More Fomapan 400 120 defects
-
A
- Thread starter loccdor
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Schneider Lupe 4X MC
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Horseman Compact Loupe 7X
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Nikon 4X Pro Loupe
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Rolleiflex 3.5F (type 2) - A Magicflex camera.
- Started by Alex Varas
-
For Sale Super Ikonta 531/2 (Post-war)
- Started by Alex Varas
Forum statistics
I will avoid Foma 120 film. Too many defects. I had some issues with 2 parallel lines caused probably by a tranportation roll in the production on each Fomapan 400. It was even visible on the backing paper.
Did any of you presoak their Fomapan 400?
Pussy willows?
Yes, I presoaked sometimes to remove the green anti halation layer. It changes nothing concerning the defects.
It might be pussy willow, or another type of willow tree.
Yes, I presoak with 5-10 agitated washes when I do 120, to ensure there is nothing to cause bubbles in the development. Because I find photoflo hard to completely get off the tank and reels.
For 120 this year, I think I will stick to Kentmere and Tri-X. So far I've never been disappointed with them.
For 120 this year, I think I will stick to Kentmere and Tri-X. So far I've never been disappointed with them.
Thank you both for the answers... then my idea won't work.
... 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...?
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...?
I wouldn't say a presoak makes the film take up developer better. I will say it "probably" helps it take or soak up developer more evenly. I have never run a presoak longer than 5 min and never saw the need to go longer than 5 min.
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 -
and the tests did show a difference between one minute or five minutes of presoak. I think five minutes were the threshold upon which no additional difference did occur.
Now if uncompressed gelatin does need (up to) 5 minutes of presoak to take up developer fastest/best, compressed gelatin should need more time; which is why i am wondering about very long presoak times - probably no-one has tested so far.
and the tests did show a difference between one minute or five minutes of presoak. I think five minutes were the threshold upon which no additional difference did occur.
Now if uncompressed gelatin does need (up to) 5 minutes of presoak to take up developer fastest/best, compressed gelatin should need more time; which is why i am wondering about very long presoak times - probably no-one has tested so far.
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.
I agree with you 100%! I'm a tight Hollander and will always look for the "best bang for the buck" when it comes to almost anything. The only problem with film is it doesn't always tell you if you've made a good or bad purchase until you've developed it. By that time, it's too late. I've found Foma 35mm seems okay, sheet film isn't too bad either, but I'll only use their 120 roll film for testing and horsing around. That said, I have had a couple of rolls of lford roll film with issues, but that could have been from being in my camera a little longer than they should have. Never had an issue with Kentmere 100 or 400 yet.
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. If it had Harman-level QC I wouldn't buy anything else in 120.
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. If it had Harman-level QC I wouldn't buy anything else in 120.
Last edited:
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. I really like Foma 100 and 200 in 120 roll film, but just can't rely on them for serious work. If I travel a long distance to get a series of shots I can't get anywhere else, I will not be using Foma roll film. Not that it isn't capable, but because it isn't reliable. Also, I like the "best bang for the buck", I'm also willing to spend more for better quality. But if I don't see any difference between a more expensive product and a cheaper one..............well, I guess you know which one I'll go for.
Love foma very rarely if ever have any QC problems. Alberio..right on the money!
I do old processes and when it hits it sings!
I do old processes and when it hits it sings!
MattKing
Moderator
Non-emulsion side problems are quite unusual, when it comes to backing paper issues.
It is nice to see some variety though
John, I completely see where you're coming from with your 'hit and miss' comment.
I just keep posting what I posted and droning on in just about every Foma thread on here in the hope that someone, anyone, at Foma perhaps sees this, and realises that some people use their stuff not because it's cheap, but because...it's f..ing good, when it works! And it would be nice if they got their act together and escalated these complaints to management to review their QC pipeline.
Isn't there someone from the Czech Republic on here? Could someone pass on some of these comments? There is a committed user base out there which is eager to support your products. There must be a way to provide some feedback as a community.
EDIT - alternatively if there's a Czech film photography community/forum where Foma reps post updates on QC improvements and roadmaps, I'd love to know.
Last edited:
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...............?
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...............?
In the other thread i said that i am aware of pressure-exposure, but that i am not considering this here pressure-exposure - as this here is the opposite of pressure-exposure.
As you say it takes a fair bit of pressure to create pressure-exposure, i am thinking of fewer pressure not creating exposure but compressing the gelatin.
The low-density-defects here are similar to the low density-defects on your film. 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. Also he does call his 120 film fresh. If it was expired stock, a backing paper problem was more likely, but with fresh stock it`s less likely.
I assume a soft topcoat is easier to compress.
I never have been nor am talking about pressure-exposure.
The tests did show that density on highlights do increase with pre-soak. To get higher density you need more (fresh) developer. If pre-soak does increase developer-take-up of the emulsion, it won`t affect shadows or mid-tones as these don`t need that much developer. But highlights do need most developer so if diffusion into the emulsion is reduced, highlights will develop fewer density.
At least it looks like pre-soak does increase developer diffusion into the gelatin.
I am aware how my reasoning may occur to you, but i am sticking to my theory because it would explain everything. You had a look at your 35mm film and you could not see any irregularities on the emulsion. If these low-density-defects were a coating defect they should be visible (under strong magnification, the most intense defects etc.), but apparently they are not.
If my theory was correct, it would explain this.
And there is this:
The backing paper apparently did damage the back on the film, but there are lower-density-defects on/in the emulsion.
My theory also would explain this.
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.
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!
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.
No they would not!
Look, I understand that you like your theory because it explains everything. But the way I see it, a theory also needs to match with empirical evidence and be resilient to falsification in order to have any merit. It doesn't have the latter two properties. As long as you only selectively include evidence, misinterpret evidence to align with your theory and do not specifically attempt to falsify your theory, it may still look fine - but in reality, it isn't. It's a bit like building a car out of sheets of copier paper; it may look real, until you try and drive it. Take your theory and start using it for problem solving, and the whole thing breaks down. Since you're not in a position where you have to do this, you can get away with hanging on to it. That's OK, but it's not the way I like to work.
Last edited:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |