Fomapan 400 coating defects 35mm factory-confectioned

[Ivo Stunga]

"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.

Then again - one can reverse it, torture it in permanganate bleach and have nice slides when planets, moons and galaxies align.

What's the secret of Foma films?
They're quite nice if not overshadowed by random defects. I like F200 the most, especially if exposed at EI125 and projected.
F100 works reversed too, has retro vibes.

No reddit needed to confirm or deny that.

 

[baachitraka]

They are indeed very good films, albeit builds contrast a bit faster than others. F400 is nice and like that grain.

 

[koraks]

I don't know what "the poster" (i.e., Koraks) used -- was it mentioned anywhere?

Pyrocat HD, which I've used for years, for a variety of films, including all Foma films I've used, which have all responded totally normally to this developer.
There's nothing special about Fomapan films that would make them somehow respond particularly badly or develop defects if developed in the 'wrong' developer.

 

[Klaus_H]

No QC differences.

The necessary technology for comprehensive quality control of film material was already available at ILFORD when Kentmere film did not yet exist. Whether this technology could be purchased and operated today with films in the Kentmere price league alone seems questionable to me.

 

[koraks]

Fomapan 400, 35mm, Pyrocat HD, shot & processed in Feb 2018.

Totally fiiiiiine - of course, because there's absolutely nothing about these films that somehow makes them do weird things if you use something else than D76.

 

[Don_ih]

there's absolutely nothing about these films that somehow makes them do weird things if you use something else than D76

I didn't think there was. I only said, of the developers I tried, I got best results from D76.

 

[koraks]

And here's the reason why back around that time (2018) I stopped shooting this film in 35mm format:

A few months later; same film but a different section from the same bulk roll, different camera, different developer:

After that I personally have continued to shoot different Fomapan films in various formats; I've just avoided 35mm Foma 400 as well as 120 Foma 200.

There's of course something that makes Fomapan 400 a very attractive product: the combination of its price and its emphasis on red sensitivity. The latter makes for a distinctly dreamy (sometimes, eery) rendition of skin tones:

This can be very effective for portraits.

 

[Don_ih]

And I assume you confirmed those lines were actually on the film? And on the film prior to exposure?

 

[koraks]

And I assume you confirmed those lines were actually on the film?

Yes.

And on the film prior to exposure?

They're only minus density without any other evident anomalies. They're not visible as a physical defect other than that they're reduced density. Just like the defects discussed earlier in this thread in that sense - density anomaly, no physical anomalies to the emulsion.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Hmmm, just looked up spec sheets and I should try F200 and 400 with 715nm filter!

 

[Agulliver]

The first time I shot Fomapan 400, back in 2016, I decided not to do so again for some years. I shot the 35mm version with quite a soft Tamron lens from the early 70s...and the resulting images, especially those shot outside, were very soft and too "dreamy" for what I was photographing (buildings/architecture in Malta mostly).

A few years later I tried it again because I wanted to see if it was viable for pushing a couple of stops, this time with a much sharper lens. And guess what? It's not bad. It performs it's purpose and can actually be pushed to 1600 though the contrast build up is quite significantly greater than anything I've used from Ilford or Kodak. Even at box speed with a sharper lens, the film was fine in 35mm. IN 120 the grain structure is no problem at all.

I haven't had any with coating defects, but going back to the first posts it does look like the film presented in this thread suffered from them.

I stand by F100 and F400 being quite sensitive to developer and development technique. Lots of people out there in the wider world have had issues trying things like Rodinal and D96. I'm in no way saying D76 is the only option, and Pyrocat may well be just as good...but when people take a film which is well known to be finnicky with development and process it in something a little unusual....it may not be wisest to blame the film...

 

[Agulliver]

Hmmm, just looked up spec sheets and I should try F200 and 400 with 715nm filter!

I've used F400 with a 720nm filter and got really very pleasing IR photos. Not as good as a dedicated IR film, but for experimenting it's a really cost effective way. Cheap filter off eBay, cheap film...off you go.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

I've tested R100 at winter as a proof of concept. Works indeed - so should F200 and F400 a little given the sensitivity graph.

F200 should be best Foma film for NIR photography as the curve is behind 700nm line the most: https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-200
Good - it's the best Foma film IMHO.

 

[koraks]

I stand by F100 and F400 being quite sensitive to developer and development technique. Lots of people out there in the wider world have had issues

What kind of issues are we talking about, specifically? Can you provide some with similar evidence as I've presented here in this thread, and a somewhat systematic review of the contributing factors to whatever behavior you've seen or read about?

As to sensitivity to development: F200 is the most temperamental of the bunch IME, followed by 100 and then 400. But this is in terms of gamma/contrast vs. development time/temperature/agitation, which is how basically all silver halide emulsions respond. Other than that I've never noticed anything weird or fundamentally different behavior from any B&W silver halide film or paper. One is a little faster, one is a little slower, one has a bit more of a toe and shoulder, the other is a bit more straight, but that's the normal bandwidth that silver halide emulsions move in and Foma's products are no different. It's not like it's got UFO's flying out if you process it in Henry McTickfoot's Pyro-Schmyro Magick Soupe or whatever you want to throw at it.

a film which is well known to be finnicky with development

According to what authority, and again, 'finnicky' in what sense?

I've processed Foma films in pretty much whatever I could cook up and I never saw anything peculiar about the films. Completely normal response, apart from the occasional (rare!) manufacturing/QA issue, which never managed to correlate to any process or equipment factor on my end.

 

[Film-Niko]

What kind of issues are we talking about, specifically? Can you provide some with similar evidence as I've presented here in this thread, and a somewhat systematic review of the contributing factors to whatever behavior you've seen or read about?

As to sensitivity to development: F200 is the most temperamental of the bunch IME, followed by 100 and then 400. But this is in terms of gamma/contrast vs. development time/temperature/agitation, which is how basically all silver halide emulsions respond. Other than that I've never noticed anything weird or fundamentally different behavior from any B&W silver halide film or paper. One is a little faster, one is a little slower, one has a bit more of a toe and shoulder, the other is a bit more straight, but that's the normal bandwidth that silver halide emulsions move in and Foma's products are no different. It's not like it's got UFO's flying out if you process it in Henry McTickfoot's Pyro-Schmyro Magick Soupe or whatever you want to throw at it.


According to what authority, and again, 'finnicky' in what sense?

I've processed Foma films in pretty much whatever I could cook up and I never saw anything peculiar about the films. Completely normal response, apart from the occasional (rare!) manufacturing/QA issue, which never managed to correlate to any process or equipment factor on my end.

We are probably running again here into the big general problem of BW developing:
Experienced photographers who know about HD-curves / characteristic curves, and who use a densitometer to test their BW film-developer combinations, will most probably agree with you.
Because their tests and the generated characteristic curves show them every single detail about their film developer combination they want to know: Real film speed, tonality, contrast behaviour, shadow and highlight detail.

But this experienced group of photographers is probably only 0.5-1% of all BW film shooters.
And the rest will continue to struggle to master their BW film developer combinations, blaming either the film or the developer if the results are not satisfying.
Not understanding that with the correct combination of exposure, development time, agitation rhythm and developer dilution you can get very good results with almost all BW films (with some exceptions for speciality films).

From my own experience I have to say that learning how to test BW film developer combinations, using a densitometer (I can highly recommend the Heiland TRD-2) and generating the specific characteristic curves (HD-curves) was the biggest and most important advancement in my BW photography.
And it has also saved me so much money!

 

[koraks]

For the curious among you, here's the stripe artefact I encountered in 2018 in close-up (6300dpi Flextight scan):

Yes, it's very slightly wavy, and irregularly so, with a delta of something like 85um.
Here, on a different frame in a higher-density area:

Of course, like any rational empiricist, I initially concluded that there was a process problem on my end when I first saw that stripe. Until it occurred in other rolls in the exact same place, despite there being months between shooting the different lengths of film and all other parameters being different (camera, developer, tank, agitation etc.)

Here's the artefact @6300 dpi on a later roll, again in a dense area:

Note that the difference in developer (510 pyro in the one above; pyrocat HD in the earlier 2 snippets) and development time makes a real difference in how the grain renders etc. - but the defect is really the same.

Experienced photographers who know about HD-curves / characteristic curves, and who use a densitometer to test their BW film-developer combinations, will most probably agree with you.

Well, yes, in general I agree, although I don't think one needs to do densitometry or sensitometry to figure out how to use any given film. Besides, there's the leeway that VC paper and scanning give in accommodating less-than-optimal results.
My questions to @Agulliver in the context of this thread and apparent manufacturing defects is whether the 'finnicky' character, 'issues' and 'sensitivity' have anything whatsoever to do with the kind of defects we're discussing here. I don't see how that would work, honestly.

 

[Don_ih]

According to what authority, and again, 'finnicky' in what sense?

I'm fairly certain that the "authority" would be anecdotal evidence - which is something someone who used it reported online somewhere (like here) - much like this thread is anecdotal. But more like accumulated anecdotal evidence.

 

[BrianShaw]

I don’t see how the bent spoon trick works either. What kind of metal should the spoon be made out of to do that?

EDIT: Sorry, this looks out of place. Related to a comment made by @Harry Callahan days ago, which I just read without realizing how elderly the comment was. But Im still curious…

 

[Don_ih]

Gee, Brian - I had to look for it

There are spoons you can bend like mad, but if you put them into a cup of hot coffee, they will spring back to ordinary spoon-form.

because I was wondering "How did Uri Geller get in this discussion?"

 

[koraks]

"How did Uri Geller get in this discussion?"

LOL

 

[john_s]

......

But this experienced group of photographers is probably only 0.5-1% of all BW film shooters.
And the rest will continue to struggle to master their BW film developer combinations, blaming either the film or the developer if the results are not satisfying.
Not understanding that with the correct combination of exposure, development time, agitation rhythm and developer dilution you can get very good results with almost all BW films (with some exceptions for speciality films).
.........................

Without a densitometer but with some guidance (freely available here) about contrast and shadow detail it's not such a struggle to nail basic film development to a pretty good level. Of course with further experimentation and measurement it can be refined for the optimum results in difficult lighting situations etc. Probably the biggest impediment is constantly trying new films, new developers et al.

 

[Don_ih]

The vast majority of film users never touched a densitometer - that includes the vast majority of those that develop their own film. You can figure out fairly quickly how crappy your exposure and development are when you start making prints.

Probably the biggest impediment is constantly trying new films, new developers

Definitely. The more you screw around, the less reliable your results will be. It can be very difficult to keep track of all those things and maintain a decently controlled way of working with the chemicals. But dabbling is exactly what a lot of people want to do - especially people who never move beyond 35mm. And what better way to dress up the banal images than by being able to say "Oh, I used Pyromaniac 666b to develop this and fixed it in elephant urine!"

 

[Harry Callahan]

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.

I see. This also should explain why the rainbow-effect also is in shellacs but not as intense as on microgrooves.
Didn`t knew about the chocolate, looks great!

I don’t see how the bent spoon trick works either. What kind of metal should the spoon be made out of to do that?

EDIT: Sorry, this looks out of place. Related to a comment made by @Harry Callahan days ago, which I just read without realizing how elderly the comment was. But Im still curious…

I've found it, that`s how it works:

Shape-memory alloy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Prest_400]

I encountered the pesky AH magenta dots in 120 Foma 100 and 400, for film purchased Summer 2024. I'd have to try the Ethanol wash but I am procastinating just to source it. First time I saw the AH dotting I was quite surprised, but seeing it also extended to the unexposed rebate and found an old thread with users reporting it as well as the Foma suggestion. Now as those batches have hit the market and been used, people are reporting it publicly.

Foma 100 is a beautiful classic and very well priced film. My Foma use is mostly around summer, when there is more light and am more out for photo opportunities. In 120 I have had some emulsion pinholes and comets in very few frames; it is a bit irritating when one happens just over the face in a portrait.

As happy go merry film, I've switched to Kentmere 400 in 120 which has the bonus of extra speed.

About emulsion damage and particular developers, ADOX warns to not use tanning/staining developers with CHS100II because it can react and damage the emulsion.

 

[Film-Niko]

Without a densitometer but with some guidance (freely available here) about contrast and shadow detail it's not such a struggle to nail basic film development to a pretty good level.

There are good alternative methods based on greyscale stepwedges and / or a standardised / unchanged (very important!) test object / test scene with a defined lighting and contrast scale, which has the whole range from deep black to brillant white.
But:
No one here is doing these alternatives, at least not in a proper, reliable way. Instead a lot of unsystematic "guesswork".
So much time, nerves and money could be saved if BW film photographers would use one of the systematic approaches. Using a densitometer is only one of them, but definitely that with the most precise results and the minimal time (and cost) effort.