problem with Fomapan 200 (120) negatives -
I just developed a roll of Fomapan 200 (120) from a recent purchase.
Although it came from a Fomapan box, the edge markings say Ultra 200 0107. Batch number on the box is 0107561, expiry 5/2015. I am presuming this was intended to be Arista.EDU for the US market but was reboxed for whatever reason.
Looking closely at the negatives I notice a pale line each side of the roll extending the full length of the roll. This does not form part of the normal rebate.
Haven't seen this with other rolls of other film types I have used (Ilford HP5, Shanghai GP3) in the same camera, however, and this is the first roll of Foma 200 in 120 I've ever used.
It was shot in a Fuji GS645S with a red 25A filter, underexposed by a stop or two because I didn't allow enough for the filter factor.
Developed in CaffenolCH(rs) for 15M@20C, 30 seconds initial inversions then 3x inversions at 60s intervals.
Water stop, then Ilford Rapid Fix (1+4) 4mins, and Ilford wash regime.
I have included a link to a photograph of the negative (on Flickr)to illustrate the issue.
Note that the lines are slightly inboard of the mask, and it is visible evenly along the entire length of the roll. I have slightly boosted contrast so that it's clear in the photograph, but it is easily visible to the naked eye. The example shows an "accidental" frame that happens to illustrate the issue clearly
I have tried refixing (just in case) but the wet negatives look identical. I'll inspect more closely when they are dry.
I know that Foma had QC issues with 120 film in the past, but there haven't been any recent reports that I have seen
Obviously I will be running further rolls of this batch through different cameras to identify if there might be a problem that has only just surfaced with the Fuji, but are there any comments folk might make in the meantime ?
200+ views and no-one expressing an opinion? usually a development query raises a deluge of replies!
It's not the camera as a second roll through a different camera shows identical lines.
So ... it's either my processing, the developer or the film, in that order of likelihood I guess.
I also posted this in Flickr "I shoot film" where replies suggested it is due to over-agitation, and sent a copy to the supplier (Silverprint).
Silverprint forwarded it to Foma, from whom I received a nice email this morning requesting me to send them samples by post.
Now I don't at all mind if the answer comes back "It's your bad technique and crappy developer", but it is really gratifying to have a response like this from the manufacturer.
So, thumbs up for Foma
problem with Fomapan 200 (120) negatives -
Well hopefully foma gets you an answer and compensates you for the number of rolls you bought with a replacement.
I think you film was intended to be sold as ultra fine film which is marketed by photowarehouse. They are the low cost leader for cheapest 120 films.
As for possibilities it be could anything. 120 film is cut down from much larger rolls so it's probably not likely that those two areas were not coated properly. Maybe it could be contamination. If there is still a bit of fixer on your reels that area would be a contact point for the film and restrict full development. Who knows. Try the film in another camera and a very clean tank that's been scrubbed with a bit of hot soapy water and fully dried.
Thanks, yes as I say I've already run another roll in a different camera and I also used a different reel for that one, with identical results.
The curious thing is that the lines are slightly inboard of the slots on the reel ...
I've got another roll in camera at the moment and I'll try that with D76 when it's finished, which should rule in or out a developer issue.
Hard to see it being a problem with the film, otherwise surely the various internet forums would be awash with identical complaints from Foma 200 /120 users.
All foma 120 film is edge marked Ultra, and has been since I started using it a good few years ago now, it is in fact my main film, Without knowing what tank you use to develop the film suggesting a solution is difficult, but with 120 film and Patterson tanks I have sometimes had a problem with the reel sliding slightly up the center colum, and the top edge of the film sitting just out of the developer, the answer is to put a little more developer in the tank, that is if the suggested amount is 500ml then use 600 ml, or with the patterson tank use the twiddle stick for agitation, instead of inverting the tank, In fact I suggest the next film you process use an extra 100ml of solution and see if that helps, Good luck
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Ah good info about all the 120 being edge-marked Ultra. No-one else had pointed this out.
Yes I'm using a Paterson Universal, and using 500ml.
I think if the lines were not identical at both edges, then I'd have assumed that there was not enough developer in the tank as you suggest.
It'll be interesting to see what Foma come up with.
I was getting exactly what you show with my negatives, not all the time, but sometimes, I find that the reel can slide up wit inversion agitation, I changed to turning with the twiddle stick and all was fine, went back to inversion one day when I could not find the stick, and got the underdeveloped edge, so tried putting in the extra 100 ml and it has not happened again since, I would think it must be developer related, if it was film then there would be many posts on many forums about this, and yours is the only one, It will be interesting to here what Foma has to say, but in the meantime try the extra 100 ml and see how it goes,
Yes, I said myself that if it were the film I'd expect the forums to be deluged, and they're not, so I expect it is me or the developer.
But I am still hard pressed to understand how, if it were insufficient volume of developer in the tank causing the problem, why it is on both edges, and not just on one edge - the one at the top of the tank?
Or am I just being dim here ?
You seem to have 3 different minimum densities there. One is the edge, which should be base + fog only, one is the center unexposed area which also should be base + fog, and the third is the pair of lines which are in question.
So, how come the b+f is so high, and has 2 values, one on the edge and one in the unexposed center area? If we can explain that, maybe the two edge lines can become more understandable.
Can you shed some light on this?
Beyond that I am in the dark, as I said, I use a lot of Fomapan, it is my main go to film, I love the stuff, although I stick to the 400, I have yet to have QC problems with either 120 or 35mm, I believe there were some problems with the 200 when they re introudced it after they were forced to re formulate it, but it was in the fo, nothing rm of pin holes and scratches, nothing like your have, lets hope that Foma can help.
Originally Posted by pdeeh