>>4362385>Wtf did you do?Literally followed the instructions.
Long story (kind of) short, this is Foma R100 (B&W slide). I got the dev kit and bunch of rolls.
It has never once gone completely right. Sometimes it was mostly right (and when it did, I liked the results), but lifting of the top layer of emulsion was always a problem, despite following instructions to the letter, and controlling temperatures to 0.1 degree C.
I reached out to Foma to clarify and ask about the issues I was having, and got reply from their product manager. But his reply was mostly "please follow the published instructions to the letter".
One time it went very, very bad was the first time I did 3 rolls at one, only to find out the developer has failed. See
>>4356013 and
>>4360834.
And yes, I did strip test back then too - everything EXCEPT the dev. I figured since the (supposedly much more degradable) bleach was fine, the developer would be too.
Cue the latest two rolls I shot, including the one I was just posting.
With the kit developer (LQR) dead I used HC-110, which was is closest type I have. I had to guess the dev time, based on other stocks that had both HC-110 and LQR times published, but 8 minutes seemed reasonable.
I strip-tested all the solutions, they seemed fine.
During reversal exposure (
>>4362320), the negative image appeared as expected, before going back for second development.
Everything seemed fine until I went to dry the film and saw that only last 6 frames on each roll looked kind of ok. Seems the film only got properly exposed on the outermost part, but not inside the spiral - despite THIS never being a problem before. I re-exposed it exactly the same as before.
And that's how I got here. I still have two rolls left but I'm done giving Foma shit any more chances. I'll just do them as negatives (conflicting opinions on the net if it looks good or bad that way). I'll toss the rest of the dev kit out.
Or maybe I'll toss the rolls out too because they're bad fucking luck.
