What am I doing wrong? Fomapan

pdh said:
Foma don't rebrand film.

They manufacture film at their own factories, at least since the 1920s, and they respond to quality issues rather well these days. The last I heard of a manufacturing problem was with Foma 200 in 120 format, which they then withdrew until they had it fixed, and this was at least two years ago.

Apart from not liking the grain of Fomapan 400, what other evidence do you have of their being "really shady at times" ?
Click to expand...


My foma 400 120 negatives all have problems. Not only the red sensitivity issue (which is really a problem) but also, the negatives show unevenness in many areas.

What I am describing is well documented on the web. A quick search on Apug will reveal a lot of infos and rants from many users. Many serious rants. If you are really curious about it and not just looking to argue, apug has a lot of good infos on this.

As I said, I love foma 100 and 200. 400, in 120 at least, is a skip.
 
Maybe interesting to know for the Fomapan 120 roll films:

Foma switched to a different backing paper with less friction.
Foma switched to a self adhesive sticker which is OK now.
Foma switched to Agfa Gevaert Clear Polyester layer and a seperate A.H. layer on the film.

Most things you can find back on the new Fomapan data sheets. In fact an improvement of their Q.C.

Last year there were indeed issues on their FP200 (120 roll-) film which are solved now.
This FP200 film has a mix of cubical and hexagonal Silver halide crystals and is pretty difficult in their production. It has also the softest emulsion in their film line.
 
Clint Troy said:
What I am describing is well documented on the web. A quick search on Apug will reveal a lot of infos and rants from many users. Many serious rants. If you are really curious about it and not just looking to argue, apug has a lot of good infos on this.
.
Click to expand...


Please don't be rude by implying I am trolling.

I am however questioning whether you have personal evidence that Foma rebrand film, or for making a very broad statement that they are "shady".

I prefer evidence from personal experience (or professional commercial experience such as that of Fotohuis) rather than "well documented on the web", and it is certainly not "well documented on the web" that Foma rebrand other manufacturers' film as their own.
 
Here's 2 of my foma 400 120 developed in Rodinal, looks ok to me

img581-2-L.jpg


img400-L.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom