Given a lot of time and/or heat, it can probably saponify them. But typical development conditions aren't very conducive to this. I'd expect to find traces of grease on the emulsion if it would be related to this, but the film is very clean.
Fomapan 400 coating defects 35mm factory-confectioned
-
A
- Thread starter koraks
- Start date
Given a lot of time and/or heat, it can probably saponify them. But typical development conditions aren't very conducive to this. I'd expect to find traces of grease on the emulsion if it would be related to this, but the film is very clean.
Thank you for the answer... just trying to find a reason for this. I cannot remember having seen this before...
Probably most likely. If you look at Shanebrook's book, there is clear information on the complexities of how master roll cores need to be designed to avoid pressure issues - and how (for example) completely unhardened coated materials (e.g. matrix films) needed very specific handling. As you have acknowledged elsewhere, those LLL coating faults posted today are a very clear illustration of what coating defects would look more like.
This should really be In Foma's hands from here.
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="60px" width="250px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)
This requires a tightly packed pattern for diffraction to occur. Single line won't do the trick - no rainbow effect on the runout groove after all. No rainbow on space between tracks. No rainbow at the lead-in. It occurs only where Music is packed tightly. But you clearly can see a thin line/groove going on the surface.
No such groove/line on film.
Last edited:
Yeah, that's a good point. It can take a long time for gelatin to fully harden out; maybe they managed to basically squash this emulsion a little while it was still relatively soft. The factor could be something like excess winding tension as the film spools onto the master roll.
I understand, but that's not really going to go anywhere; as said, they're not my negatives so I'm not in a position to send them to Foma. I did ask my niece if she happened to have kept the box, but she didn't, so I don't have a batch number and I don't even know the exact purchase date.
Does it come with a batch number? On 35mm I'm using a lot of rolls from batch 012515-11 (exp. 2/27, new packaging with green square on blue background) and they've all been perfect.
Sounds plausible to me; I'm aware of 100ft and 400ft cans, but not of intermediate sizes. These are two standard sizes widely used in industry (well, once upon a time).
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2009
- Messages
- 708
- Format
- Multi Format
Yes, of course.
And no, not odd at all. Foma simply knows their most important markets and main customers extremely well. They know what they are doing. And therefore they have surpassed Kodak in sales for BW film.
Foma will disagree with you here again: Because the customer group you have described is a minority. It is not their most important one, especially not for 35mm film, which is the highest volume film product for them.
You should not forget that for BW film especially the educational market is extremely important: Photo courses and workshops in schools and colleges. I remember that Simon Galley (Ilford Photo / Harman) reported here on photrio that almost half of their films sales in the US (their biggest market) was to the educational market. And I got that importance of that market segment confirmed at several Photokina fairs by other sources from the industry as well. For example from Freestyle, who explained that their EDU films (repackaged Foma) sells in several hundred thousands rolls p.a. If you add Foma's sales under their own Foma brand to that, you see that Foma is selling more than a million 35mm films in one single market alone in this extremely price sensitive market segment.
No one is arguing about the fact that good photographers can create amazing results with Foma films. That is not the point of discussion at all.
Even if they move away, it will not significantly hurt Foma. Simply because that customer group may represent somewhat 2-5% of their overall customers.
Foma has one unique selling point: Price.
Period.
No one else can currently offer BW film at such low prices globally. And for the huge majority of customers the quality is good (enough) / sufficient.
Since the fall of the Iron Curtain Foma is very successful with that strategy. From a niche player (in global terms) they developed to the second largest producer of BW photo film, surpassing even Kodak in BW photo film sales.
If they would invest in higher quality technology to come much closer to the quality level of Harman, Kodak, Fuji, they would have to increase their prices significantly. And they would loose their unique selling point, their major advantage to the competion: Their extremely attractive prices.
For the huge majority of Foma users the price-performance ratio of Foma film is excellent and their main reason to buy it. And that there are sometimes quality problems: One part of the customers simply don't realize it. And the other part is of course not happy, but accepting it more or less in return for the very low price level.
You get what you pay for.
I don't belong to their target group. I prefer the highest quality possible. And I know that I belong to a minority in the film market.
But I completely understand the market demand and dynamics. And I highly appreciate that Foma plays a very important role for the film renaissance by offering attractive products to the educational market, budget restricted photographers and low-income markets / countries.
This!
And very much this/agreed. An important player that I don't like to bug about a defect here and there.
It is very much the point of MY post. You are confusing an 'economy/budget' product with a 'faulty' product. The two categories do not, or should not, necessarily overlap. Many people use Foma barely tolerating the inconsistent QC, and would completely abandon Ilford and Kodak if consistency improved
Source for this statement?
Last edited:
So there's no difference between Mercedes and Lada? Both are cars that can get you to places...
For the record: @Film-Niko and @Henning Serger are not the same person. I do understand the confusion given the fact that they both have insights into the film industry that regular consumers like the most of us cannot have. In case your mistake was not an actual mistake: please refrain from such moves. It's not appreciated.
That's a really, really poor analogy, sorry Ivo. A complex mechanical machine vs a type of consumable. What about instead Faber-Castell vs Crayola?
Sorry for the confusion - I didn't look at the name posting this and got misled by the same syle of 'I said it, therefore it's absolutely true' which I have no interest in or patience for. I will amend the post
Last edited:
Apologies. See my post 68. I confused you with someone else. Post now amended.
No. A car vs a car. Just as film Vs a film. Or your crayon brand Vs another crayon brand. All examples given speak of the same Vs.
Sooo - can i spend Lada money and have Mercedes quality, run and looks?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2009
- Messages
- 708
- Format
- Multi Format
I meant the 'car Vs film" analogy. It doesn't work.
Can you stop using Faber Castell and switch to Crayola instead to draw your graphite masterpieces?
My opinion is that if you're a real artist (as I think you are) and not a gear obsessed amateur, and the Crayola graphite crayon has decent QCyou can, absolutely - even if the Crayola costs way less than the Faber Castell.
Last edited:
In real life - I can hope that Lada will bring me to Spain, but more often than not - it'll give me problems along the 3000km way and the ride quality + peace of mind will be on 2 different planets altogether.
So I better choose a tool fit for the job.
Foma is the Lada and good ride quality and peace of mind = Ilford, Kodak... Like it or not, pricing tends to reflect quality.
So I better choose a tool fit for the job.
Foma is the Lada and good ride quality and peace of mind = Ilford, Kodak... Like it or not, pricing tends to reflect quality.