SFX 200 Serious Issue

[pentaxuser]

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.

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 enough

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

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.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

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.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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.

None that I've seen in the last year that could be attributed to manufacturing problems & I have seen/ handled/ processed/ had some degree of involvement with hundreds of rolls of 135, 120 & sheet Ilford products in that time period. I think the more important point is that both cases are in export markets (thus distribution chains are involved) & both involve slow moving products.

 

[rolfehorn]

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.

 

[MattKing]

The sources for the backing paper have almost all gone out of business, and there seems to be a lot of problems arising from that - with Kodak being the most affected.

 

[AgX]

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.

None of the industry reports on such matter ever indicated this happening to originally sealed film.
Furthermore it was described as a rare matter happening under extreme storing situations.
In the times of these industry reports I only found it discussed in these reports.

 

[mshchem]

First thing I would do is develop the film exactly as recommended by Ilford. No handmaid PMK. Just straight off the shelf fresh Ilford chemistry, with fresh film. Use deionized water for everything, don't reuse photo flo.
I store film in a fridge and a freezer allow plenty of time to warm up.
The broken plastic spool is troubling but that's packaging.
Hopefully this doesn't blow up into a mess like what happened with Kodak backing paper.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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.

Technical issues can be very frustrating when they are intermittent & drawn out - been there, done that. What is clear is that this is a very intermittent issue & not affecting lots of people. If it was a backing paper fault, it would appear across most of a brick because of how they are confectioned, packaged & finished. The scale of assembly is sufficiently small that you would not get random defective rolls, you would likely get several, probably grouped together. And it is unlikely to be a film coating issue, again both because of QC methods & it would affect a great deal more than a few random rolls. Inferring industrial coating methods & flaws from simple handcoating methodologies is a mistake, not least because of the very tight controls on the amount of silver coated. As much as you may dislike it, absent any other evidence to the contrary, all the indications point to poor handling or storage of the rolls being the cause of the humidity related problems.

 

[AgX]

This thread is running for 4 months now and still there is no respective reply from Ilford.

 

[pentaxuser]

This thread is running for 4 months now and still there is no respective reply from Ilford.

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.

pentaxuser

 

[bestbefore1978]

I’ve seen this problem relatively often over the past 18 months in the lab. I’ve seen it so far on Ilford FP4 / Pan F, Rerapan 400, Tri-X and Kodak Ektar.

So not just isolated to Ilford. I did get a very useful and informative response from Ilford about a specific mottling issue with Pan F. I sent them the backing paper which they analysed and deduced that it was in part due to insufficient lacquering on the paper on a few rolls of that particular run. When in combination with storage in humid conditions (in fridge) these factors combined to cause the mottling (but the low lacquer in itself causes no problems in correctly stored film)

 

[bestbefore1978]

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).”

 

[BrianShaw]

Interesting information. Thanks for sharing with us. Did the Ilford person mention their background or role in the company?

 

[Paul Manuell]

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).”

Bloody hell, that was a hard read. What's with all the spacing?

 

[bestbefore1978]

Interesting information. Thanks for sharing with us. Did the Ilford person mention their background or role in the company?

It was from the customer services manager who also works in Technical Services

 

[bestbefore1978]

Bloody hell, that was a hard read. What's with all the spacing?

Sorry Paul, on the road, copy and paste from phone

 

[BrianShaw]

Bloody 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.

But it was a very comprehensive reply from an authoritative source... which is a significant contribution to the discussion of this whole unfortunate issue.

 

[AgX]

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.

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.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...I explicetely informed them on the fact that they ignore their own "Apug Partner" forum.

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?

 

[pentaxuser]

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.

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.

In that sense the new Ilford in which Pemberstone has an interest is not the old Ilford. I suspect that if I were to have invested a large amount of money in Ilford I'd have looked at the cost to benefit ratio of having an active presence here and the risk of getting embroiled in threads that can turn controversial and even on occasions slightly nasty very quickly and may have decided to keep out and answer individual queries and complaints via my own company's e-mail system

pentaxuser

 

[AgX]

Yes, a sound consideration. But I proposed to Ilford to then skip that forum or make it usable only as outlet for product news etc. No reaction either...

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Don't for get the Fuji haters and the ones who will never forgive Agfa for going out of business.

 

[AgX]

This not about hating but about being blunt about technical issues as well as being blunt about the way one wants to communicate.
Ilford only stated that Simons manner no longer is apllied.

 

[johnmuller32]

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.

Great tips.