Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,967   Posts: 1,523,369   Online: 1191
      
Page 8 of 26 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112131418 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 259
  1. #71
    Rolleiflexible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,274
    Images
    31
    This is a complete guess on my part, and I am
    sure someone like PE would have a better idea
    of the cause, but I am thinking the problem has
    something to do with how the emulsion dries on
    the substrate, and maybe with flaws of some sort
    in the substrate, that causes these checks to open
    up as the film dries after coating. If it was from
    the cutting, one would expect a more predictable
    pattern. And the imperfection appears across
    emulsions as well as formats -- I am seeing it in
    35mm Foma 200, while the OP sees it in 120 Foma
    100. The coating and drying are the processes
    common to both films.

  2. #72

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    496
    Chuck,
    Like I said, I could be wrong, but all the things I read here sure do point in that direction. As for the folks at Foma? I would imagine they would say what Kodak in the USA and Fuji in Japan would say if this was a topic about one of there films and that is that it's a consumer problem and not a manufacures problem. It's not until a bunch of us consumers start shooting one email after another at these companies do they perk up and maybe do something about it. Another words threaten to hit them in the pocket book if they don't get their sh!t together. The only reason I'm here in this discussion is because I just bought ten rolls of Foma 100 from FreeStyle and was researching the film before I shoot it and develop it. Now I read this and wish I had bought Fuji Acros instead. At least I know Acros and know nothing of Foma 100. The reason I went Foma over Acros was I thought Foma might be a better combo with my WD2D+ Pyro. Now I'm wondering. JohnW

  3. #73

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by Rolleiflexible View Post
    This is a complete guess on my part, and I am
    sure someone like PE would have a better idea
    of the cause, but I am thinking the problem has
    something to do with how the emulsion dries on
    the substrate, and maybe with flaws of some sort
    in the substrate, that causes these checks to open
    up as the film dries after coating. If it was from
    the cutting, one would expect a more predictable
    pattern. And the imperfection appears across
    emulsions as well as formats -- I am seeing it in
    35mm Foma 200, while the OP sees it in 120 Foma
    100. The coating and drying are the processes
    common to both films.
    Well, I'm not saying it is a slitter roller problem, but what I am saying is that I'd be willing to bet that the source of the problem is somewhere inside the Foma plant. It's either a bad mechanical step, poor chemical mixture or some contaminated goods from one of their suppliers. Or maybe, like you say, bad dry down technique. Still, I think the answer is inside the Foma plant and I sure would like those folks at Foma to read our discussion, but I would imagine they already know of the problem. JohnW

  4. #74
    sandermarijn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    771
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Rolleiflexible View Post
    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
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/4275664785/
    Those marks look the same as mine. If it's not the backing paper then maybe it's the folding and being put under slight pressure (in the camera) that the film does not like.

    I will do my experiment today with the Foma film and the replaced backing paper. If that film doesn't turn out scratch-free then there is real trouble.

  5. #75
    sandermarijn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    771
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by brucemuir View Post
    Now I'm really paranoid because I roll my own and we all know the cassettes are never pristine when you reuse them.
    I really do not want to bash Foma with this thread. 99.99% of people seem to have no problems with Foma films. As long as I don't know what's going on (and I don't, honestly), then there is no reason for other people to worry about their Foma films. 10,000 against 1 that your films turn out fine.

    The problem may still be just me (although I don't actually believe that). Or else a very small production batch.

  6. #76
    sandermarijn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    771
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro Serrao View Post
    Other possibilities:
    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.
    1) No,
    2) I myself haven't used Foma in 135,
    3) Unlikely, I developed one entirely scratch-free film while using tap water (this film was never inside any camera),
    4) I'm close to that now, although I'm also considering getting more films from another batch to see if those are better. I really want to make this film work for me.

  7. #77
    sandermarijn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    771
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Aurelien View Post
    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.
    Bear in mind that I did manage to produce one scratch-free film. This was a film that went straight into the developing reel, without having been inside a camera. This result should rule out the quality of the tap water.

    I'm currently thinking that (some) Foma film doesn't like pressure and folding the way they happen inside a camera.

  8. #78
    sandermarijn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    771
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by John Wiegerink View Post
    In the old days we had emulsion numbers on batches of pro film and it sure would be nice to compare emulsion numbers.
    I listed those numbers earlier on in this thread- probably a bit buried now. My 120-films are from batch 016756-1, exp. date 2/2012.

  9. #79
    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
    Bear in mind that I did manage to produce one scratch-free film.
    This could be random. FWIW, I use Foma 200
    when I shoot 35mm and I see this sort of thing
    intermittently. I shot a roll of Foma 200 in 120
    roll film last week -- the first time I've shot it
    in medium format -- and saw no such artifacts.

    Also: My 35mm is Arista Ultra Edu, which is
    supposed to be Foma film in an Arista box. The
    120 roll I shot was a Foma-branded roll.

  10. #80
    sandermarijn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    771
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Aurelien View Post
    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.
    Thanks Aurelien, that is very interesting. I will try to eliminate/confirm (for myself) the involvement of the backing paper today, by attaching a Foma film to Fuji backing, and only then putting it in the camera. Although I must admit that Sanders McNew's results with the 135mm version dampen my expectations for this experiment a bit.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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