SFX 200 Serious Issue

[Brian McNamee]

Ok, so BERGGER Pancro 400 (135) Developed in the same ID-11 as the problem roll in OP.

 

[halfaman]

So just to be clear, how did you and your friend store the film? I am simply trying to help the OP. We have seen explanations from other experienced users that cold storage and lack of time taken to bring the film up to ambient temperature can produce the effect seen by the OP.
I thought I had asked a simple question of you to which an answer on how you stored the film prior to use was going to be equally simple

pentaxuser

Neither me or my friend frozen the film, it is kept in a refrigerator. In my case at 5º C and the refrigerator has been the same all these years I have been shooting film (7-8 years). It is also the same refrigerator where I have stored color paper (not anymore) and sheet film. I warm film naturally with the room ambient, in this particular case it was done overnight. In all this time I have never seen a problem like this. My friend is shooting film for more than 30 years and also never experienced this defect.

For your records, a couple of years ago I forced the warming of some sheet film putting the cage bellow a tugnsten bulb. The resul was horrendous with some of the sheets stick together, I said to myself that I will not force ever again the waming of any film.

 

[peoplemerge]

Ok, so BERGGER Pancro 400 (135) Developed in the same ID-11 as the problem roll in OP.

Stunning photo!

 

[MattKing]

I have to ask. Can you see this on the film directly with a glass? Any chance this is from scanning?

Hi, no iv scanned loads since and before on this machine and no issues. Im scanning a few 35mm frames now that has been developed in the same ID-11 as the problem roll...will post results soon.

The fact that other films have scanned correctly reveals nothing about whether this is scan related.
Can you see the pattern on the negatives under magnification. If not, the problem is probably an artifact of the scanning process.
If you don't have any magnification available, try turning the negatives the other way around (with emulsion facing the same way) and try re-scanning. If the mottling changes its location and/or pattern on the image then you know your problem is with the scanning.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks halfaman. Your explanation is now quite clear. Whatever your or your friend's problems were they were not the result of frozen film being placed straight into a camera without allowing it to warm to ambient temperature

pentaxuser

 

[Mateo]

I have run into this problem with 120 film in Mexico and Florida. Air conditioned car jump out to take a picture and now problems. Frozen and thawed properly or not doesn't matter. If the film ends up colder than the air surrounding it in the camera or film back, then there is problem.

 

[AgX]

But the warm air first must come in contact with the emulsion, thus enter the camera. And if so it only would hit the short strip exposed to air. For the backing paper to absorb moisture and it to diffuse into the spooled parts long time in moist air would be needed.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I've processed an expired roll of Kodak Plus-X (year 2000) recently in XTOL and the film printed fine, even though the texture of the backing paper was visible on the film, no mottling present on negatives. It is possible there is more than one factor at play.

 

[Brian McNamee]

The fact that other films have scanned correctly reveals nothing about whether this is scan related.
Can you see the pattern on the negatives under magnification. If not, the problem is probably an artifact of the scanning process.
If you don't have any magnification available, try turning the negatives the other way around (with emulsion facing the same way) and try re-scanning. If the mottling changes its location and/or pattern on the image then you know your problem is with the scanning.

Yes i can see the dots through magnification.

 

[rolfehorn]

I have had a similar mottling of film from Ilford recently. Both with Delta 400 and Pan F in the 120 format. New film bought from BH, developed in Pyro PMK. I’ve been using Delta 400 for over 25 years and just started using the Pan F as I depleted my Agfa 25 stock finally. The first time I experienced the mottling I though it might be a bad water filter, the most recent time I realized it is the film itself, not fault of mine.

I believe it is a manufacturing defect as I develop two rolls at a time and the mottling only happened on one roll and not the other. It is a bummer. It would be nice to hear from an Ilford rep about this. I’ve relied on Ilford film and papers for my whole career in the fine art business and when a photographer travels abroad to make photographs then discovers that some of the best negatives are ruined upon developing them back in the darkroom, it is very frustrating and sad.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I guess we all should get into the habit of running film through our cameras before going on an important photo jaunt, just to be sure. This is something I've always tried to do.

 

[pentaxuser]

We used to assume, rightly or wrongly, that in the "old days" Simon Galley from Ilford kept a kind of watching brief at APUG and would pick up on any issue with Ilford film. I think we have seen enough evidence to conclude that Ilford has not stepped into the "Simon Galley role" so the only way to attract Ilford's attention is for the aggrieved individual to write to Ilford and keep us informed of Ilford's response.

Unless there is an Ilford issue that has affected a sizeable number of us we can assume that Ilford needs to be told of individual users problems.

Just my thoughts on Ilford's present role here on Photrio. It has changed from Simon's time

pentaxuser

 

[rolfehorn]

Andrew, that seems to be the problem with Ilford films these days. I tested a couple rolls of each film (with same emulsions) before a photo trip. This is a random occurrence. I’ll bet with each batch of film manufactured, there is a fair amount of rolls that have the mottled effect. I won’t buy any of their film that has and expiration in 2021 anymore.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The mottling effect is almost always a humidity problem, not a film problem. This is a well known defect that has long affected 120.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I've been using July 2021 DELTA 100 film recently which shows no mottling, although I have seen the mottling on previous rolls of DELTA 100 so know it occurs.

 

[richyd]

I've recently experienced mottling like this fo the first time. This is with Fomapan 200. At the end of last year I exposed 3 rolls just purchased from a reputable supplier but 2 months out of date. I've never experienced this before and have exposed many films well out of date. I tried a new roll recently newly purchased, in date, and had the same issue but too a lesser extent. I wrote to Foma but never got a reply. These rolls where never refrigerated by me.

If this is happeneing with different manufacturers maybe it is a backing paper problem, and/or storage in supply chain.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Andrew, that seems to be the problem with Ilford films these days. I tested a couple rolls of each film (with same emulsions) before a photo trip. This is a random occurrence. I’ll bet with each batch of film manufactured, there is a fair amount of rolls that have the mottled effect. I won’t buy any of their film that has and expiration in 2021 anymore.

Have you experienced mottling with other brands of '120' film?

 

[AgX]

No that's incorrect, Ilford made that point quite clear. All emulsions contain some residual moisture but backing papers contain more even inside the sealed foil packaging. So if you've frozen that moisture it needs to unfreeze and diffuse slowly, too fast and you get these issues.

People at Harman are invited to explain to me the physics behind that.
For the amount of not harmful water within the backing paper and the emulsion with the film still originally sealed the speed of defreezing is of no matter, as it is just the reverse of (condensating and) freezing. Things cannot get worse than before.

 

[rolfehorn]

Have you experienced mottling with other brands of '120' film?

No, I haven’t. I’ve developed about 10,000 rolls of film over the last 30+ years. Never had this happen to me. I’ll make a couple quick RC prints in the next couple days to scan and upload here for reference.

I haven’t experienced this with any other brand of film. Nothing to do with humidity in my opinion. Probably on the silver coating process.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

No, I haven’t. I’ve developed about 10,000 rolls of film over the last 30+ years. Never had this happen to me. I’ll make a couple quick RC prints in the next couple days to scan and upload here for reference.

I haven’t experienced this with any other brand of film. Nothing to do with humidity in my opinion. Probably on the silver coating process.

It is odd how this mottling seems to have become much more of a problem in recent years. I'll try and remember to note if / when I next observe the problem.

PS) Some great work on your site.

Tom

 

[Ian Grant]

People at Harman are invited to explain to me the physics behind that.
For the amount of not harmful water within the backing paper and the emulsion with the film still originally sealed the speed of defreezing is of no matter, as it is just the reverse of (condensating and) freezing. Things cannot get worse than before.

It's simple there's traces of moisture (water) in film emulsion as well as the backing paper, freezing the film will cause the water to form ice crystals which will grow. If these unfreeze too rapidly they dont't allow the moisture to dissipate evenly back into the emulsion and backing paper cuasing issues where backing paper comes into contact with the film and remember both sides of 120 film are coated, the back with an anti curl gelatin layer.

Ian

 

[canuhead]

So taking a film out of a freezer or fridge, then out of its sealed packaging and loading it straight into a camera on, say, a hot July afternoon without letting it acclimatise first is ok in your view, is it? The condensation that would quickly form on the film and inside the film holder when attached to/inserted into the camera wouldn't be an issue then?

I believe he means that if left in the wrapper, then film doesn't need to go freezer > fridge > open. just warm up as you see fit, THEN open wrapper, AFTER it's warmed up. at least this how I read it...

 

[rolfehorn]

Have you experienced mottling with other brands of '120' film?

I thought I stated that I have been using Ilford films for nearly 30 years, and have never had this issue.

 

[rolfehorn]

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.

 

[AgX]

As 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.