant, for all we might know the images could be of a bad days coating at Kodak.

You can't make allegations about other companies unless your prepared to stand fair and square behind the facts.

So come clean tell us the truth.

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ian;

I am not going to hurt the reputation of an otherwise good film company, and I think your comments are unfair in that they accuse me of dishonesty.

In your dreams you could hopefully imagine Kodak having a coating that bad, but it won't happen even on their worst day. Believe me! However, let us assume it was a bad day at Kodak. If that were so, think how bad things will get elsewhere.....

Wherever it came from, it is certainly a defective coating and has been substantiated by posts from others who have seen this defect.

PE

 

[Alex Bishop-Thorpe]

Company allegiances are not really the subject here, though they seem to come up a lot with these sorts of topics. The film can clearly be used to create some great work and has it's believers, but if there is a risk of defects higher than what I'd normally buy from Ilford, any degree higher, I'd prefer to hear about it before I made a decision.

 

[copake_ham]

I wasn't really making a comparison, just stating for emphasis the fact that the other low price film I bought from a trusted film manufacturer had no problem. Of course this doesn't have a lot of meaning.

I will say however that in the US I can buy Neopan SS for substantially less than I can Fortepan 100, so a comparison would be more than fair if someone wanted to make one.

Hi MMfoto,

Thank you for your comments.

Actually, before posting my first comment I double-checked on the B&H website to be sure of my facts. Even here in the US, Neopan is somewhat more expensive than Fortepan (about 80 cents on a 36-exp roll of 135).

To me that is small premium to pay to obtain top-tier film.

And to Ian, Neopan is made by Fujifilm which, last I checked, was a company based in Japan. So why did you bring in the "anti-Kodak" and by extension "anti-USA" thing? This kind of irrelevant OT stuff is really boring.

Sorry to say, but the reality remains that Eastern (a.k.a. now known as Central) European film manufacturers are using aged plants and technologies. Their QC is hopefully improving - but I suggest that 40+ years of "Central Planning" has not left these firms in good condition! Much less instructed their management in how to effectively compete in a globally-based industry.

DISCLAIMER: (a) I do not work for any film manufacturers and never have; and (b) I am not related to nor have any connections with PE but I agree with his views on this topic.

 

[MMfoto]

Hi MMfoto,

Thank you for your comments.

Actually, before posting my first comment I double-checked on the B&H website to be sure of my facts. Even here in the US, Neopan is somewhat more expensive than Fortepan (about 80 cents on a 36-exp roll of 135).

To me that is small premium to pay to obtain top-tier film.

I wonder if you're looking at Neopan 400 prices, as Neopan 100 SS is only $2.09 for a 36 exposure roll of 135 at B&H, the corresponding roll of Fortepan 100 is $3.19, also at B&H. So the Neopan SS is actually $1.10 less per roll at B&H. BTW, SS is available at Freestyle for $1.89.

 

[Paul.]

Ian;

I am not going to hurt the reputation of an otherwise good film company, and I think your comments are unfair in that they accuse me of dishonesty.

In your dreams you could hopefully imagine Kodak having a coating that bad, but it won't happen even on their worst day. Believe me! However, let us assume it was a bad day at Kodak. If that were so, think how bad things will get elsewhere.....

Wherever it came from, it is certainly a defective coating and has been substantiated by posts from others who have seen this defect.

PE

PE sorry mate I do not understend this stance, you have posted a lot of useful information on this forum for which I thank you but this issue has lost me compleatly. You have published on a public forum evidence of a defective film compleate with scans of the defect but you refuse to name the manufactorer. possibly you are afraid of litigation but if that is so why publish your evidence in the first place? It smacks of the Nah Nah I know something you dont but I am not going to tell you because then you will be as wise as me syndrome, which given your proven track record in this place I cannot belive such childishness to be the case. It is however the case that you are prepaired to let fellow APUGers waste time ,effort and money useing potentialy defective material because you are not prepaired to name the maker/ brand, this I find tremendously sad and sorely out of charitor, it was after all you who let the geni out of the bottle. I leave the rest to your concience.
Regards Paul.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Paul;

Sorry you don't agree.

These companies we are discussing all have higher defect rates as seen in posts here and elsewhere. They also make fine products, as seen here and elsewhere. Why attempt to ruin one company or another. That is not my intent. I am sending out an alert. Some people get excellent results from these films. I have a very large print made from an LF negative on that very film and you cannot see the defects due to the type of scene.

And, I'm not the only one to post information on this type of defect. That should be sufficient in itself to satisfy you.

Being a retired Kodak employee also places additional responsibility on my shoulders so therefore I take the conservative route and don't wish to push things.

I think that explanation should be suitable enough.

PE

 

[mongo141]

Paul;

Sorry you don't agree.

These companies we are discussing all have higher defect rates as seen in posts here and elsewhere. They also make fine products, as seen here and elsewhere. Why attempt to ruin one company or another. That is not my intent. I am sending out an alert. Some people get excellent results from these films. I have a very large print made from an LF negative on that very film and you cannot see the defects due to the type of scene.

And, I'm not the only one to post information on this type of defect. That should be sufficient in itself to satisfy you.

Being a retired Kodak employee also places additional responsibility on my shoulders so therefore I take the conservative route and don't wish to push things.

I think that explanation should be suitable enough.



PE

Amen PE!!

 

[Rolleijoe]

I wasn't really making a comparison, just stating for emphasis the fact that the other low price film I bought from a trusted film manufacturer had no problem. Of course this doesn't have a lot of meaning.

I will say however that in the US I can buy Neopan SS for substantially less than I can Fortepan 100, so a comparison would be more than fair if someone wanted to make one.

Fortepan can be found for $1.89 roll MF from Freestyle. I sincerely doubt Neopan SS (which I found to be less favorable than Acros) can be had not only cheaper, but actually anywhere near that price.