The good thing about Kodak, Fuji and Ilford

[ooze]

[QUOTE=fschifano;820529]After having fought with this film for a while, I finally gave up. Life is too short to argue with a strip of film.
QUOTE]


You made my day.

[Sirius Glass]

The 120 stuff is truly awful. It is stiff and it has a wicked curl to it before processing. After processing it wants to curl up into a tube along the length of the film strip. It is almost impossible to get it into the negative carrier without taping the corners down The anti-halation characteristics are so bad as to make the film virtually useless if there is a moderately bright light source in the frame. The film also comes nowhere hear its advertised speed and can get very contrasty very quickly if over developed even just a little. After having fought with this film for a while, I finally gave up. Life is too short to argue with a strip of film.

Ahhh. There in lies the reason that I stick to the mainline film manufacturers.

Steve

[Jack Lusted]

For what it is worth Foma films seem to be getting much better wrt curl. Generally their quality control seems to be much much better than it was a couple of years ago.

Jack

[Wishy]

Had the same problem and documented here - http://www.flickr.com/groups/lucky_f...7618643448437/

On the ilford tour they said they had a relatively high failiure rate on their 120 spool-o-matic machine because its hard to get the backing and the tape and the film all lined up. But Ilford have got quality control to sort the problem out.

Seen this on maybe 1 in 10 rolls, even within the same batch.

Personally I use this stuff with Diafine for my pinhole, because its cheap, the quality isn't going to matter "that" much and the film coming off the paper isn't going to break any part of the camera.
It is a bit of a bugger to get on the spool, and it curls like anything after you hang it out to dry. 12 hours later its normally lost its curl.

[RobertV]

Generally their quality control seems to be much much better than it was a couple of years ago.

Indeed..... much better.

The difference of their 35mm and 120 roll film is that the roll films are made on polyester base which curls more then the tri-acetate 35mm Fomapan films.

Coating problems I have not seen anymore since a few years and their packing also improved. One of the reasons Foma is packing 120 roll films for the Rollei-Maco company.

[cmo]

The same problem with 120 film not properly fixed to the paper was reported recently with films from a small store-brand company mentioned here, not Lucky. I don't mention that one again, their director always goes apesh** when someone criticizes his products or his marketing methods (don't ask me for names...).

I second the author of the headline and can complete it. "The good thing about Kodak, Fuji and Ilford" is that you can rely on their quality, also when it comes to packaging. Period. And if something goes wrong they fix it and don't kill the messenger.

[pgomena]

I'll go back to the first page of posts and agree with Thomas. Dependable quality and performance is more important to me than price, funkiness or "look". I don't often get a chance to commune with my camera and nature, and I'll be darned if I'm going to risk results for a couple of bucks. Film is the cheapest part of the process when you consider time, effort, gas money and all the other things that go into a shoot. I'll stick with the Big 3.

Peter Gomena

[Peter Schrager]

Frank-have been using this in 35mm with no problems...antihalation issues I have never seen...maybe it's my eyesite!!
Best, Peter

[Thomas Bertilsson]

After having fought with this film for a while, I finally gave up. Life is too short to argue with a strip of film.

- Funny

[fschifano]

Frank-have been using this in 35mm with no problems...antihalation issues I have never seen...maybe it's my eyesite!!
Best, Peter

Peter,

Look closely, with a magnifier, at frames where there is a very bright spot. An interior shot exposed to favor the indoor lighting conditions with a fully lit exterior windo is a good example of where you'll find the effect most noticeable. Heavily over exposed point source lights will show the effect too. In 35 mm, it's really not that bad. It's a little worse, to my eye at least, with medium format.