Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,915   Posts: 1,521,764   Online: 1078
      
Page 13 of 26 FirstFirst ... 37891011121314151617181923 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 259
  1. #121

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    8
    Hey Sander, look at this post by me from last december.

    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/6...ing-wrong.html

    Are these the same spots or scratches you have found?

    I had so many black spots in my Foma 200 negatives that it was just not funny anymore. Like you I blamed my own processing at first, but with films from Ilford, Fuji or Kodak in my Hasselblad 501 CM I had none of these problems. Tried other developers, fixers, wetting agents, tanks, spools and demineralised water. Like others I swapped film backs, used another camera etc. All to no avail.

    I wasted around 15 or more of Foma 200 120's rolls because of this (batch# 08656 1 - 10 2011), let alone a lot of time and images. Even though I very much like the way Fomapan 200 images look, I am happily paying a bit more for Ilford FP4 now.

    Cheers, Maurits
    Last edited by maurits; 01-28-2010 at 12:18 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: spelling what else?

  2. #122
    sandermarijn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    771
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by maurits View Post
    Hey Sander, look at this post by me from last december.

    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/6...ing-wrong.html

    Are these the same spots or scratches you have found?

    I had so many black spots in my Foma 200 negatives that it was just not funny anymore. Like you I blamed my own processing at first, but with films from Ilford, Fuji or Kodak in my Hasselblad 501 CM I had none of these problems. Tried other developers, fixers, wetting agents, tanks, spools and demineralised water. Like others I swapped film backs, used another camera etc. All to no avail.

    I wasted around 15 or more of Foma 200 120's rolls because of this (batch# 08656 1 - 10 2011), let alone a lot of time and images. Even though I very much like the way Fomapan 200 images look, I am happily paying a bit more for Ilford FP4 now.

    Cheers, Maurits
    Similar but not the same I would say, Maurits. Funny how in your case the spots change shape with developer- I have tried only with Rodinal (Fomapan 100) and got small lines rather than dots.

  3. #123
    sandermarijn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    771
    Images
    11
    Helpful APUG-er Cor from Leiden has shot, developed and printed one my Fomapan 100-120 films: no scratches at all. His camera was a Bronica RF645.

    Could it be that the Bronica is more gentle than my Hasselblad? Could it be that earth rays penetrate my house but not Cor's? Only Foma knows (or not), and they do not speak. I wrote them two emails now. To not avail yet- pity.

    I will try another Foma 100 film, this time in a Fuji GS645S, which should be similarly gentle to the film as Cor's Bronica RF645. I can imagine that the Hasselblad does more stressing/bending/pulling the film than it likes. But honestly I am at a loss.

    Foma help us (me) please!

  4. #124

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    south central Missouri
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,926
    Images
    9
    Believe me, if Hasselblad had that type of problem they would not be the professional camera they are.

    Look to the second tier film company with limited QA for your answer. You get what you pay for, it's that simple. Sure you can go for awhile and not have a problem, maybe forever, but there are way to many posts on the web about QA issues with this film company.

    I tried them, had issues, and ran right back to Kodak and haven't looked back.

    Mike

  5. #125
    Philippe-Georges's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Flanders Fields
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    722
    Quote Originally Posted by mikebarger View Post
    I tried them, had issues, and ran right back to Kodak and haven't looked back.
    Mike
    Exactly what I did…

    Philippe
    "...If you can not stand the rustle of the leafs, then do not go in to the woods..."
    (freely translated quote by Guido Gezelle)

    PS: English is only my third language, please do forgive me my sloppy grammar...

  6. #126

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by mikebarger View Post
    Believe me, if Hasselblad had that type of problem they would not be the professional camera they are.

    Look to the second tier film company with limited QA for your answer. You get what you pay for, it's that simple. Sure you can go for awhile and not have a problem, maybe forever, but there are way to many posts on the web about QA issues with this film company.

    I tried them, had issues, and ran right back to Kodak and haven't looked back.

    Mike
    Been there done that!

  7. #127

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    73
    I ran across this email exchange I had with Marv at Freestyle 4 years ago. It may be of interest to those having problems scratches on FOMA film:


    Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 2:01 PM

    To Customer Service at Freestyle Photo
    Subject: Arista.EDU.ULTRA

    I recently purchased several sizes of EDU.ULTRA. 100 & 200 5x7, 100 &
    200 4x5, 200 35mm, and 200 120.

    The 5x7, 4x5, and 35mm all were 'ok', though there was at least 1
    pinhole and sometimes as many as 3 or 4 pinholes on a frame(or sheet).
    Otherwise, a fairly decent showing. However, the 200 in 120 format was
    horrible. If you held up the film to light and looked at it with a
    loop, it looked like a billion stars shining in a night sky, and even
    'shooting stars' all over. Totally unacceptable for any pictorial
    use.

    I understand that the film is the "FOMA" film re-boxed. Would the same
    be true of the quality of the film sold under the FOMA label?

    Thanks

    Bill Williams

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 1:54 PM
    To: Bill Williams
    Subject: RE: Arista.EDU.ULTRA

    Hi Bill

    I have spoken to our VP of Product Development and he responded to me with the following:

    We have had sporadic complaints of this from time to time. I think it is static although it is difficult to know as we haven't had much of this back. I would replace it as an isolated instance although it would be nice to get some samples back with details of how it was processed.

    The item in question is 4 rolls #190220 EDU ULTRA ISO 200 120 SIZE. The Foma branded is item #420212 which I will gladly exchange for the Arista at the same price. In essence a no charge replacement. All I ask is if you have some samples that you can send me so we can see the problem.
    You do not have to return the film. Just drop a few samples in the mail to my attention.

    I'll be waiting to hear from you.

    Thank you.


    Marv Keller
    Customer Service/Sales Supervisor
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Sent: Friday, February 10,2006 2:53 PM
    To: Marv Keller



    Marv,

    Thanks for replying. I certainly feel there is no static problem on my end, as I'm not a newcomer to the process. Thousands of rolls actually. And though there may be some static on the production end, I think it’s more of a mechanical problem on the coating line. Although the entire film has thousands of very minute pinholes, there are also streaks. The pinholes remind me of a VERY star filled night sky, and the streaks, which are repetitious and primarily on one side, look like "falling stars". I don't have a clue as to the coating problem causing the pinholes, but the repetitious streaks make me think something in the way of a roller or guide is scuffing the emulsion after it is coated. There are also linear scuffs in the developed emulsion on the film.

    I'm going to mail to you some negatives. They are not important to me, just some test shots that I did while trying to determine if every roll of the 120 was bad. A couple of them are not sharp, but the emulsion has the problem just the same. You can destroy them after looking at them. The developers I used were D-76 for a couple of rolls, and one similar to PMK for a couple of rolls. I will include that info with the negatives.


    Thanks again,

    Bill Williams

  8. #128
    RobertV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,057
    Foma help us (me) please!
    Well they are working on it:

    Dear Robert,
    thank you for the information and for the Em. No.
    We are investigating now where is the problem and will inform you.
    For your information - I regret, but I will be not in the next week in the office, so I will contact you on beginning of February,
    or you can contact me on my mobile phone +420 XXX XXX XXX.
    Thank you for your understanding.
    Best regards and nice weekend,

    Dana

  9. #129
    sandermarijn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    771
    Images
    11
    Thanks for your help in this Robert, very kind of you.

    Today's dismal weather didn't manage to keep me from running a Foma 100 film through my Fuji GS645S. I got some blurred frames from trying 1/30s- not relevant in this context of course.

    Most of the frames (10 out of 15) are free from scratches. The frames that are scratched show only a small number of them, ten or so. That's an improvement over both the Rolleiflex TLR and the Hasselblad, presuming the observed difference is not random but caused by 'something' in camera.

    I really had to look for the scratches, and they only appeared in very thick parts of the negative (sky).

  10. #130
    Rolleiflexible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,274
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by sandermarijn View Post
    Most of the frames (10 out of 15) are free from scratches. The frames that are scratched show only a small number of them, ten or so. That's an improvement over both the Rolleiflex TLR and the Hasselblad, presuming the observed difference is not random but caused by 'something' in camera.
    Again, Sander, you are attributing a causal
    connection to an association, based on evidence
    way too thin to support it. These marks are
    intermittent and I don't think one roll proves
    that they are caused "in camera," or that one
    camera is more or less prone to cause them.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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