Did any of you presoak their Fomapan 400?
Pussy willows?
... on the other hand i just can`t let go.
In another topic koraks had some strange defects with Fomapan 400 and we were guessing around what the cause might be. I started to wonder if the emulsion had been compressed and because of that could not soak developer as fast as the uncompressed part of the emulsion.
The defects were lower density on the negative - just like here. Koraks` Fomapan 400 was 35mm film, showing these defects but not as intense and big as the 120 films here. 120 film is wound (much) tighter onto the spool than 35mm film, reinforcing my theory that these lower-density-defects arise from pressure on the emulsion.
Sanugs pictures, especially the picture of the backing paper basically proof that these lower-density-defects arise from pressure on the emulsion - which is why i still am thinking about presoak.
Presoak does help the emulsion to take up developer better and presoak should help compressed gelatin to expand again.
But i am thinking of a long presoak, like 5 to 10 minutes. Did any of you soak this long or...?
The defects were lower density on the negative - just like here. Koraks` Fomapan 400 was 35mm film, showing these defects but not as intense and big as the 120 films here. 120 film is wound (much) tighter onto the spool than 35mm film, reinforcing my theory that these lower-density-defects arise from pressure on the emulsion.
Now if uncompressed gelatin does need (up to) 5 minutes of presoak to take up developer fastest/best
In another thread someone had done a lot of tests showing that presoak does increase density on the highlights - which does mean that development on highlights did increase, which in turn does indicate that presoak does help the emulsion to take up developer better -
Yes, what I experienced here is definitely backing-paper-specific and not something that can be fixed with prewash. As I recall, when tilting the film around in the light and observing the sheen, it appeared to be on the non-emulsion side.
Interesting how Foma users differ!
I never look for the best 'bang of the buck' and I'm happy to pay big money if what I need to get the look I want costs big money.
I choose Foma because it gives me incredible results - incredible - WHEN I hit a defect-free batch. Nothing comes close, for my taste.
People mention Kentmere. I've been trying hard to replace Fomapan with Kentmere. Sadly Foma film is -for me- far more interesting than Kentmere, which is an honest, serviceable, well-manufactured product, but doesn't have - for me - Foma's magic.
Foma should completely revamp its QC department and pass the markup to the customer, as far as I'm concerned. It it had Harman-level QC I wouldn't buy anything else in 120.
Yes, what I experienced here is definitely backing-paper-specific and not something that can be fixed with prewash. As I recall, when tilting the film around in the light and observing the sheen, it appeared to be on the non-emulsion side.
John, I completely see where you're coming from with your 'hit and miss' comment.I never said Foma films were bad at producing good or even excellent negatives. The problem is that those negatives are far more "hit and miss" with Foma.
And just like in the other thread, I'm going to tell you again that your theory doesn't add up. Pressure marks show up as higher density. You can easily try this with any silver gelatin material. Mar with your fingernail, then develop. If you take any roll of film, noteice how the very edge tends to be black after processing; this is where the film was cut and the pressure of the blade has rendered the silver halides along the very edge developable. It takes a fair bit of force to get silver halides to respond to pressure.
...
...
What's shown here is a backing paper imprint problem that many manufacturers run into from time to time. They're apparently chemical interactions between the ink or constituents of the paper itself, and the problem is helped along with moisture and temperature (as is often the case with chemical processes; they need a carrier for ion exchange and temperature speeds up the rate of reactions). This backing paper problem has nothing to do with the problems I discussed/showed earlier on the 35mm product, other than that probably this particular emulsion is fairly sensitive to anything. It's relatively high speed, of course, and Foma is known for having relatively soft topcoat on their films. I expect these factors play a role as a common contributing factor, although the failure mechanism is different.
...
...
The whole compression thing is irrelevant. And compression/pressure activation has nothing to do with presoak etc.
...
...
You're jumping to conclusions. The difference between presoak and no presoak did indeed translate into a difference in curve shape and density distribution. The conclusion that this is due to a rate of absorption is not a conclusion at this point, but one hypothesis. If memory serves the other thread involved some additional possible mechanisms.
...
...
I'm pointing this out because a lot of the problem with your hypotheses and how you discuss them is that there's a big factor of confirmation bias going on. You think of something and then start to cherry-pick evidence and interpret evidence to bring it in line with your theory. This is very human behavior, but it's also a sure-fire way to get lost in the woods and lose track of what's really going on. Try a more scientific approach and look specifically for falsification of your theories. In doing so, you'll find that there are many counter-arguments, and that ultimately, the theories you put forth here just don't hold any water. But you evade this (unconsciously and in an unintended way) by remaining locked in confirmation bias.
Yes, what I experienced here is definitely backing-paper-specific and not something that can be fixed with prewash. As I recall, when tilting the film around in the light and observing the sheen, it appeared to be on the non-emulsion side.
The low-density-defects here are similar to the low density-defects on your film. You had streaks
But not impossible; we've seen many examples in recent years of Harman and Kodak film that was fresh and within date and affected by backing paper offset problems. It's a common problem!If it was expired stock, a backing paper problem was more likely, but with fresh stock it`s less likely.
There's a lot of assumptions that are needed to make your theory work. Like this one, it's haphazard, random and not based in fact.I assume a soft topcoat is easier to compress.
No they would not!If these low-density-defects were a coating defect they should be visible
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?