Fomapan 400 coating defects 35mm factory-confectioned

[koraks]

Comparisons are like apples. They never quite orange.

 

[Film-Niko]

It is very much the point of MY post. You are confusing an 'economy/budget' product with a 'faulty' product.

No, I am not confusing a 'budget' product with a 'faulty' product.
In film production we have an extremely complex production system. If you want very consistent highest quality output you have to invest not only at the end - quality control after production, and before shipping - but at every single production step right from the start.
Doing that rigorously with no compromises will give you the wanted highest quality, but of course it also add up costs. There is no free lunch.

If you are doing it less rigorously accepting more compromises, you can lower costs significantly. That does not mean that you will have a generally 'faulty' product. It does mean that you generally have a bigger tolerance in certain production parameters. And that sometimes / rarely a certain more visible defect can occur and won't be discovered.

Source for this statement?

Foma.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I hope I don't have this issue with the sheet film I bought recently...

 

[koraks]

I hope I don't have this issue with the sheet film I bought recently...

I've not so far run into any noteworthy issues with Foma's sheet films.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've not so far run into any noteworthy issues with Foma's sheet films.

That's good to hear! I spent enough on this box of 8x10, and any defects will really be upsetting.

 

[Don_ih]

any defects will really be upsetting

Make sure you document and report any defects to Foma. The more people do that, the less lackadaisical they'll be.

 

[Klaus_H]

At the prices that FOMA charges in its own webshop (FOMAPAN 400 135-36 4.85 EUR), it seems unrealistic to me to expect that the film material can keep up with Ilford or Kodak material, which is at least twice as expensive, in terms of performance and quality.
This does not mean that FOMA films always show problems, but you have to live with the fact that problems can occur with the films.
If you can cope with this situation, FOMA offers usable material.
Those who always need and expect ‘perfect’ quality cannot take this risk, or only to a limited extent.
FOMA has its market for its films.
There is also a market for the significantly more expensive films from Ilford and Kodak.
So, everything is fine, we do have a choice.

 

[MattKing]

On the subject of comparisons - nothing is immune from quality issues:

Shared not to particularly disparage Mercedes, but rather to point out that it is more a question of frequency of encountered problems, rather than the existence or non-existence of problems.

 

[Don_ih]

At least no one will die from some emulsion defects in a roll of 35mm film.

 

[albireo]

No, I am not confusing a 'budget' product with a 'faulty' product.
In film production we have an extremely complex production system. If you want very consistent highest quality output you have to invest not only at the end - quality control after production, and before shipping - but at every single production step right from the start.
Doing that rigorously with no compromises will give you the wanted highest quality, but of course it also add up costs. There is no free lunch.

If you are doing it less rigorously accepting more compromises, you can lower costs significantly. That does not mean that you will have a generally 'faulty' product. It does mean that you generally have a bigger tolerance in certain production parameters. And that sometimes / rarely a certain more visible defect can occur and won't be discovered.



Foma.

Niko, I think where we don't align is on the 'acceptable' magnitude and entity of these defects. Notice that I am one of the biggest Foma fans out there. The first film I ever developed was a roll of Foma. I really like their stuff and want them to exist for the next 200..400..600 years.

But the word is quickly spreading, even amongst the beginners and the lowly plebs who constitute, according to your sources, the core customer base of this brand, that something is really not right, and that the impact of these defects is not acceptable.

Even the youtubers are on it - even the big ones e.g.



On Reddit, where the user base includes perhaps more of the 'intended target' of Foma products than on here, threads of complaint or outright puzzlement by users who are trying to get 'educated' in film photography by using Foma are an almost weekly occurrence, here's a couple





I think it's time Foma starts taking these reports seriously, as people are starting to get tired and this perceived complacency might hurt the brand.

There is no free lunch.

Completely free - no. But affordable lunch - oh yes. It's called 'Kentmere'. People are moving to it from Foma in droves. In many countries prices/roll are very, very comparable, and QC on Kentmere film is incredible. I have been using a lot of it. I like it, it's reliable - but it's just not Foma. It's standard stuff, very predictable, wannabe Tri-x or Plus-X. 'Ford Mondeo' kind of film, to go back to the car analogy. Foma makes way more interesting stuff. I have taken some of my favourite pictures on Retropan 320 and Ortho 400, and Foma 400 of course.

So next time you meet 'Foma' please tell 'Foma' that many people want them to act and act fast.

 

[albireo]

At the prices that FOMA charges in its own webshop (FOMAPAN 400 135-36 4.85 EUR), it seems unrealistic to me to expect that the film material can keep up with Ilford or Kodak material

I think it's pretty realistic. 5.99 Euro buys you a roll of Kentmere 400 after all, which is problem free.

I will happily pay 6.50/7 euro for a roll of absolutely problem-free (so Kentmere-level problem-free, a 6 euro product) Fomapan 400 or 200.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Notice that I am one of the biggest Foma fans out there. The first film I ever developed was a roll of Foma. I really like their stuff and want them to exist for the next 200..400..600 years.

Same attitude from me.
I tend to love an underdog, but I won't let my love blind me. I tried to even force myself to love Fomapan R 100 and 200, but R100 just isn't cooperating very nicely and F200 - that I can work with and have for sure. It has its own look and feel that I appreciate. The creeping defects - not so much.

It is what it is - a risky business.

 

[Film-Niko]

Niko, I think where we don't align is on the 'acceptable' magnitude and entity of these defects. Notice that I am one of the biggest Foma fans out there. The first film I ever developed was a roll of Foma. I really like their stuff and want them to exist for the next 200..400..600 years.

We perhaps do align more than you think: Please see my post above, in which I have written that I don't belong to Foma's target market, because I prefer the highest quality films. Despite the superior detail rendition and high enlargement capability one very important reason for my preference is reliability. I cannot afford failing materials in my kind of photography.

But I am probably the wrong person for you to talk to: You say you are a very big Foma fan, using lots of their films for years. So you are in general a loyal customer of Foma.
Therefore the best you can do is to contact Foma directly: Tell them your problems, your fears concerning Foma's future (what you have written above) and give them the hints and links to problems of other photographers you have seen. Foma can only change something to the better if they become aware of the problems and unsatiesfied customers.

 

[Klaus_H]

I will happily pay 6.50/7 euro for a roll of absolutely problem-free (so Kentmere-level problem-free, a 6 euro product) Fomapan 400 or 200.

Kentmere 400 is not HP5 or Delta 400.
There are known to be significant differences between these films.

 

[albireo]

Kentmere 400 is not HP5 or Delta 400.
There are known to be significant differences between these films.

No QC differences.

 

[Don_ih]

Kentmere 400 is not HP5 or Delta 400.

I don't think anyone thinks they are the same. But the quality control, as @albireo says, is just as high.

 

[Harry Callahan]

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.

I was just wondering whether you could see a groove being too small for the naked eye by diffraction. And i think you`re right, there are no modulations in the lead-in and -out...

...but then , i don`t really know why, i took a look at a vinyl record and guess what - there is rainbow-effect on the lead-in!
I couldn`t believe myself, but it`s there! So i started to look at different records from different manufacturers and years - it`s there!
In case it is wear on the lead-in -out, i checked those records having lowest surface noise - but it`s there, also on DMMs. I checked those records i bought new and only played once to transfer to tape - guess what, it`s there!
I checked records having highest wear, it`s there, everywhere!
I checked 33 1/3rpms, 45rpms, i checked some shellacs - here rainbow colors are not as intense, but you still can juuust recognize it on the lead-in - i checked microgroove records not made of vinyl but styrene - it`s there.
The only record not showing rainbow-effect was a 45rpm microgroove made of red vinyl - but it did show no rainbow-colors at all, also not on the modulated grooves. Another red vinyl did show rainbow-effect again, everywhere, but not as obvious as black vinyl - a white vinyl also did show rainbow-effect everywhere, but also not as obvious as black vinyl.
It`s there, for whatever reason.
.....

Apart from this a scratch on the emulsion, or a line due to miss-coating musn`t be "unmodulated". It can vary in depth, which would be the same as a vertical cut - which also should show rainbow-effect - but i don`t own any vertical cuts to check.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Material or grooves themselves?
Will have to recheck for curiosity - have 33.3 modern and pressed in Latvia during Soviet occupation times

 

[Harry Callahan]

Grooves.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

You're right - those grooves make rainbow too when viewed with phone flashlight at a particular angle! Music area just has many very obvious rainbows - tight pattern contribute to very obvious effect.

Soo diffraction can occur even with one line obviously visible to the naked eye!

Groovy!

 

[Lachlan Young]

The other note to add is that Fomapan 400 is generally more expensive in the UK currently than Kentmere 400 - and pretty close to parity in many other markets.

 

[Agulliver]

"what is the secret to Fomapan 400?"

It's pretty simple really. Fomapan 100 and 400 are much more sensitive to the development regimen than Ilford or Kodak B&W films. The Reddit post talks about trying D96, which was formulated for cine films. It isn't particularly recommended for Fomapan. The poster would be better off using D76/ID-11, Microphen or possibly Rondinal though even that is known to be less than optimal for Fomapan 400.

It reminds me a bit of the people who try developing films in outlandish concoctions, using non-standard regimens and then complain that it was the film at fault.

Follow the instructions on the box/website, use a standard B&W print film developer at the temperature specified, for the time specified with the specified agitation and you will get good results.

Fomapan 200 is less finnicky with development than 100 and 400, possibly because it is a more modern emulsion and a combination of traditional and T-grain.

Fomapan 100 and 400 are very much traditional products, not even as modern or with as much R&D as the traditional Ilford films such as FP4 and HP5. Even before one considers QC, they're simply not as tolerant to experimentation or sloppy processing. As for QC, I am told it's better than 15-20 years ago (I only started using foma around a decade ago) but it's almost certainly not as good as Kodak and Ilford. Does that make Foma film bad? Not at all. But you're a little more likely to find a defective film than you are with Ilford or Kodak.

I happen to like Foma films, but part of that is down to the price. Let's be honest here, if all films were a flat price I'd use HP5+ exclusively in 35mm and 120. Additionally, Foma are the only people factory manufacturing 8mm cine film and I can't see anyone else stepping in there - though FPP prices are close if you're inside the USA.

 

[Don_ih]

The poster would be better off using D76/ID-11

I had the best luck using D76 for Foma 400. I tried Instant Mytol and didn't like it (don't recall why). I don't know what "the poster" (i.e., Koraks) used -- was it mentioned anywhere? But I know he wouldn't be "sloppy" with the handling or processing - especially since it's not his film.

 

[Harry Callahan]

You're right - those grooves make rainbow too when viewed with phone flashlight at a particular angle! Music area just has many very obvious rainbows - tight pattern contribute to very obvious effect.

Soo diffraction can occur even with one line obviously visible to the naked eye!

Groovy!

I was surprised myself, i always thought that the rainbow pattern is due to the groove modulations - and therefore only on the music area, but as it also is visible on the lead-in and -out... it must be something else causing it.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Naah, the physical size of the groove alone can and does split the light. That's how butterfly wing colors work too and rainbows on chocolate, for example.
I just assumed that vinyl record groove is too big for that. But not necessarily.