I have to second Rick A. it sounds more like an operator error than a manufacturing error. Quiet like Fomas offering but in terms of Q.C. Ilford, Fuji, Kodak and Agfa Films are miles ahead on the other hand Foma papers are in my opinion with a few exceptions (Ilford Gallery and Art 300) much better than Ilford and Fuji's paper products. More choice, better in lith, available as matt paper and never had any problems with Foma paper come to think of it I also never had problems with their films but I do use Pyro developers with Foma film.
All the Chech factory workers smoke on the job, so if the film went by as they inhaled it will be fogged... just a guess.
Anyone can make a Digital print, but only a photographer can make a photograph.
And, um... you know that for a fact, or are you generalizing so as to impune the integrity of a manufacturers QC efforts. Maybe you are simply cracking wise per chance.
What is a master but a master student? And if that's true, then there's a responsibility on you to keep getting better and to explore avenues of your profession.
We're not all American!
Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch
"People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.
The information content is likely correlated with the spelling quality.
Originally Posted by Rick A
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by mrred
In 120 I much prefer Tri-X to TMY-2. The grain is quite fine enough, I like the tonality, and as I very rarely take long exposures in 120 I don't need the better reciprocity. In 120 I'm shooting with a TLR with primitive (but often surprisingly accurate) CdS cell meter, though I usually meter with my Luna Pro SBC. I don't use the 7.5 degree angle attachment. Depending on the shot and circumstances I may take a regular 30 degree reflected reading, an incident reading, or just a single reading for the prevailing light and shoot away. Tri-X is simply more forgiving of the more casual metering I often do in 120. Finally, I've long liked Tri-X in Diafine for an EI around 1250. That combination gives me better results, in terms of tonality and contrast if not grain, than anything I've found for pushing TMY(-2.) So stocking Tri-X gives me the option of box speed or that push without two films in the bag.
In 4x5 B&W I shoot TMY-2 almost exclusively, save for the remaining Delta 400 and Agfapan 100 I have in the freezer. In 4x5 I carefully spot meter each exposure and TMY has superb quality.
One of the appeals for medium format for me is that it's almost as fast and easy as 35mm but has print quality closer to 4x5. Honestly, in 120 I'd be willing to pay more for Tri-X than for TMY-2. To each his own.
I have one roll of exposed Foma 400 (Arista branded) and another to expose, plus a few exposed and not yet developed 4x5 sheets, so I am trying it out but not yet with any results so I can't speak of the problems that started this thread. I suppose I will see.
To the subject of supporting Kodak, as others have said I don't think my film purchases are going to make any difference. I just don't use that much film. I do like to support Ilford (use MGWT FB in spite of the price) but for the most part I use whichever film and paper I like the best.
Originally Posted by Steve Smith
And some of us who are would rather support Ilford given its unabridged support for silver based B&W photography! Although I do use Arista.EDU also.
I use Foma, although I haven't shot that many rolls yet, no problems yet, but I did experience issues with a batch of paper I got.
I came into this too late, so Kodak has already killed the films I wanted to try in 120 (Plus-x).
I think Foma has a great look, especially for portraits, and they are still priced lower than most other brands on fotoimpex.
And, as someone said above here, we're definitely not all Americans on here
If Kodak said "We wish more people would buy our films, so we didn't have to kill them all off" instead of just killing films without notice, I would reconsider...maybe.
I have about 25 rolls of Foma to go, fingers crossed. =)
Last edited by Helinophoto; 12-04-2011 at 12:45 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Amazing. I am in California and I suppose I can buy from whomever I like too.
Originally Posted by Michael W
I shoot what works best for me. Like Tri-X over HP-5. Like FP-4 over Plus-X. Like Efke 50 over Pan F. Don't like any of the T-grain films at all.
tim in san jose
Where ever you are, there you be.
I agree with Gerald. There is a point in supporting a US company like Kodak if You happen to live in US.
Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch
If I am not mistaken, PE have said it before that Kodak geared towards large scale manufacturing, so if there is no demand for a certain product.. then its over.
Probably to scale down the who rig is too much of a hassle for Kodak and especially in the current market and economy situation, so naturally there is no sense for them to keep some products in their catalog.
A few years ago I had problem with Foma 400 135 30 meters roll, on some shots with sky it was easy to tell there was a unevenness.
The problem was not across the entire 30 meters thou.
Back then, I used that Foma roll mostly to check my cameras post CLA'ed state, so that film issue was not big deal in my case.
Other folks reported that they got in touch with Foma about similar issues so I hoped it was resolved by now.
With the current market and all, I am prepared for some surprises in the quality department from any brand..