My unusual experience with a Fomapan film and few thoughts about it I'm Ricardo Santos, a Brazilian photographer living and shooting in Finland check my work: rspphotography.com/ / ricawenzel
Like the others said, it’s static discharge, it happens in low humidity and cold temperatures. With more fragile films (which Foma might be) it happens more easily. To me, it pretty much only happened when loading movie films right out of the fridge or in very cold conditions. But it could also happen when you’re rolling your film back into the can or the take up spool too quickly in the described conditions. It’s basically user error. Unless you’re loading your film in very very cold conditions outdoors it shouldn’t happen if you’re cautions about the other stuff. I think giving you one roll back is fair from them. It’s Foma not Kodak or Ilford. If you’re shooting something for a client you should try to avoid triggering it next time you shoot Foma in cold and dry conditions or shoot an Ilford film, they might be a bit sturdier.
I agree with everything you said, but the user error. If they know there is a probability of something like happening under certain conditions, they MUST print a warning on the box. With that said, I have been shooting film for very long, and I never had such a problem with any other film (better and even worse) under the same conditions. Anyway, that happened almost a year ago and I'm very happy with the results I'm getting from Foma 100, so in the end, absolutely no hard feelings at all.
They look like static discharge marks. Typically from rolling / unrolling the film quickly in low relative humidity weather conditions. It was unlikely to have happened at the plant, probably in the handling of the film in camera, development, at lab.
Apparently that's exactly what happened according to Foma, and i'm pretty happy with their explanation. I just don't understand how and at what point the discharge happened. I developed the film myself, and I didn't see anything abnormal, like static or anything, happening. As I have never had this problem before, I don't think it could could be a reoccurring issue.
I'm surprised the people in the store didn't know that. Happened to me a couple of times. Now I take great care not to touch the film with my T-shirt, etc. when handling the undeveloped film.
This looks like static electricity marks from rewinding the film fastly on dry weather. That' why ALL Nikon pro cameras, from the F to the F6, have a manual rewind knob. Since I started shooting, in the 1970's, each and every box of film has a warning that the only responsability of the manufacturer - should anything go wrong - is to replace the film used. This is because they have no control on how the film was stored or even how you used the film. I once bought a color film on a beach town that, when developed, was clear that it must've been stored on the shop's window, under the sun... All colors were completele unbalanced! Well, some had an interesting effect :) In your case, you/the camera probably rewinded the film quickly in dry weather without knowing this could happen. That's life. They were kind to sent you a calendar, which looks interesting. My best!
I use foma film and I really like their negatives. They are cheaper, have great sharpness and beautiful grain. Foma 400 is my go to bw film for last 2 years.
I'm not too sure about that. The problem seem to have been an static discharge on the film at some point of the process, which could have been with any film. I have been using Foma films after that and they have been perfect.
I liked this video a lot! I use Fomapan 100 and 400, the 100 is my favorite one for sure. Shot at 200 iso gives its best for me. I also love and use Ferrania films. Both P30 and Orto are amazing. I tested a prototype of next coming P33 (160 iso) and it’s astonishingly beautiful
WTF HAHAHH I kinda liked the "lightning bolt" effect in the picture to be honest. And c'mon the calendar was a good touch. But I have to say the same regarding Fomopan, I've tried some kodak (the 400 bw is quite good but they don't do anymore), fuji, and Ilford, and in the end, is a matter of getting used to the film you have and adapting to different circumstances. Nowadays foma is my only stock, not only because of the price but I quite like that the bw has a more controlled contrast and is more chill if compared to Ilford.
The pictures I took with the 400 at the Talviputarha are just amazing! The amount of detail on the shadows were awesome. I don't remember such detail in 35mm shot.
I understand that this must be frustrating, but this is not Foma's fault. Static discharge can happen with any film that isn't made for quick passing through camera like ecn2 cinema stocks are. I feel like like this is the magic of film, because your results are not uniform. You can get light leaks, accidental double exposures and rarely even things like this. It's why I keep shooting film!
In the end isn't about to like or not the film. But the fair and quick response from the manufacturer. I wasn't expecting anything close to what they did, although, they could and probably should have send me a few extra rolls. But that's another story!
I had the same thing on Fomapan 400. Probably it is caused by electric discharge. I think Foma does not do any quality check at all. That is why emulsion defects are not uncommon and their films are cheaper.
as far as I had the problem I can't agree with you. sure it was annoying to have this problem, but, with that said, it was the only roll of Foma I have ever had that issue and I have shot a lot of Foma. It's still a very good film, and I have no reasons to believe it will happen again... hopefully!
You got a free film, plus a calendar to compensate something that was not their fault, and you are still complaining they are not nice enough? LOL bro, chill.
This is typically seen in very cold and dry weather, however, I have seen some people experiencing this with Foma under pretty normal/indoor consequences. So, it is something strange with their film, I am sure if you shot another roll with a different brand during the same shot, you would not see this. With that said, I love Fomapan (100, in Rodinal 1:50), never seen static discharge like this with mine, used it since it had the blue backing.
I once had problem with a couple of roll of Fomapan 200- 120, and 4X5 sheet film . One roll was from the cooling towers of a power station that is now demoloshed. The films exhibited what I could only describe as small scratches all over the surafce of film and hence they were unusable. The 4X5 sheets exhibited very small pink dots. I have not had any porblem with either the fomapan 200 in 135 or any problems with fomapan 100 in any size. It is a shame, because the films are quite good and reasonably priced compared ot the madness of Kodak.
It's part of film photography "expect for the worst and hope for the best" sort of mind set, as there is quite a bit to go wrong, human error in exposure, development, etc and also film failure of some sort. Unfortunately is a situation we have to deal with. I never had a problem with Foma, and I actually like the film stock, so it was an unusual situation with an specific batch on 35mm, so still not enough of a problem to make me avoid Foma films.
@@WTFphotography I have been photographing for nearly 45 years, most of which on film. I don't recall having seen anything lke this in the 80s and 90s when film reigned supreme. Manufacturers couldn't afford to allow this sort of thing as it would have resulted in a total boycot of the brand by the pros. Back then a pro fashion photographer would have gone through 10 to 20 rools of film in a session. I magine if the emulsions turned out to be faulty. I am sure this lack of QC it is an economy measure to keep the cost of films low. Last year I also had problems with Ilford FP4 Plus. The dreaded ' Snow Flake ' effect on the emulsion. People have reported problems with some batches of Kodak D76 developer. Probably the most popular developer in the world. Crazy, isn't it.
I've been using Foma film for years and I've never had that problem or ever heard of that problem (till now) , whether it happened in camera or during processing it's hard to tell.
It was definitely some static discharge. Last week I developed another roll of foma400 and the same happened again, but this time only on the sprockets of a lost frame, no big deal, but still weird how it's happening so often.
@@WTFphotography this is very strange, to me it suggests an in camera problem, maybe it's the light seal causing a build up of energy somehow, but that would affect every frame maybe. Contacting Foma again might be productive (maybe not), it could be any number of causes.
@@robstammers7149 Definitely isn't. The problem in this video happened when I was using the Fujica, and the problem I had last week was using my Pentax MX. The funny thing is that I have never had anything similar to any other film I have used. Also Funny, is that it only happens to foma400 35mm. I used the 120 many times, and never had the issue.
@@WTFphotography Right, so the only other areas to explore would be the batch of film, the emulsion structure (manufacturing fault), storage at either end. Yeh this is gonna get complicated, I take it Foma won't investigate, as they only rewarded you with a roll of film without no other support or suggestions from their end. Intriguing for sure. Regards Rob (UK).
@@robstammers7149 it's weird. Someone has suggested that the dry cold conditions of the finnish winter could have been the problem, maybe, but still hard to pin point the reason. My first thought and the reason I contacted Foma was exactly some batch issue, but according to them everything is ok (🤷♂) even though both rolls I had the problem were the same batch. Sure I had same batch films that were just fine, but still strange how it is happening.
This isn't a problem that is unique to fomapan. Same thing happened to me with some tri-x in 2008. I was on top of Mt. Vesuvius. It got mentioned in passing a few times on national geographic documentaries about the Antarctic. I know your frustrated. But you got two free rolls of film from what is essentially an act of God. My insurance companies don't cover acts of God. Foma had no moral obligation to you at all because their product wasn't defective. They sent you a gift anyway. The first step of problem solving is to see if the issue can be repeated. If the problem re-occurs with foma try a different emulsion. If the problem persists with a different emulsion you have to determine the cause. Is it environmental or is it the camera. Enviromental is an easy fix. a cheap humidifier. Load it in a room that has humidity above 10%. Rewind it in a room with humidity above 10% or alter your technique on loading and rewinding. If it's the camera that's the fun part. You will have to look at it with a critical eye. My suggestion take some shots of it with digital and look at em blown up on screen. With a 50+ year old camera light seal foam, the insulation for the wiring, solder points on boards, the lubricants for moving parts all degrade. I don't know if any of those symptoms of camera age could cause issues with static discharge. I don't think anybody really knows. This is first time in history that 50+ year old gear gets used with enough frequency by enough people to figure out. Your work is stunning btw.
It just interesting, cause I have shot quite a bit of foma400 in 120 format, never had a problem but I did have the same issue with another roll foma400 35mm from the same batch. Not as much as the first one, but one frame with the same thing. My biggest concern wasn't to get another roll of film as it was just a test, but just let them know in case it was a bigger problem. Sure they could have done more, but I also agree that they didn't have to do anything, it's just a marketing thing, but I'm all good with Foma and I'll keep using their products.
@@WTFphotography oh i'm pretty sure you scans drove 4 or 5 people that worked there nuts. i just found a fuji 135 2.8 bayonet mounted lens. i don't remember buying it.
Koak once destroyed a pro job of 7~9 rolls medium format. They ONLY replaced 2. The damge same on all. Wrong development.Processor jammed. You got extra rolls for one and calendar. I think static..
I had the same, yet smaller shape on Fomapan 100. I initially thought is was some kind of water stain but it was still there after washing. My advice is not to bother the model when you shoot Foma. just waste of her time... And NEVER use Foma in commercial projects. You have Ilford and Kodak for such purposes.
Foma behaviour was more than correct. Theres unwritten law, that manufacturer/lab responsibility ends on compensating for material used. You got your film back, you should be happy. Don't use Foma in commercial projects. It's insane.
Ragging on Foma is totally unwarranted. It's not a film defect. Rapidly advancing your film in an environment with low relative humidity can create static buildup, and discharge, within the film canister and camera body. Shooting multiple consecutive frames over a short time period greatly exaggerates the problem.
Well, you're are right, according to foma it was some static electric discharge, I actually say that on the video and a lot more. You should watch the all thing... You'll see that I'm far from complaining about foma.
That's what good marketing teams do, they give more to make sure that customers have no reason to complain, even if they do!! Still, Foma was spot on and did what was promised and expected. Which seems a surprise to my Czech friend.
what you said in this clip is like saying that your car had a flat tire and you complained to the car manufacturer and got a new tire and then complained to the tire manufacturer and got another one and also a calendar. And instead of being grateful you complained even more that they didn't give you four more tires because they're a big company and they have the money. All while living in one of the richest countries in Europe and complaining to the poorest film manufacturer. I find your way of dealing very immature and unwarranted. I will watch your second video and hope that you came to your senses.
