Very strange fine-lined, wavy, marks on film?

[What About Bob]

I've just printed some negatives from the film in question and the lines do not seem to appear in the printed image, 20"x16" paper from 6x7cm negatives. However, none of the negatives have clear sky or other similar areas.

Are you using a condenser or a diffusion enlarger for your printing?

 

[kevs]

So it appears that Harman admitted it was a manufacturing defect but not one that would show up on a print. Did Harman say why a defect that can be seen on a negative will not show up on a print as I cannot work out how Harman could have been so sure and secondly did Harman say if this kind of defect was there rarely/often/ all of the time but wasn't something Harman concerned itself about because there was no way this could show up in a print?

If you have given us everything that Harman said then frankly its response is worrying

pentaxuser

Hi Pentaxuser;

The comment about the marks not appearing in prints might have been part of a written response from Harman's QC department. I would need to find the letter (if I still have it) to be sure, bearing in mind this was March 2013. The QC dept. didn't comment on its rarity or commonality, and they certainly didn't say they were unconcerned about it because it wouldn't appear in prints (I haven't tested this claim).

I still have part of my APUG correspondence with Simon in my inbox; i described the marks as two parallel "wiggles" running down the film that were 2mm apart. I also seem to remember the wiggles were lines on the base of the film rather than the emulsion so would have been adjacent to the backing paper, which is when I realised my camera (Bronica SQ-B) couldn't have been the culprit. I also ran a Kodak film through the same back the following week, and that was devoid of the wiggles.

I don't appear to have kept my original message to Simon, unless it's a post in the Ilford partner forum; feel free to check if you wish -- it would be dated 21 or 22 March 2013. I would still recommend the OP and anyone else who has found these marks to contact Harman's QC department.

Edit to add: This is Simon's response to the Nov 2013 thread quoted earlier. There is no post from me in the Ilford sub-forum; I obviously PM'd Simon directly.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/reply-from-ilford-photo-re-wavy-scratched-thread.108670/

kevs

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks kevs. It certainly seems to me that clarification of why Ilford apparently was so sure the lines would not appear in a print is overdue as well as clarification on whether this current problem is the same or entirely different.

pentaxuser

 

[Willyekerslike]

Not all photographers will be happy with that.

From all we know Kodak Alaris knowingly let cutomers buy faulty films hoping that not too many turn out bad.
I hope that Harman is sure about such base not effecting the transmissive image in any way, and that this turns out a storm in a glass of water.

Hi AgX, can you explain to me, simple fellow that I am, how the film is faulty.

I cannot understand why a reaonably inteligent person would suggest that Harman would knowingly sell a faulty product to customers . Are you aware of the history of this firm and its on going comitment to film photography, and the lengths they go to in their quality control of the producys they sell. Shame on you for such words.

I have been using Ilford film for nigh on sixty years, I have never had a problem in that time that I could put down to a faulty product.

Harman in an earlier thread stated that the wavy lines would not effect the use of the film, have you personaly had a problem with wavy lines affecting your work? Please explain how it has affected your work if it has.

Seems to me there are one or two folks on this site more than keen to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

The replacement of a faulty role is a standard guarantee of all film manufacturers which I think is a good one, ever tried getting a new car sorted that is faulty?

 

[MattKing]

Kodak Alaris never sold film they knew to be faulty, just as I am sure Harman doesn't.
We can argue about whether Kodak Alaris should have recalled film after they started to see problems that were originally thought to be related to handling, but that is different.

 

[What About Bob]

Hi AgX, can you explain to me, simple fellow that I am, how the film is faulty.
Harman in an earlier thread stated that the wavy lines would not effect the use of the film, have you personaly had a problem with wavy lines affecting your work? Please explain how it has affected your work if it has.

My interest would be does their statement of that fact apply to printing from a condenser based enlarger? I will be finding this out for myself this coming weekend.

In my eyes: it isn't important that the lines do not show up on prints. What is important is that those lines should not be in the film at all.

 

[MattKing]

If an artifact has no effect on any of usual products of a negative - enlargements, scans, projected transparencies - then it is of no consequence, and need not be worried about.
If prints or scans or transparencies don't reveal any problems from this, then it is essentially the same as the relief on a Kodachrome slides surface - interesting, but of no real importance.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Are you using a condenser or a diffusion enlarger for your printing?

Diffusion enlarger - De Vere 5108 with Dichromat colour head. I also have a De Vere 504 with an ILFORD MG500 head which is diffusion as well, although I have not yet printed any of the "wavy line" negatives on that machine.

 

[What About Bob]

Diffusion enlarger - De Vere 5108 with Dichromat colour head. I also have a De Vere 504 with an ILFORD MG500 head which is diffusion as well, although I have not yet printed any of the "wavy line" negatives on that machine.

I'll be printing on a Saunders LPL C6600, this Saturday night. I'll report back with what results I get.

 

[pentaxuser]

I'll be printing on a Saunders LPL C6600, this Saturday night. I'll report back with what results I get.

I think we need to await your results before really being able to take this forward. If nothing shows up on a print I'd still be interested to hear the explanation from Ilford as to why such lines fail to show on a print.

pentaxuser

 

[kevs]

Thanks kevs. It certainly seems to me that clarification of why Ilford apparently was so sure the lines would not appear in a print is overdue as well as clarification on whether this current problem is the same or entirely different.

pentaxuser

No problem; after a quick rummage I couldn't find the letter from Harman QC so I can only go by memory at the moment. I admit I found that comment (from Harman QC, not Simon) odd too.

Cheers,
kevs

 

[AgX]

I cannot understand why a reaonably inteligent person would suggest that Harman would knowingly sell a faulty product to customers . Are you aware of the history of this firm and its on going comitment to film photography, and the lengths they go to in their quality control of the producys they sell. Shame on you for such words.

Would you have read my posts you would have realized that I know the photochemical industry for many years, and their history. Moreover I participate in that industry, to its great financial benefit, and to people who kept their jobs.
I do not feel ashamed of any of my word. Instead you better consider your words.

I cannot understand why a reaonably inteligent person would suggest that Harman would knowingly sell a faulty product to customers

I did not say Harman did, but instead I said that from all we know Kodak Alaris did. (There even may evolve a legal case for Kodak Alaris.)

Harman admitted in 2013 that the base of a certain batch had scratches. The same time stating that they cannot check every meter for any defect. (What anyone involved in the industry knows.) Their statement on the scratches not affecting the image thus can only be based on their test samples and on what customrs sent in.

At any production a artefact that just-not affects the product quality must be avoided at all. A production in the hope it will not matter is utmost risky. More so when mosdt tiny tolerances at such artefact decide over it appearing or not. More so in a industry as ours, where not each and every product can be controlled and were the late recognition of a fault may mean the loss of a small fortune.

Now we got (on what we know today) the same artefact appearing again. That is no good seen what I explained above. The conclusions to be drawn from this is solely up to you.

The replacement of a faulty role is a standard guarantee of all film manufacturers which I think is a good one, ever tried getting a new car sorted that is faulty?

I did not question this, moreover it is a legal requiremrnt in many legislations.
The photographer however who spent time and effort to take some photograph often is has bigger loss than just the cost of film. In this context the appearance of an artefact may flippantly be tolerated. However changing a production may by magnitude be more costly than paying product cost refunds, as countless cases from various industries showed.

 

[What About Bob]

My printing will be delayed until tomorrow night. I forgot to get distilled water. I do apologize for this delay.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

A sine wave the length of the film is what X-ray fog looks llike, but that doesn’t make sense with Fan-F Did you put the film through checked baggage?

 

[AgX]

David, the X-ray artefact appears as banding exposure.

The artefact we discuss here appears as fine scratching of the base.

 

[What About Bob]

A sine wave the length of the film is what X-ray fog looks llike, but that doesn’t make sense with Fan-F Did you put the film through checked baggage?

I have never flown in my life so that would be a no on that one.

 

[What About Bob]

I have printed a few test prints and made some regular prints from the Pan F films with a Saunders LPL C6600 condenser enlarger and from my inspection of the work I do not see any lines in the prints and no irregularities in either highlights, midtones and shadows on the prints from the lines on the film.

While this is good news, I would like to see the lines on the film not there. That is me. Now I have another issue. Underneath my sink has sprang a leak and now my bathroom floor is wet, lol.

 

[What About Bob]

I got contacted by Sue at Ilford today and she wanted me to send an example of the defect through email. I wrote back and asked her if I could shoot a roll and send that negative to her because I do not have a film scanner and my phone is utter poo-poo in that it will not furnish an acceptable picture of even the negative itself for showing as an example.

I did let Sue know that I printed on my condenser enlarger and there was nothing negative there on any of my prints, no pun intended.

I was told that Ilford will do some investigation on the batch lot of those films.

 

[feral_capitalist]

I know exactly what you're talking about. Wavy sinusoidal "scratches" on the non-emulsion side of Ilford films. It doesn't have anything to do with damaging it in development. Sadly, I had the same thing with multiple rolls of HP5. I like llford films, but the price point and quality doesn't do it well for me. Hopefully Ilford corrects this.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I know exactly what you're talking about. Wavy sinusoidal "scratches" on the non-emulsion side of Ilford films. It doesn't have anything to do with damaging it in development. Sadly, I had the same thing with multiple rolls of HP5. I like llford films, but the price point and quality doesn't do it well for me. Hopefully Ilford corrects this.

Have you seen this on sheet film or purely on 120?

 

[What About Bob]

I am sad to say that I processed two extra rolls of Pan F Plus today and I have one more to expose and develop. The two I developed today sadly do not show any lines at all!! I am a bit surprised and saddened by this because I wanted to send and show off samples. The negatives that I do have from the other films are important and I am not able to part with them at this time. I am on a deadline and must work on my portfolio now and those negatives are connected with that.

I will notify Sue at Ilford about this and remain in contact with them. Maybe this last roll will have the lines.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Thanks for keeping the thread updated. I've found six rolls of my stock which I suspect may be from the "problem" batch, but this issue seems rather random rather than specific to a particular case.

 

[What About Bob]

Thanks for keeping the thread updated. I've found six rolls of my stock which I suspect may be from the "problem" batch, but this issue seems rather random rather than specific to a particular case.

I will keep it going. I really wanted those lines to be there in those two rolls. I could have used those rolls for something important. Well at least I have times and temperatures down pat for Pan F Plus and Rodinal at 1:50 so I guess it wasn't a total waste. Now this last roll: If I shoot something important the lines will show up, if I shoot poo-poo pictures I bet I get no lines, lol. Feeling Lucky?

 

[MattKing]

The batch of film may be unrelated to the emulsion batch.
I doubt that the manufacture of the substrate is on exactly the same schedule as the schedule for the coating and the schedule for the "confectioning".

 

[Tom Kershaw]

The batch of film may be unrelated to the emulsion batch.
I doubt that the manufacture of the substrate is on exactly the same schedule as the schedule for the coating and the schedule for the "confectioning".

This is a good point. I'm not sure of the current situation but historically I believe ILFORD buy in the substrate, coat the emulsion and confection in house.