Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,963   Posts: 1,558,388   Online: 821
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,112

    Valuable, not tired.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    ...Kodak/Ilford vs. Foma/Efke/Adox is as tired, old and valueless as Canon vs Nikon vs Leica vs Zeiss...
    Quite the contrary; this discussion has great value. It serves to inform anyone who reads it and wasn't previously aware of the fact that quality control at lower-tier manufacturers doesn't meet modern standards.

    With the sole exception of those Adox products actually made by Adox in Germany, Foma/Efke/Adox branded sensitized products simply cannot be counted upon to be defect-free. On the other hand, Canon, Nikon, Leica and Zeiss products are all top-tier quality and can be relied upon. If someone reading APUG decides to engage in the crapshoot that using film and paper made in tired, obsolete factories is, this forum's beneficial role ought to be ensuring that the decision was an informed one.

    In my opinion, "Kodak/Ilford vs. Foma/Efke/Adox" is so important it deserves its own prominent subforum category. Failing that, threads highlighting the problems should at least be made sticky.

  2. #12
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,420
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    435
    Sal-

    I'm not trying to stick up for a company if they produce a substandard product. However, there are more than enough threads out there already on the subject of films from makers other than the Big Three (Kodak, Ilford & Fuji), and they are replete with everything from useful information to gross exaggerations. For the same reasons that you assert that Adox/Efke/Foma cannot be relied upon, there are numerous people out there who will make the same assertion about every one of those camera manufacturers you cite, based on a unique personal experience of a singularly buggy product, and will swear with self-righteous vehemence about how horrible Canon/Nikon/Contax/Leica were/are and how they'll never buy another Canon/Nikon/Hasselblad/Linhof/whatever again.

    From my personal experience with Ilford, Foma and Kodak films, I will agree that Foma has a higher defect rate, but it is hardly the garbage that some make it out to be, and when the price point is 1/3 the price of Kodak and 1/2 the price of Ilford for a comparable product, there are times when budget IS a concern, even for a photographer. It also has some spectral response and development characteristics that make it especially well-suited to certain kinds of image-making.

    This discussion specifically has value for people who want to shoot reversal processed black-and-white and want to use DR5 to process their film. I'll stick by my assertion though that general band-wagon bashing of manufacturers has little value, because it degenerates into flame wars of "my favorite rules, and your favorite sucks".

  3. #13
    sandermarijn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    770
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    I'm not trying to stick up for a company if they produce a substandard product. However, there are more than enough threads out there already on the subject of films from makers other than the Big Three (Kodak, Ilford & Fuji), and they are replete with everything from useful information to gross exaggerations.
    I will keep reporting issues that I encounter, regardless of which brand is involved. Hopefully other APUG'ers will do the same. This is one of the powers of the forum.

    "More than enough" is not relevant. Each problem is new to the person who runs into it, and they should be free to report it, even if others have done the same thing.

    If newcomers to APUG find that reports of problems are all dated they may be led to believe that the problems have been solved while in reality that's not the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    For the same reasons that you assert that Adox/Efke/Foma cannot be relied upon, there are numerous people out there who will make the same assertion about every one of those camera manufacturers you cite, based on a unique personal experience of a singularly buggy product, and will swear with self-righteous vehemence about how horrible Canon/Nikon/Contax/Leica were/are and how they'll never buy another Canon/Nikon/Hasselblad/Linhof/whatever again.
    The discussion in this thread is about Foma film, not about the camera manufacturers that you mention.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    From my personal experience with Ilford, Foma and Kodak films, I will agree that Foma has a higher defect rate, but it is hardly the garbage that some make it out to be, and when the price point is 1/3 the price of Kodak and 1/2 the price of Ilford for a comparable product, there are times when budget IS a concern, even for a photographer. It also has some spectral response and development characteristics that make it especially well-suited to certain kinds of image-making.
    I myself have reported problems with Foma films twice. Never in those reports have I referred to Foma film as 'garbage'.

    In Europe and for the formats that I use (35mm and 120), Foma films cost about the same as Ilford and Kodak (& Fuji). This may be different in sheet film, I don't know about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    This discussion specifically has value for people who want to shoot reversal processed black-and-white and want to use DR5 to process their film. I'll stick by my assertion though that general band-wagon bashing of manufacturers has little value, because it degenerates into flame wars of "my favorite rules, and your favorite sucks".
    I do not often see this "general band-wagon bashing of manufacturers" on APUG. Most people here are very conscientious in their evaluations.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,112
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    ...there are more than enough threads out there already on the subject of films from makers other than the Big Three...
    Scott, if you argued that duplicate threads shouldn't be started and prevailed, traffic on APUG (as well as most other Internet forums) would slow to a trickle and an easily searchable archive would be available. Good luck! I've taken that position for years, especially on the LF Forum, without any success.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    ...I will agree that Foma has a higher defect rate, but it is hardly the garbage that some make it out to be...
    That may be your experience. Consider that the experience of "some" might support their characterizations. Remember that the variability batch-to-batch and within a batch of products manufactured under low or no quality control conditions can be enormous.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    ...when the price point is 1/3 the price of Kodak and 1/2 the price of Ilford for a comparable product, there are times when budget IS a concern, even for a photographer...
    I've always found the expression "you're not wealthy enough to buy cheap things" very appropriate in situations like this.

  5. #15
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,336
    Images
    148
    Perhaps it's worth putting Scott's comments into context, there ahave been many people writing about the faults of Foma and EFKE/Adox films on APUG who have never used them often deliberately trying to get others not to use them.

    It's somewhat similar to the people who constantly talk down Xtol because of a packaging fault in the smallest packaging many years ago.

    Sure there can be issues but third hand experiences are pretty useless particularly when many people are getting superb results with these products.

    Ian
    Last edited by Ian Grant; 02-02-2012 at 01:09 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #16
    thefizz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Trim, Ireland.
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,050
    Images
    37
    I have used a lot of Fomas papers and never had a single problem with any of them. Recently I've been trying their films and so far so good.
    www.thephotoshop.ie
    www.monochromemeath.com

    "you get your mouth off of my finger" Les McLean

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Tasmania, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by dr5chrome View Post
    ..yes, absolutely.

    The film companies and suppliers take our reports with a grain of salt [pun intended]. No thanks is ever given for keeping this kind of problem under wraps or making the effort by bringing it to their attention 1st. Usually nothing gets done about it.

    dr5
    Sadly this has been my experience as well. I had a couple of rolls of Maco 120 IR820c (rebranded Efke) which were obviously faulty (the film appeared to have run off the rails near the end of the roll during manufacture and the edge numbers were scrawled across the exposed area). I contacted the distributor in Australia and went to the trouble and cost of mailing them the offending negatives but they did not receive a response from Maco.

  8. #18
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,697
    Images
    10
    I see a lot of hatred against Foma/Efke/Adox which frequently reaches a boiling point when problems are reported to but not at all addressed by the makers. If you read dr5's posts, he's somewhat upset because a new batch of film appears defective but what really (and rightfully) ticks him (and many others) off is the complete lack of response from a company which most likely messed up. Compare this to the many Simon Galley postings here which state "oh, it seems like you may have gotten a defective product from us, we're sorry, contact me for a replacement".

    I work with Czech companies and learned from this that while they are very ambitious about getting out a high quality product, their English language skills, especially in the older generation, are sorely lacking. There is a good chance that no one from Foma really understood what dr5 reported. This does not excuse yet another manufacturing failure and I also understand that a company which sells product internationally should create a support infrastructure which handles important feedback in a professional manner.

    In the end the market will sort this out. If Foma is unable to supply consistent quality product and unwilling to provide proper support at least in English language, they will be stuck well below their market potential, both in volume and in price.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  9. #19
    sandermarijn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    770
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    Perhaps it's worth putting Scott's comments into context, there ahave been many people writing about the faults of Foma and EFKE/Adox films on APUG who have never used them often deliberately trying to get others not to use them.
    I can't see why anybody would want to do such a thing.

    BTW, where did you find these "many people"? Am I on a different APUG?

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

  10. #20
    Andrew Moxom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Keeping the British end up in Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,871
    Images
    333
    I've had issues with fomapan 100 in the past, and will not use it because of the anomalies on the film I was getting. The fact that they purport to be an ISO9001 certified company means squat if they are not listening and fixing issues that come up. You can have all the process and documentation you want showing that you follow certain fixed standards, but still churn out bad product.. I'm not FOMA bashing, but I'm not willing to waste precious time and money re-shooting...I love their papers however.
    Please check out my website www.amoxomphotography.com and APUG Portfolio .....

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin