Yes, as I said in my earlier post, the days of Ilford having an active "watching brief" here are gone. Those with the problem need to e-mail Ilford. If there were a few people doing that then at least they could tell us what Ilford says in reply and possibly Ilford might then consider a reply on Photrio if the number writing to it was large enoughAs a side note: this is the Ilford partner-forum, this thread is running about 4 weeks, with some questioning on Ilford.
Not a word from them.
I assume the partnership has been reduced to mere sponsoring.
I may start a new thread in the Darkroom forum: B&W: Film Paper, Chemistry... As I don't think people will think to look at this thread as much as the Darkroom forum. (I found this thread through a google search, oddly enough). This is for 120 format film only.
I have talked to a couple photo store reps, though they are not Ilford reps. They all thought this and that and the other, (as eluded to by other posters here) but after some discussion, it seems that they saw it from my point of view: manufacturing defiects. SFX 200, Delta 400 and PanF 50. Surely there are others as well.
I develop two rolls at a time, in stainless steel tanks, and use fresh diluted photo flow every 10 rolls. The "mottled" parts are not dirt, debris, etc., and they are there on the film before it goes into the photo flow. The mottled bits are in the film, the emultion.
I will try to upload some of my photos scanned from RC workprints. The prints are not necessarily excellent prints, but they do show the flaws in the film and the horror of the retouching job necessary in order to have the prints made in the traditional sense. I am thinking somewhere from 30-40 hours of retouching per print.
I have been using Ilford Delta 400 for about 28 years exclusively in Pyro PMK, and just began using Ilford PanF after my stock of Agfa 25 ran out (need a slow speed film of course). This is 120 format film film. When a photographer tests out a film, for exposure index, development time, latitude and grain structure, once they come up with something good, they tend to stick with it. It becomes predictable, reliable, especially in the long exposures where reciprocity comes into effect and when using the Zone System or Tone System (as I use).
Photo 1 and 2 is Ilford Delta 400, same roll of film. The other roll developed at the same time was not affected.
Photo 3 is a close up of the clouds in photo 2.
Photo 4 is Ilford Pan F, printed a bit too contrasty, (awful print really) but shows the damage. the other roll I develop at the same time was not effected.
View attachment 222790 View attachment 222791 View attachment 222792 View attachment 222793 View attachment 222790 View attachment 222791 View attachment 222792 View attachment 222793
These are almost textbook examples of 120 film suffering condensation/ getting damp & sticking to the backing paper - poor storage or handling in distribution or retail or before/ after shooting must be investigated & eliminated before blaming the manufacturer. That it happened to multiple rolls of less popular/ slower moving products (relative to HP5+, FP4+, Delta 100 etc) that were likely finished weeks or months apart at the factory suggests it's unlikely to be a manufacturing issue.
It might be interesting to note whether there have been any reported concerns with 35mm or sheet film QC on ILFORD products, or as you say '120' backing paper poses particular technical issues.
These are almost textbook examples of 120 film suffering condensation/ getting damp & sticking to the backing paper - poor storage or handling in distribution or retail or before/ after shooting must be investigated & eliminated before blaming the manufacturer. That it happened to multiple rolls of less popular/ slower moving products (relative to HP5+, FP4+, Delta 100 etc) that were likely finished weeks or months apart at the factory suggests it's unlikely to be a manufacturing issue.
Honestly, Lachlan Young, you are blowing hot air. You say this and that without any evidence. Backing paper problem with regard to resellers. What if the backing paper problem comes from the manufacturing hold? Then it is, indeed a manufacturing problem.
If that is so Lachlan Young, then why does one roll in a pro pack have great results, and the roll next to it in a pro pack (Brock’s of 10 rolls) show this awful result? Stop blowing hot air please. You are adding nothing constructive to this thread.
I wish it was the backing paper, then I would have had this issue 25 years ago, and figured out a way to solve this. It is not the backing paper, think about when the silver coating is layed on to the gelatin based film stock. That’s where I think it is happening. Too much silver will give these kind of effects, especially if you have ever played with coating your own films or papers.
Who here has contacted Ilford on this issue? As far as I can see no-one here and certainly not the OP has contacted Ilford directly. If you are referring to the fact that Ilford has not replied as a result of seeing this thread then as I explained, in a previous post i do not believe Ilford routinely monitors this forum any longer. No reply in 4 months would suggest that I am right.This thread is running for 4 months now and still there is no respective reply from Ilford.
Bloody hell, that was a hard read. What's with all the spacing?Here is an extract of the response I had from Ilford:
“To better guide you re the defect...
When I've had these types of spot interaction issues raised to me before
- its typically never been more than 3 or 4 individual incidents
reported to me in any given year, and its mostly only ever been on Pan F
Plus roll film, and only very occasionally on FP4+ roll film (its these
2 products as they have our oldest film formulations, and therefore are
likely the least robust to non standard issues).
For those very few complaints its arisen with, its only affected roll
format - because of the link to wrapper.
The spots presence, has never historically been linked to an entire slit
of roll film wrapper. Nor has it ever been linked to any coating or
finishing problems with any given batch of film. In terms of why some
wrapper is affected, but not virtually all others - is linked to lacquer
levels (slightly low levels) on the wrapper. When low lacquering has
arisen, its typically only ever been 1 customer flagging it up on any
one given batch, and despite 1000's of other 120 roll films coming off
that exact same batch, all other films made, have been unaffected.
Often, the low lacquering causes no adverse interaction effect on the
film.
So although the spots are part triggered by products perhaps not being
100% robust to interaction effects from the wrappers, they seem to need
to be triggered by certain external factors such as the following :-
- Its arisen on films that were old/had exceeded our guide expiry
dates.
- Its arisen on films that were proven to have been poorly stored
(subjected to extreme high temperatures, or to high RH) - or subjected
to fluctuating temperatures/RH.
- Its arisen on films that have been left exposed a long time before
being processed.
- Its arisen with films that haven't been given a long enough time to
acclimatise when taken out of a fridge/freezer - before being camera
exposed. ie films have moisture.
- Its arisen when very long exposures have been given.
- Its arisen before when people have pre-soaked the films - prior to
developing them.
- Its occasionally arisen when obscure developers or pyro processing
was given.
It may be that you can recognise something above - as a potential
trigger. (eg with your FP4+ one, it actually may have been the moisture
from the sea that triggered it).”
It was from the customer services manager who also works in Technical ServicesInteresting information. Thanks for sharing with us. Did the Ilford person mention their background or role in the company?
Sorry Paul, on the road, copy and paste from phoneBloody hell, that was a hard read. What's with all the spacing?
The spacing was only part of it... even with “proper spacing” it was a bit of a hard read... for an American, at least.Bloody hell, that was a hard read. What's with all the spacing?
Who here has contacted Ilford on this issue? As far as I can see no-one here and certainly not the OP has contacted Ilford directly. If you are referring to the fact that Ilford has not replied as a result of seeing this thread then as I explained, in a previous post i do not believe Ilford routinely monitors this forum any longer. No reply in 4 months would suggest that I am right.
They certainly knew that already, having made the conscious decision not to regularly monitor it. Simon Galley and his co-owners sold the firm. Current owners have a different approach. It's their business now and their decision how to run it. Why not simply be grateful that HARMAN still exists and provides partner-level financial support to PHOTRIO?...I explicetely informed them on the fact that they ignore their own "Apug Partner" forum.
I am inclined to conclude that Ilford's definition of being an APUG Partner does not include having a "watching brief" on Photrio at least not the kind of "watching brief" which means it will respond in the way Simon Galley responded to some threads on APUG.Ilford learned about it through contacts and replied after long time in another thread. Their reply was that they will look into the matter. No further reply either since weeks.
I explicetely informed them on the fact that they ignore their own "Apug Partner" forum.
OK, let the HARMAN haters gave a go at Ilford 120 film now. Kodak can use some companionship. When all film suppliers are put out of business, there's always digital. Sad.
Great tips.Condensation takes place by vapour in the warm air condensing on the cold surface of what subject is taken out of the cold/fridge. Thus on the outside of the packaging foil or on the outside of the cassette. Otherwise that warm air would have to get somehow onto the film.
There is no need for warming up slowly as long the critical surfaces are warm when in contact with warm air. If they come in contact all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?