Fomapan Creative 200 120 Black dots and...streaks

[Tom Kershaw]

Just wondering as I just had a realisation. Have people had QC issues with Fuji? I've had them with Kodak, Foma & Ilford over the years. Not Fuji.

I've never had a quality control issue with Fujifilm.

 

[Henning Serger]

Just wondering as I just had a realisation. Have people had QC issues with Fuji? I've had them with Kodak, Foma & Ilford over the years. Not Fuji.

No, I have never had any QC issues with Fuji in about 40 years.

Because of my market research work in the photo industry, which is one part of my prof. business, I have also very good contacts to big photo distributors, and their experiences and data with customer complaints about QC issues:
By far the lowest complaint rate has Fujifilm. It is almost Zero. They have the best production quality and quality control in the business.
Behind Fuji is Kodak, Ilford, Agfa-Gevaert, ADOX.
And then, at the lower end with the most customer complaints, is Foma. That is not surprising at all, as the extremely low Foma prices are only possible because of certain compromises in quality. You get what you pay for. Period.
To expect the same quality with Foma (on the Foma price level) as with the other big players is unrealistic. It is not possible, neither technologically nor economically.
I know that Foma seriously considered improving the production quality. But they realized that this would increase the costs significantly and would take away their biggest competitive advantage in the market: price.
Therefore they didn't change their strategy, protecting their most important selling point.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Auer]

No, I have never had any QC issues with Fuji in about 40 years.

Because of my market research work in the photo industry, which is one part of my prof. business, I have also very good contacts to big photo distributors, and their experiences and data with customer complaints about QC issues:
By far the lowest complaint rate has Fujifilm. It is almost Zero. They have the best production quality and quality control in the business.
Behind Fuji is Kodak, Ilford, Agfa-Gevaert, ADOX.
And then, at the lower end with the most customer complaints, is Foma. That is not surprising at all, as the extremely low Foma prices are only possible because of certain compromises in quality. You get what you pay for. Period.
To expect the same quality with Foma (on the Foma price level) as with the other big players is unrealistic. It is not possible, neither technologically nor economically.
I know that Foma seriously considered improving the production quality. But they realized that this would increase the costs significantly and would take away their biggest competitive advantage in the market: price.
Therefore they didn't change their strategy, protecting their most important selling point.

Best regards,
Henning

Foma 400 and HP5+ have a 1$ price difference. I dont think Foma is "Extremly low priced".

Compared to Fuji's only 120 B&W offering it is, but at $12 a roll some might call it a bit overpriced.

 

[Henning Serger]

Foma 400 and HP5+ have a 1$ price difference. I dont think Foma is "Extremly low priced".

Well, I have referred to the European market. For example prices at Europe's biggest specialist film distributor (FOTOIMPEX) are
- only 4.15€ for Fomapan 400 (single 135 roll; 3.75€ per roll for a 10pack)
but
- 6.77€ for HP5+ (single 135 roll; 6.49€ per roll for a 10pack).
That is a price difference of more than 2.50€ per roll.

And Fomapan 100 vs. FP4+: 3.89€ vs. 6.49€.
Also a price difference of more than 2.50€ per 135 roll.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[R.Gould]

At one of the main film suppliers in the UK, and the UK importers of Foma products, HP5 120 £3 79 for HP5+ 120, fomapan 400 120 £3.74, just 5 pence difference between the 2 films, I would not rate fomapan ultra cheap at that difference, some suppliers over here do sell it cheaper as a loss leader, but from the main importers of Foma, similer price difference from many other sellers

 

[Jonno85uk]

At one of the main film suppliers in the UK, and the UK importers of Foma products, HP5 120 £3 79 for HP5+ 120, fomapan 400 120 £3.74, just 5 pence difference between the 2 films, I would not rate fomapan ultra cheap at that difference, some suppliers over here do sell it cheaper as a loss leader, but from the main importers of Foma, similer price difference from many other sellers

Which one is that? The main one I know of has them listed at 4.92 and 4.49 respectively.

 

[R.Gould]

Process Supplies I have bought my film from them for mamy years, and I believe Martin Reed, the founder of Silkverprint, works with them and they are the importers of Foma films chemicals and paper I am also giving the price without VAT as where I am, Jersey in the Channel Islands, Not part of the UK, as many people wrongly think, but a self governing country, we do not have VAT, and anything from the UK is classed as Export and is sent 0 rated for VAT, so add vat, with VAT 120 is £4.49 and 35mm 36 exposures £4.00

 

[Jonno85uk]

@R.Gould thanks. I was looking at silverprint.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

As someone who has very little experience of Fomapan film, I find it curious that some describe very or at least reasonably reliable production quality, yet others seem to experience frequent issues, to the extent that one might not use the film except for experimental purposes.

 

[37th Exposure]

No, I have never had any QC issues with Fuji in about 40 years.

Because of my market research work in the photo industry, which is one part of my prof. business, I have also very good contacts to big photo distributors, and their experiences and data with customer complaints about QC issues:
By far the lowest complaint rate has Fujifilm. It is almost Zero. They have the best production quality and quality control in the business.
Behind Fuji is Kodak, Ilford, Agfa-Gevaert, ADOX.
And then, at the lower end with the most customer complaints, is Foma. That is not surprising at all, as the extremely low Foma prices are only possible because of certain compromises in quality. You get what you pay for. Period.
To expect the same quality with Foma (on the Foma price level) as with the other big players is unrealistic. It is not possible, neither technologically nor economically.
I know that Foma seriously considered improving the production quality. But they realized that this would increase the costs significantly and would take away their biggest competitive advantage in the market: price.
Therefore they didn't change their strategy, protecting their most important selling point.

Best regards,
Henning

Great! Now would be nice if Fuji actually made any film products.....

 

[Dusty Negative]

As someone who has very little experience of Fomapan film, I find it curious that some describe very or at least reasonably reliable production quality, yet others seem to experience frequent issues, to the extent that one might not use the film except for experimental purposes.

I’m still relatively new to this film habit. Maybe four years, very part time. But in that span I’ve experienced wrapper offset and/or mottling in 120 format from the following films:

Kodak Tri-X
Ilford FP4
Rollei Retro 80s
Ilford SFX 200

Some of the mottling may have been from poor handling on my part (proceeding too quickly from fridge to camera) but as time goes on I am doubting this more and more as I no longer store 120 in the fridge but have nonetheless still periodically experienced it (most recently with the FP4). My opinion? It’s a non-brand specific problem with 120 backing paper. Period.

Yet, you will see seasoned pros here with decades of experience who have never, ever had this problem.

So....as modern British philosopher Rod Stewart posited,

“Some guys have all the luck.
Some guys have all the pain.
Some guys get all the breaks.
Some guys do nothing but complain.”

 

[koraks]

This can be partially explained by film format. Fomapan in 35mm is decent, it's mainly their 120 film that keeps getting hit. White dots, black streaks, etc.

This is it, really. You have to distinguish between film sizes (=different bases and packaging, and hence different production parameters at the front end and the back end) and different failure modes/types of defects. There's quite a bit of nuance to the story. In the end of course perfect film requires a perfect production process, and that means tiptoeing throughout the entire chain. Not everyone can do it, or is prepared to do it.

 

[Henning Serger]

Great! Now would be nice if Fuji actually made any film products.....

If you consider all photo films (including instant film) than Fujifilm is even the biggest photo film producer worldwide with the highest yearly production volume in units.
If you exclude instant film, and looking only at 135, 120 and sheet photo film formats, then Fujifilm is the second biggest producer behind Eastman Kodak. And Fujifilm is producing much more film than all the remaining others Ilford, Foma, Polaroid, Agfa-Gevaert, ADOX, InovisCoat, FilmoTec, Film Ferrania, Tasma, Slavich/Micron, Washi, Lucky and Shanghai combined.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

. My opinion? It’s a non-brand specific problem with 120 backing paper. Period.

No, it has brand specific aspects as those film manufacturers who offer 120 film are using quite different base products and technologies. The differences in 120 film converting among Kodak, Fujifilm, Ilford, Foma, Shanghai are significant.
And as a consequence for example the technical reasons for some effects that have occured with Ilford films (very small amount of batches) are different to the technical problems of some Foma batches.
People like simple answers. But 120 film is a very complex product, manufactured differently by the producers, and with different reasons for possible problems.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Dusty Negative]

No, it has brand specific aspects as those film manufacturers who offer 120 film are using quite different base products and technologies.

Does that include the backing paper? I could see contracting that out for cost-cutting. Just a thought.

 

[Henning Serger]

Does that include the backing paper? I could see contracting that out for cost-cutting. Just a thought.

Yes, that includes the backing paper. If you look at the Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, Foma and Shanghai backing paper (including the coating of the paper, the visibility of the numbers etc.) you will immediately see that they are all different.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Dusty Negative]

People like simple answers.

Everyone likes simple answers, as long as they’re illustrative.

 

[37th Exposure]

If you consider all photo films (including instant film) than Fujifilm is even the biggest photo film producer worldwide with the highest yearly production volume in units.
If you exclude instant film, and looking only at 135, 120 and sheet photo film formats, then Fujifilm is the second biggest producer behind Eastman Kodak. And Fujifilm is producing much more film than all the remaining others Ilford, Foma, Polaroid, Agfa-Gevaert, ADOX, InovisCoat, FilmoTec, Film Ferrania, Tasma, Slavich/Micron, Washi, Lucky and Shanghai combined.

Best regards,
Henning

So where can I buy this film? The only Fuji black and white film in the USA is AcrosII and even that is really made by Harman. And paper and chemicals have never been available here if black and white is your thing. And Fuji keeps cutting it's color film lines, in the US market anyway.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

So where can I buy this film? The only Fuji black and white film in the USA is AcrosII and even that is really made by Harman. And paper and chemicals have never been available here if black and white is your thing. And Fuji keeps cutting it's color film lines, in the US market anyway.

Fujifilm has the largest range of chrome film on the market and also produces a huge amount of consumer colour negative film.

 

[Auer]

Fuji has one B&W 120 offering, and no C-41 120 offerings.

So unless youre in to E-6, not much there really.

 

[paolod]

I had a streaking issue with Fomapan 200 respooled onto a 620 spool and shot in a Kodak Tourist, developed in Xtol. It's not this bad on all of the frames. I'm guessing that maybe it doesn't hold up well to the respooling process? I might have pulled on the film while winding it causing it to rub against itself so this may be my fault. I have never seen this with respooled FP4 or HP5 in the Tourist.

 

[Auer]

I had a streaking issue with Fomapan 200 respooled onto a 620 spool and shot in a Kodak Tourist, developed in Xtol. It's not this bad on all of the frames. I'm guessing that maybe it doesn't hold up well to the respooling process? I might have pulled on the film while winding it causing it to rub against itself so this may be my fault. I have never seen this with respooled FP4 or HP5 in the Tourist.
View attachment 270521

I feel the 200 gets hurt if you look at it the wrong way.
I mean, Foma admits its a soft emulsion.
I have some drying overnight that I shot in a Pentax 645N, curious to see if it survived that film transport system.

 

[paolod]

I feel the 200 gets hurt if you look at it the wrong way.
I mean, Foma admits its a soft emulsion.
I have some drying overnight that I shot in a Pentax 645N, curious to see if it survived that film transport system.

I shot the other roll in a Mamiya C330. Could not find any of these streaks anywhere on that roll. The only odd thing in that roll was a small area full of tiny white dots on the negative on the first frame:

 

[Auer]

No issues with the Pentax 645N
Pentax 645N | SMC Pentax-FA 645 45-85mm ƒ4.5 | Fomapan 200 | Kodak D76 1:1 | CS F96
68F | 7 min cont agit dev | 2 min stop (water) | 2 min fix

 

[marcmarc]

This can be partially explained by film format. Fomapan in 35mm is decent, it's mainly their 120 film that keeps getting hit. White dots, black streaks, etc. The films seem to be manufactured differently: their 35mm films do not have that nasty green/blue AHU layer which seems to be causing problems in medium format.

Good point. I've never used Foma in 135 that I can recall, only in 120 and a local friend of mine has had defective sheet film under the Arista.Edu (Freestyle) label. I'm pretty stocked up for 135 now but perhaps I'll give a few rolls of the Foma a try. As far as I know the same machine does the coating for all sizes and so the discrepancies in the 120 and sheet sizes comes after the coating when the film is cut to size and packaged. Strange...