More Fomapan 400 120 defects

[Harry Callahan]

No; there you have it - I had longitudinal streaks. That's a VERY significant difference. Overall, the geometry of the defects look totally different if you examine them closely and I'm pretty sure that if you were to measure them, they'd also turn out to be quite different. Moreover, the defects in the film I processed were only in high-density areas; here they also affect dmin, suggesting they are of a very different nature.

...

I said:

...You had streaks, which could be a coating-defect, but you also had cloud-like spots - and loccdors film is full of them. As he has more on his 120 as you had on your 35mm film, pressure can be a reason...

I am talking about the spots here. You even talked yourself about "insular spots", post #42 :

Fomapan 400 coating defects 35mm factory-confectioned

👍 I'm not going to claim to be the most fastidious of darkroom practitioners. I'll often mix powders up just before use and end up with maybe a bit of some undissolved chemical in the developer. I generally filter the developer through stainless-steel mesh but that doesn't mean much. So I...

www.photrio.com

Also the picture of the mountain in the snow has very few shadow areas and is lower resolution. I think i can see some lower-density-spots on the mountain on the right, but i cannot be sure.
Also if these lower-density spots are produced by pressure, these longitudinal streaks could be produced by the light seal of the 35mm-cartridge. 120 film does not have to squeeze through such a gap, which could explain why loccdors film does not show streaks but only spots.

But indeed, on loccdors film dmin also is affected which does counter my theory.

...

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!

...

Yes, it`s not impossible - but i am wondering about two things:

Can these lower-density defects be overcome and

Where do they come from at all.

As loccdors 120 does show similar spots, but a lot more of them than your 35mm film, pressure still is a possible reason for them. And you said yourself that Fomapan 400 has a softer topcoat.

...

I assume a soft topcoat is easier to compress.

...

There is a little sarcasm in this statement... i assume film gelatin is complicated, but the softer a material is the easier it can be compressed usually. Or is softer gelatin harder to compress than harder gelatin?

...

No they would not!

...

If this is a coating-defect lower density spots and streaks would mean fewer emulsion in these areas. Then these areas couldn`t develop proper density because there isn`t enough emulsion and grain to build up proper density.
As i said, on very big lower-density-spots, under high magnification, a recess in the emulsion should be visible.
Ok, unless there is fewer emulsion but more topcoat on this spot. But to even out, fewer emulsion had to be coated and at the same time more topcoat, at the same spot.
Is this possible?

I cannot do all the empirical evidence nor work myself into professional filmcoating. That`s why i came here, to the experts. But as you mistook my theory for pressure-exposure (several times) i kept insisting, as that`s about all i can do.

 

[koraks]

Is this possible?

You keep assuming that a 1um thickness difference would be visible on the film. IDK what to say. Believe what you want to believe; I've spent enough time on it.
Preventing the problem: buy different film.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Ok.

 

[loccdor]

albireo,
I did the same thing you are doing in hopes that some eagle-eyed person from Foma would read what I kept posting about Foma 200 in medium format 120. I kept repeated how I would make this my "go-to" medium speed 120 film if it weren't for the emulsion defects caused by the backing paper. Been doing that for more than a few years now, but no results. Pretty sad since Foma knows of the defects in the 120 version of this film and does nothing. They don't even try to explain why they haven't or can't correct the problem. That's the part that really bothers me the most. I guess we just don't deserve a couple minutes of their time to give us some type of explanation. So, until we hear something from Foma I'll keep pitching the same bitch. When Foma products work, they work splendid, and when they don't...............?

It's one of the cheapest films around. Perhaps they just can't afford to fix it (and know that drawing attention to it by engaging would just be hurting their business). I don't say that it's right, but I can understand it.

 

[John Wiegerink]

It's one of the cheapest films around. Perhaps they just can't afford to fix it (and know that drawing attention to it by engaging would just be hurting their business). I don't say that it's right, but I can understand it.

There has to be a reason for not addressing the problem, but what that reason is only they (Foma) know. I just bought a used Toyo 6X9 roll holder for my 4X5 and will try some Foma 200 in that. I tried Foma 200 in various cameras with no luck. I also tried it in my Calumet 6X7 roll holder for 4X5 with no luck. The Calumet has a tight 180 degree bend to the film, which is probably causing stress cracks in the emulsion. The Toyo roll film back has no bend and is straight feed to the take-up spool. It just might be the answer?

 

[MattKing]

There has to be a reason for not addressing the problem, but what that reason is only they (Foma) know.

It could very well be that due to the nature of the paper and printing options that are available to them, the two options are:
1) put up with the issues as they are; or
2) stop producing the 120 film products.
When Eastman Kodak were recently struggling with the wrapper offset problem, they came very close to option 2, because option 1 was considered totally unacceptable to them.

 

[John Wiegerink]

It could very well be that due to the nature of the paper and printing options that are available to them, the two options are:
1) put up with the issues as they are; or
2) stop producing the 120 film products.
When Eastman Kodak were recently struggling with the wrapper offset problem, they came very close to option 2, because option 1 was considered totally unacceptable to them.

Lucky for us Kodak didn't pick option 2. The problem with Foma 200 doesn't seem to be all a backing paper issue, but more of a "brittle" emulsion type thing. What I noticed when looking at some of the negatives from my faulty Foma 200 120 was it looked like tiny pieces of emulsion flaked or scraped off. It doesn't seem to happen with Foma 200 in 35mm. At least not from the 100' bulk roll I have. That leads me to believe it's a combination of emulsion makeup and backing paper not being compatible. Just a wild guess of course. I just order 4 rolls of Foma 200 120 to see if I can figure away to make it work.

Sorry for veering off the Foma 400 road.

 

[koraks]

There has to be a reason for not addressing the problem, but what that reason is only they (Foma) know.

I'll offer this for consideration from a different thread; @Henning Serger has put forth the same argument a couple of times. I understand it's based on his discussions with representatives of Foma in which he specifically touched upon this topic:

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.

It seems that they simply don't want to fix it as they specifically aim for the lower price segment. Revamping the QA organization (both at an organizational and technical level) would result in cost increases, and that would put them in more immediate competition with e.g. Harman. The net result would be higher competitive pressure and opening up the bottom end of the market for other players to try and capture that bit, where Foma currently has a strong position. So it's not in their strategic interest to do this.

 

[John Wiegerink]

koraks,
I understand what Henning is saying and he has more first hand knowledge than we do. Still, I wonder if it really is a smart thing for Foma to do. I have heard folks on this very forum make comments like, "I won't touch Foma products" after using Foma 200 in 120. Then what about the ones that have read that or heard that. Will they now buy Foma film? That attitude carries over to their "good" products and those sales tax a hit. I would much rather see Foma fix the problem with their Foma 200 in 120. If need be, raise the cost of Foma 200 slightly to recover the cost of the fix. I'd be willing to pay slightly more for Foma 200 120 than Foma 100 or 400, since it is a unique film in their lineup. I realize Foma probably wants to keep their entire lineup of 120 films at the same price point, but at what cost?
I'm retiring from complaining about Foma not fixing the Foma 200 120 problem. They're "big people" and can figure it out for themselves. I think, if these rolls I have coming all have the same common problem, it will be the end of Foma 200 120 for me. I might just give Foma 200 a try in 4X5 and see if it works for me. Damn, there I go again talking about Foma 200 instead of Foma 400 like I'm suppose to.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Preventing the problem: buy different film.

This is why I stick to Fuji Acros 100 II and Kodak TMAX films. I do use Eastman 5222 (in D-96), when I want "that certain look," but it falls under the Kodak umbrella.

 

[John Wiegerink]

This is why I stick to Fuji Acros 100 II and Kodak TMAX films. I do use Eastman 5222 (in D-96), when I want "that certain look," but it falls under the Kodak umbrella.

Yes, Fuji Acros II in 120 has a lot going for it. I like and use it too. I also like Foma 100 in Pyro developers and Xtol-R. I could easily use Foma 100 if it were the only 100 speed (really 50 speed) film out there.

 

[koraks]

Still, I wonder if it really is a smart thing for Foma to do.

I couldn't tell you; all I know is that plenty of people still appear to be using Foma products and despite the fact that these QA issues have been discussed online for at least 20 years or so, they still appear to be in business. So apparently, whatever they're doing is working well enough for them.

 

[albireo]

I couldn't tell you; all I know is that plenty of people still appear to be using Foma products and despite the fact that these QA issues have been discussed online for at least 20 years or so, they still appear to be in business. So apparently, whatever they're doing is working well enough for them.

I don't know about the first 13 years, but in my experience with their products (last 7-8 years or so) the quality of their 120 format film has definitely been going downhill.

There have been years in which I've shot nothing but Foma 100 and 400 and experienced zero problems (as in ZERO, and I'm incredibly anal w.r.t. film defects) with a lot of good quality Foma 200 batches thrown in as well. I was one of those people who jumped in the recurring 'Foma defect' threads with the usual "this is working for me/I've not experienced this problem personally" which was absolutely true.

Well things have definitely taken a turn for the worse because I've now, and for the past year and a half or so, experienced every single one of the defects reported by people here and on other forums. For the record, I only buy fresh stock directly from Foma or more rarely from large online European resellers, and use it within days, weeks or at most months of purchase.

What I'm trying to say I guess is that my personal perception is that quality is going downhill and if really historically their strategy has been one of "keep quiet and carry on, this is good enough for us and for them' they might want to start reviewing it, and fast.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I couldn't tell you; all I know is that plenty of people still appear to be using Foma products and despite the fact that these QA issues have been discussed online for at least 20 years or so, they still appear to be in business. So apparently, whatever they're doing is working well enough for them.

koraks,
I won't argue with you one bit. To be honest some of the defects in Foma roll film have to be enlarged some to make the defects really show up. If you're making 8X10 prints from a 6X9 negative or using just the web for showing at a small scale most folks won't notice them. It's when you start to enlarge or blowup that they become very pronounced.

 

[Tsubasa]

I've never experienced any problems with Foma

 

[albireo]

I've never experienced any problems with Foma

35mm (which your profile suggests you shoot) is mostly problem-free. In fact, Fomapan 200 in 35mm is a flawless, beautiful film in my experience. I keep using truckloads of it.

As far as I understand, LF is also not problematic.

The issues we're discussing are mostly found on their 120 roll film.

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

koraks,
I won't argue with you one bit. To be honest some of the defects in Foma roll film have to be enlarged some to make the defects really show up. If you're making 8X10 prints from a 6X9 negative or using just the web for showing at a small scale most folks won't notice them. It's when you start to enlarge or blowup that they become very pronounced.

They're the analog equivalent of pixel-peepers, in fact Foma's material is perfectly adequate for the average photographer to obtain beautiful photos.
But, hey, complaining about a manufacturer because its products are not 100% perfect seems to be the norm today on the internet
and in doing so (not only limiting themselves to speaking about what is wrong but blaming the manufacturer for not taking the necessary corrective actions) they irreversibly damages the reputation of the manufacturer and this is a very serious thing that should be limited on the forums imho.
Luckily if Foma continues to enjoy excellent sales figures it means that those who complain are an infinite minority, as it was to be demonstrated.
Among other things now the only strong point, the price, for you Americans will no longer be a strong point given that with the new tariffs all European products prices will increase.

 

[Sanug]

Such defects like many users and I encounter since some years with Foma 120 films were absolutely not usual in the past. Even Foma had a strict quality control and I never encountered any issue with the former Fomapan F17, F21 or any other film in the past.

I am not willing to accept any such defects. Foma has a big quality problem. It is not a crime to talk about it in public as this is remaining now since a couple of years. If they have concern about their reputation they should get their quality straight and solve their annoying problems.

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

Such defects like many users and I encounter since some years with Foma 120 films were absolutely not usual in the past. Even Foma had a strict quality control and I never encountered any issue with the former Fomapan F17, F21 or any other film in the past.

I am not willing to accept any such defects. Foma has a big quality problem. It is not a crime to talk about it in public as this is remaining now since a couple of years. If they have concern about their reputation they should get their quality straight and solve their annoying problems.

The fact is that in all probabilities it's a matter that cannot be fixed without impacting in huge costs. Fotokemika closed down for a similar thing in the past.
Foma thinks that, since the problems it causes are so small, isn't worth (and financial)-while to take corrective actions. But this is just pure speculation.
Do you folks have ever asked Foma what's is all about? The causes?
If you aren't satisfied with Foma 120 products then please use something different, complaining in a public forum is not going to make it.

 

[Sanug]

Yes. I sent the defective negatives with a detailed explenation to Foma. I received a replacement (different film with no issues) and a lettre with a non satisfying answer.

I switched to Kentmere films. They have not any issue at all and give very satisfying results. 1 Euro more to pay per roll for a 100% problem free material is a good choice for me.

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

Yes. I sent the defective negatives with a detailed explenation to Foma. I received a replacement (different film with no issues) and a lettre with a non satisfying answer

I switched to Kentmere films. They have not any problem and give very satisfying results. 1 Euro more to pay per roll for a 100% problem free material is a good choice for me.

The two films aren't comparable in terms of photo qualities they offer.
It's more 1,6€ to add, not 1€...
Good for ya.
Could you disclose what's in the letter please?

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

c.v.d.

 

[koraks]

@Alessandro Serrao I will reflect on a few things you've stated from the viewpoint of a moderator, taking into account Photrio forum policies and rules.

But, hey, complaining about a manufacturer because its products are not 100% perfect seems to be the norm today on the internet
and in doing so (not only limiting themselves to speaking about what is wrong but blaming the manufacturer for not taking the necessary corrective actions) they irreversibly damages the reputation of the manufacturer and this is a very serious thing that should be limited on the forums imho.

Reporting and discussing problems with products on forums is in general useful for the following (non-exhaustive) reasons:
* It can help tracking down causes, which is helpful in particular if the problems are within control of the user. They can then take corrective action and fix their problems.
* When people run into problems, they can establish whether the likely cause is within their own control or whether it's an inherent problem with the product.
* It can help people determine which products they want to sample/invest in, depending on their own specific quality requirements.

On Photrio, we may in some cases limit complaining about a manufacturer if the sole purpose appears to be to inflict reputational damage, act on a personal grudge etc. and there's no concrete information being shared on product quality problems, problems with service provision, warranty, responsiveness or any other specific behavior of the company in question.

In the case of the Foma defects, we generally see that information shared is reasonably specific in identifying the general nature of the product quality issues, the product types affected and often also the time period in which the problems were noted. Conversely, we generally do not see what appears to be an intent to somehow inflict reputational damage to the company. Instead, it strikes me that discussions of in particular Foma's QA issues is generally occurring in a context of a fairly nuanced evaluation with people often expressing some degree of understanding/appreciation for the situation, while at the same time also clearly stating their personal preferences.

They're the analog equivalent of pixel-peepers

Now, this is something we really don't want or need on a forum, and something that is in fact expressly in violation with the forum rules. Consider this a warning to cease such behavior on this forum. It does not help anyone to create bad air by casting mass insults around. Stop doing this.

You are as free as anyone else to express your preference for or against a product or a manufacturer. This freedom does not, however, extend to the point where it's misused to attempt to limit others in voicing their views and concerns. With your remarks about what should and should not be said on forums, as well as derogatory comments about 'pixel-peepers', you are venturing in this no-go area.

 

[koraks]

Could you disclose what's in the letter please?

I'm now commenting from a personal/user perspective, not that of a moderator: like @Sanug I have corresponded once with Foma about QA issues on Fomapan 200 in 120 format. I received a reply after some weeks via email. This reply explicitly confirmed that the quality issue I had reported was caused by Foma, not by myself. They did not specify causes or any other detailed information. In my case, I also received replacement film, which was affected by the same QA problems. This is many years ago, but I've since seen the same QA issues on this product pop up from time to time on fresh film, suggesting that whatever cause they have, is not yet resolved. I take this is an indication that whatever cause these problems have, is difficult and/or undesirable for Foma to fix. That's their prerogative, and it's mine to steer clear of this particular product.

I've not reported the 400 product quality issues to the manufacturer. I did contact a retailer once about Fomapan 400 defects, who stated he had no idea about the defect and had never seen it before. The recent 35mm 400 speed problems I've reported on this forum I've also not reported to the manufacturer since I am not the person who purchased the film. I just happened to be the guy processing and digitizing it. Whatever the actual user wants to do with the situation is up to her. I expect she's not going to waste time corresponding with Foma about it.

I've since stopped purchasing these specific products (Fomapan 200 in 120 format and Fomapan 400 in general), but have bought and used to great satisfaction several other Foma products, including Fomapan 200 in sheet film format and of course their excellent printing papers.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Korea's,
I really couldn't have said it better myself.
My rolls of Foma 200 120 are to arrive today. I will load one roll in my "straight run-no bend" roll holder and see what happens. I'm just wondering which developer (XT-3R, ID-11, FX-39II, Rodinal, BT2B or Pyrocat-HD) to use? I don't think developer choice has anything to do with the defects that show up in Foma 200 120, but who knows for sure. My next move will be to try Foma 200 4X5. Did I say I liked Foma 200? YES! Just hate the defects.