I came up with my little theory while riding my bicycle this morning. It seems you beat me to it Philippe. Things seem to be the way you say (and said earlier) they are. I should have listened to you better straight away.
Originally Posted by leicam5
Maybe it's my turn now to move on as well. Dang-darn-diddly-darn-dang-ding-dong-diddly-darn, this is really a huge pity.
You have invested a lot of time and money looking in to this, thanks for sharing. It sure seems like you have come to a reasonable explanation. If this is it it sucks, basically, and Foma should seriously locate a new source for backing paper. I just have one question: this should be happening to most every user, should it not? Certainly it fits that the sheet film users and the 35mm users are not bothered, but are all or mostly all 120 users seeing this? If I shoot some Foma 100 in a blad I should be seeing the same things, right? If I do not, and others do not, then what is it? Variations from batch to batch in the film? Camera variations? I bring this up not to question your conclusions but merely because these type of issues make me nuts as there often remains some doubt, driving me to keep trying to make something work. Maybe I think, it is just something I'm doing...
In this case, I'm inclined to say shame on Foma.
You are completely right, Erik, it just doesn't make sense that I should be the only one writing about this. I imagine that if the problems stem from poor manufacturing then many more people should find their pictures affected. It could be of course that I am simply the first to report it (I just bought my films end of last month at a shop with high turnover- Silverprint). That would not surprise me- someone has to be first.
Originally Posted by erikg
But it may also simply be that people don't bother to report every issue and simply move on to something else, or take it for granted. Common thing is that a lack of info on the web doesn't necessarily mean that there is no production problem.
Or maybe there is a unique combination of factors that in some evil way only come together in my situation. Unlikely but not impossible.
My experiment for tomorrow will be this: unroll foma film in dark darkroom, tear off paper backing, install backing taken from Fuji Reala, wind back on spool, shoot in camera, develop, see no scratches (wishful thinking in last step).
Of course I do not intend to replace the backings of all my 24 remaining foma films- I just want to know for (more or less) sure what's going on.
I will post results tomorrow. 80% sure right now of no scratches.
My Mamiya and Graflex backs have the same film path as a hassy, and I shoot a lot of the film in my Rolleiflex. I have never experienced any scratches like yours. I have probably shot about 150 rolls of this film in 120.
"I'm still developing"
I hate to blow your explanation but it's not the backing paper.
I shoot Foma 200 in 35mm and I find the same artifacts. I am
attaching a raw scan from a roll I just shot through a Tenax II
in which you can see the same artifacts. Obviously, 35mm film
does not have backing paper.
Back to the drawing board.
PS: If you want to see the final image, you can find it at
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Well, I have read your entire topic and i 'm very interested in it since I have the same problems with my Foma films in 120. But as far as I know, backing paper may not be involved, since the same backing paper was used with forte / bergger films, and there was not such problems, and more recently, the first batch of rollei retro 400S was converted in 120 by Foma, with the same backing paper. And I did not observed such marks. I would agree with the first statements that involve the presence particles in tap water that would complex with dissolved silver and would make this marks. That would also explain why Sasnders observed such marks with 35 mm films: foma emulsion are sensitive to such complexes. But maybe we could warn the foma's girl about this problem, so as they would help us and maybe modify something in the coating process to avoid this.
1) have you tried to use a hardening fixer?
2) in 35mm friction of the emulsion on the light trap, with dust grits embedded (not probable);
3) I would exclude the particles in the tap water because these scratches would otherwise have a random pattern;
4) the simplest explanation is: poor manufacture from Foma. Look no more.
I JUST (last month) bought 3 of the post dated cans of 35mm Fomapan 100 from Freestyle. Now I'm really paranoid because I roll my own and we all know the cassettes are never pristine when you reuse them.
I'll blow through a roll tonight an report back after I process it.
In the old days we had emulsion numbers on batches of pro film and it sure would be nice to compare emulsion numbers. From what I see here I'd have to say these are mechanical scratches and not chemical/water problems. I'd say the rollers on the film slitter at the plant could use a good cleaning. The plant probably has a scheduled maintence period and that's what is causing some people to have problem and some to not have problems. The lucky people get film after cleaning and the unlucky people get their film from a batch before cleaning. Just a guess, but I bet it is close to the source of the problem. JohnW
I would be interested at what the folks at Foma say about this?
Originally Posted by John Wiegerink
I still live just beyond the fringe in Stittsville