And the backing paper plague hits Bergger...

NortheastPhotographic · May 24, 2020

I shot my wedding myself last week. It was a tiny little ceremony with the neighbors in very Covid style. I decided to do all B&W so I could print the images in my darkroom. I shot 3 rolls of FP4 35mm and 5 rolls of Bergger Pancro 400 in 120. Well, all the Pancro shots have backing paper mottling.

I think I can still print the images and enjoy them for what they are, but this is still unacceptable.

These were fresh rolls, stored properly. It's all in date stuff that I bought earlier this year at Catlabs. I kept them in the fridge, but in their box and packaging. This just should not have happened.

Has anyone gotten replacement rolls from Ilford or Bergger? I contacted them via their website.

P.S. I processed the film in Bergger Superfine. Very interesting developer! You must run the film at 74F, and you are to rate all films at half speed. I actually kind of like the results with the FP4 that doesn't have mottling, and with the less severely effected Pancro shots.

Donald Qualls · May 24, 2020

Honestly, that shot looks like an effect I've seen intentionally generated at premium cost. Ever heard of "washi film"? It's 35mm coated on Japanese bamboo paper, and the paper fibers inevitably show in all scans and optical prints. And it's, as I recall, something like $35/roll.

You got virtually the same look for the regular Bergger Panchro price.

Tom Kershaw · May 24, 2020

I haven't seen these backing paper issues with recent Kodak 120 film - which is what I'm now tending towards. However in the past ILFORD has stated this issue can be related to temperature / humidity changes.

NortheastPhotographic · May 24, 2020

Tom Kershaw said:
I haven't seen these backing paper issues with recent Kodak 120 film - which is what I'm now tending towards. However in the past ILFORD has stated this issue can be related to temperature / humidity changes.

They made a statement recently confirming this is a factory issue. This is fresh film stored in the packaging. There were not extreme temp swings or improper conditions.

Tom Kershaw · May 24, 2020

NortheastPhotographic said:
They made a statement recently confirming this is a factory issue. This is fresh film stored in the packaging. There were not extreme temp swings or improper conditions.

I'm very willing to accept that. Have ILFORD made any updates? They would do well to give more attention to this forum, as in the "old days"...

awty · May 24, 2020

Sure its not a condensation problem? You let the film come to room temperature before taking it out of the package?
I thought the backing paper problem caused circles and numbers on the paper come through onto the film.
Congratulations by the way.

NortheastPhotographic · May 24, 2020

awty said:
Sure its not a condensation problem? You let the film come to room temperature before taking it out of the package?
I thought the backing paper problem caused circles and numbers on the paper come through onto the film.
Congratulations by the way.

I took the film out of the fridge days before the event.

AgX · May 24, 2020

awty said:
I thought the backing paper problem caused circles and numbers on the paper come through onto the film.

There are 2 different backing paper issues:

-) transfer of the back imprint
-) a mottle structure resembling the paper fibre structure

(Foma once had a 3rd type of issue that was related to the backing paper too.)

AgX · May 24, 2020

The mottling effect was known in the industry, but always related to extreme humid storing conditions. But the cases of today are typically cases where the photographers claim to have used fresh film under normal conditions and directly processed.

NortheastPhotographic · May 24, 2020

AgX said:
The mottling effect was known in the industry, but always related to extreme humid storing conditions. But the cases of today are typically cases where the photographers claim to have used fresh film under normal conditions and directly processed.

Yeah I don’t know how to make it more clear. This is in date film recently purchased. I stored it in the fridge until a few days before the event. It was still in the box, in the foil. I shot it on a 70 degree day and processed the film today in a conventional developer in my Jobo.

Also I did see this on a roll before but I thought the issue was due to the extremely long development time in Pyro. That first roll was right from arrival when I first ordered the film.

removedacct1 · May 24, 2020

This is why I no longer store film in the fridge or freezer, unless I plan to cache it for decades.

AgX · May 24, 2020

There is no advice by the manufacturers not to put film in refridgerator or freezer.

NortheastPhotographic · May 24, 2020

paulbarden said:
This is why I no longer store film in the fridge or freezer, unless I plan to cache it for decades.

Again, I shot a roll from this batch that was NEVER in the fridge and it had mottling. This. Is. A. Manufacturing. Issue.

I've seen it in my customer's rolls, and now I'm seeing it on mine.

awty · May 24, 2020

NortheastPhotographic said:
I took the film out of the fridge days before the event.

Ok, I only seen that effect corsed by condensation. Must be something else happening with your film.
Must be upsetting to hapen on such a important occasion.

NortheastPhotographic · May 24, 2020

awty said:
Ok, I only seen that effect corsed by condensation. Must be something else happening with your film.
Must be upsetting to hapen on such a important occasion.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/statement-120-roll-film

Ilford makes Bergger film.

BAC1967 · May 25, 2020

I had that issue with a roll of Ilford Pan F plus 50, they sent me two replacement rolls.

Lachlan Young · May 25, 2020

NortheastPhotographic said:
https://www.ilfordphoto.com/statement-120-roll-film

Ilford makes Bergger film.

Inoviscoat makes the emulsion and coats it, Ilford may do the conversion and packaging.

fs999 · May 25, 2020

I have 20 rolls of unusable Rollei R80S with the shadow of the prints (dots and numbers) and the vendor don't want to take them back

Sal Santamaura · May 25, 2020

Where are all the Kodak bashers in this thread? Shouldn't they be repeating how awful Kodak is and that backing paper issues have never been experienced with other than Kodak 120 film?

NortheastPhotographic · May 25, 2020

Sal Santamaura said:
Where are all the Kodak bashers in this thread? Shouldn't they be repeating how awful Kodak is and that backing paper issues have never been experienced with other than Kodak 120 film?

I am actually pretty forgiving of this kind of thing,. People were way to harsh swearing off Kodak during that time. There just needs to be some truth and reconciliation. I better get replacement rolls is all I'm saying. I'm definitely not getting a repeat of that day.

Bill Burk · May 25, 2020

Sorry for your 120 troubles. You could lower your stress by getting out the 4x5 gear. There is no backing paper issue with sheet film (or 35mm) but I know you were looking for the additional detail that comes with larger film size...

AgX · May 25, 2020

Sal Santamaura said:
Where are all the Kodak bashers in this thread? Shouldn't they be repeating how awful Kodak is and that backing paper issues have never been experienced with other than Kodak 120 film?

The "Kodak bashers" pointed at the way Kodak was handling the case: by veiling it until they finally, to own saying, solved the issue.

Sal Santamaura · May 25, 2020

AgX said:
The "Kodak bashers" pointed at the way Kodak was handling the case: by veiling it until they finally, to own saying, solved the issue.

That was just one of multiple ways they bashed Kodak.

Bottom line: in an era of outsourced supply chains where the vastly smaller chemical photography market ends up with a very small number of suppliers (in some cases only one), similar issues are likely to occur at multiple manufacturers. No company is immune.

AgX · May 25, 2020

Sal Santamaura said:
That was just one of multiple ways they bashed Kodak.

Bottom line: in an era of outsourced supply chains where the vastly smaller chemical photography market ends up with a very small number of suppliers (in some cases only one), similar issues are likely to occur at multiple manufacturers. No company is immune.

I would not call it bashing when one is telling the truth and hinting at seemingly fraudulous behaviour.

Furthermore we do not even know whether the suppy chain was the culprit. And if it was, it still is in the responsibility of the manufacturer with his claim of good quality, let alone the veiling of the issue.

NB23 · May 25, 2020

Next time develop without the backing paper

And the backing paper plague hits Bergger...

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency