And the backing paper plague hits Bergger...

Sal Santamaura · May 26, 2020

AgX said:
...The legal case I referred to above was not tried to start as far as we know by a lawyer, but by a commercial photographer.

Sal Santamaura said:
Unless he has a fool for a client, the photographer is not representing himself in that case.

AgX said:
I do not understand why you are joking about one of the very few commercial photographer who still use film and claims to have his job spoiled by bad film.

If my German were one percent as good as your English, I'd be very proud. Therefore, please accept my apologies for attempting subtle humor in that last reply.

Explanation: There's an old saying that anyone who represents themselves in court has a fool for a client. I had been commenting about how lawyers often facilitate what I consider unfounded -- frivolous -- legal actions. You mentioned that the case in question wasn't a class action, but had been initiated by the photographer. I then clumsily tried to point out that, unless the photographer was acting as his own lawyer, there was an actual lawyer involved, one who likely took the case on contingency (i.e. no legal fee unless he won the case).

MattKing · May 26, 2020

Sal Santamaura said:
I then clumsily tried to point out that, unless the photographer was acting as his own lawyer, there was an actual lawyer involved, one who likely took the case on contingency (i.e. no legal fee unless he won the case).

Contingency fee legal work is prohibited in many parts of the world or, if not prohibited, severely limited.
I don't know if that applies in Germany.
Civil actions in deceit are fairly common in the common law world, although they are sometimes referred to as civil fraud. In my jurisdiction, a criminal conviction can't be used to support a civil case, but the evidence led in the criminal case can provide a fruitful source for pre-trial discovery and all sorts of trial tools.

Adrian Bacon · May 26, 2020

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

Ilford’s statement pretty clearly says to avoid fluctuating temperatures. Going from ambient to a fridge/freezer and back seems to be pretty large, and at least one fluctuation.

Sirius Glass · May 26, 2020

Adrian Bacon said:
Ilford’s statement pretty clearly says to avoid fluctuating temperatures. Going from ambient to a fridge/freezer and back seems to be pretty large, and at least one fluctuation.

And that is why I clearly state to keep film in the original unopened packaging before refrigerating or freezing and when the packaging has been opened place the film in a ZipLok bag. Film needs to come to ambient temperature before unwrapping.

Tom Kershaw · May 27, 2020

I don't generally put black & white film in the fridge, but I have experienced the backing paper mottling interaction issue a few years ago, although not with my recent stocks of well-in-date ILFORD film.

AgX · May 27, 2020

Adrian Bacon said:
Ilford’s statement pretty clearly says to avoid fluctuating temperatures. Going from ambient to a fridge/freezer and back seems to be pretty large, and at least one fluctuation.

"fluctuating" means a repetitive change of something.
Furthermore Ilford advise cool storage.

Excluding putting the film even just in a fridge would the same time mean excluding use of film in winter...

Adrian Bacon · May 27, 2020

AgX said:
"fluctuating" means a repetitive change of something.
Furthermore Ilford advise cool storage.

Excluding putting the film even just in a fridge would the same time mean excluding use of film in winter...

Im just pointing out that unless you live in the middle of the desert, or a third world country, the insides of most houses are pretty consistently at a temperature that will not harm film. If it was, the humans living there would also be very uncomfortable. Unless you’ve got years worth of film stock piled, subjecting the film to a large temperature change like putting it in the fridge or freezer is probably just unnecessarily asking to introduce problems as soon as you take it out. The inside of the package is not completely free of moisture. The fact that Ilford gives general guidance to avoid humidity when stored should say quite a bit about how much the packaging probably breaths.

all that being said, if anybody feels that putting their film in the fridge/freezer as soon as they get it is the only way to go because it’ll somehow go bad before the due date, go right ahead. It’s your film. I used to do the same thing. Ran into a spate of issues, stopped doing it, and guess what? Issues went away. I also stopped keeping more than a few months worth of film on hand as well. Not much point in stockpiling years worth of film. I’d rather buy it as I need it so it’s reasonably fresh.

foc · May 27, 2020

Adrian Bacon said:
Im just pointing out that unless you live in the middle of the desert, or a third world country, the insides of most houses are pretty consistently at a temperature that will not harm film. If it was, the humans living there would also be very uncomfortable. Unless you’ve got years worth of film stock piled, subjecting the film to a large temperature change like putting it in the fridge or freezer is probably just unnecessarily asking to introduce problems as soon as you take it out. The inside of the package is not completely free of moisture. The fact that Ilford gives general guidance to avoid humidity when stored should say quite a bit about how much the packaging probably breaths.

all that being said, if anybody feels that putting their film in the fridge/freezer as soon as they get it is the only way to go because it’ll somehow go bad before the due date, go right ahead. It’s your film. I used to do the same thing. Ran into a spate of issues, stopped doing it, and guess what? Issues went away. I also stopped keeping more than a few months worth of film on hand as well. Not much point in stockpiling years worth of film. I’d rather buy it as I need it so it’s reasonably fresh.

+1

NortheastPhotographic · May 27, 2020

Adrian Bacon said:
Ilford’s statement pretty clearly says to avoid fluctuating temperatures. Going from ambient to a fridge/freezer and back seems to be pretty large, and at least one fluctuation.

Point taken, however this issue presented itself on a roll that I shot immediately after receiving the film from Catlabs with no refrigeration step on my end. First I attributed the issue to an extremely long development time in 510-Pyro, but now I'm seeing the same issue with Bergger Superfine and XTol. So refrigeration or no refrigeration, pyro or XTol or Superfine, the issue persists.

On refrigeration, you should be able to store your film somewhat cold as long as it's in it's foil or plastic wrapper. This has been a standard practice for as long as I've been around. Go into any pro camera store and the color film is in a beverage cooler or similar. Maybe if I pulled it out of the fridge and opened the package and plopped it in a very hot humid place an issue would occur. But we're talking mini-fridge to 65F room (it's May afterall), in it's original packaging.

Anyway the question is irrelevant because the first roll I shot with no refrigeration showed the issue.

Wallendo · May 27, 2020

I used to refrigerate/freeze film, but now, with the exception of a few Pro-packs of Velvia I bought short-dated, I leave film at room temperature.

I had a roll of bad Ektar a few years back. The film had only been in an air-conditioned house. But, I have no idea what happened during transport from EK to the distributor, the distributor to the seller (B&H), how it was stored in their warehouse, how it was transported from their warehouse through the UPS/FedEx/USPS delivery network to my house in the quite warm South.

NortheastPhotographic · May 27, 2020

Bergger is replacing my film! Good news indeed.

I also ordered some in 5x7 from Catlabs. I actually quite like Pancro despite the issues with the backing paper or mottling. The grain is classic. Reminds me of Super-XX.

AgX · May 27, 2020

Adrian Bacon said:
Im just pointing out that unless you live in the middle of the desert, or a third world country, the insides of most houses are pretty consistently at a temperature that will not harm film.

There are photographers that work outside in the winter, and neither temper their film or camera, nor work from their sedan car. So the film is treated as being put in a fridge.
Over here houses typically are not consistent in temperature, but in summer heat up like an oven.

jtk · May 27, 2020

Temp in aircraft, mail and shipping vehicles fluctuates wildly, up and down, every day in transit. Best to deal directly with a huge dealership (B&H) that has a serious logistics team for efficient shipping than with a specialty company...and obviously better to pay for quick delivery. Everybody knows that, right?

Donald Qualls · May 28, 2020

jtk said:
y...and obviously better to pay for quick delivery. Everybody knows that, right?

Well, sure, it makes perfect sense to order $50 worth of film and pay $70 to ship it two-day. Or would it be more sensible to spring for the $125 or so for overnight?

Grim Tuesday · May 28, 2020

Adrian Bacon said:
Im just pointing out that unless you live in the middle of the desert, or a third world country, the insides of most houses are pretty consistently at a temperature that will not harm film. If it was, the humans living there would also be very uncomfortable. Unless you’ve got years worth of film stock piled, subjecting the film to a large temperature change like putting it in the fridge or freezer is probably just unnecessarily asking to introduce problems as soon as you take it out. The inside of the package is not completely free of moisture. The fact that Ilford gives general guidance to avoid humidity when stored should say quite a bit about how much the packaging probably breaths.

all that being said, if anybody feels that putting their film in the fridge/freezer as soon as they get it is the only way to go because it’ll somehow go bad before the due date, go right ahead. It’s your film. I used to do the same thing. Ran into a spate of issues, stopped doing it, and guess what? Issues went away. I also stopped keeping more than a few months worth of film on hand as well. Not much point in stockpiling years worth of film. I’d rather buy it as I need it so it’s reasonably fresh.

The Ilford foil packs are not actually airtight. You can tell by giving them a squeeze and the air comes out, and they slowly reinflate. I don't really understand why this is, when Kodak and Fuji both seal their packets.

AgX · May 28, 2020

Interesting observation on the Iford foil packs. But squeezing a bag not neccesarily replicates the pressure differences (and thus maybe humidity changes) in normal handling.

pentaxuser · May 28, 2020

Grim Tuesday said:
The Ilford foil packs are not actually airtight. You can tell by giving them a squeeze and the air comes out, and they slowly reinflate. I don't really understand why this is, when Kodak and Fuji both seal their packets.

I have just checked my stock. There does appear to be air inside the wrapping paper around the HP5+ roll i.e. it is not vacuumed packed as is some food stuff. I then checked my rolls of TMax and they were exactly the same as the HP5+ . My TMax 400 predates the backing paper problem so can anyone else say whether their post backing-paper rolls also have air inside?

It might be that neither Ilford or Kodak believe that foil or what I suspect is plasticised paper in both case has to have all the air extracted for the wrapping material to do its job?

pentaxuser

Donald Qualls · May 28, 2020

pentaxuser said:
I have just checked my stock. There does appear to be air inside the wrapping paper around the HP5+ roll i.e. it is not vacuumed packed as is some food stuff. I then checked my rolls of TMax and they were exactly the same as the HP5+ . My TMax 400 predates the backing paper problem so can anyone else say whether their post backing-paper rolls also have air inside?

I received five fresh rolls of Tri-X 120 last week, expiration sometime in 2021 -- it's got air trapped in the foil. On the other hand, neither my fresh nor my old .EDU Ultra 100 and 400 seem to have any sort of pressure differential (their wrappers are much more like foil-lined paper than the plastic on the fresh Kodak product).

BradS · May 28, 2020

Adrian Bacon said:
Im just pointing out that unless you live in the middle of the desert, or a third world country, the insides of most houses are pretty consistently at a temperature that will not harm film. If it was, the humans living there would also be very uncomfortable. Unless you’ve got years worth of film stock piled, subjecting the film to a large temperature change like putting it in the fridge or freezer is probably just unnecessarily asking to introduce problems as soon as you take it out. The inside of the package is not completely free of moisture. The fact that Ilford gives general guidance to avoid humidity when stored should say quite a bit about how much the packaging probably breaths.

all that being said, if anybody feels that putting their film in the fridge/freezer as soon as they get it is the only way to go because it’ll somehow go bad before the due date, go right ahead. It’s your film. I used to do the same thing. Ran into a spate of issues, stopped doing it, and guess what? Issues went away. I also stopped keeping more than a few months worth of film on hand as well. Not much point in stockpiling years worth of film. I’d rather buy it as I need it so it’s reasonably fresh.

+1 except I never put film in the freezer...just seems like such a bad idea.

...but people have their religious beliefs.

pentaxuser · May 28, 2020

Hopefully, Donald, Grim Tuesday will reply and clear up my/our confusion. Certainly as I understand the "physics" of packagiing with no air, it is one where the packaging has air extracted from it then it is sealed so clings tightly to the roll. This is not the case with either my HP5+ or my TMax and does not appear to be case with your Tri-X either.

pentaxuser

Donald Qualls · May 28, 2020

@pentaxuser I don't know that actual vacuum packaging would be desirable for film anyway -- it'd be an invitation for the gelatin to lose moisture, vs. trapping a small quantity of air at (highly controlled) factory conditions in the innermost package (functionally equivalent to the film can 35mm comes in). I don't recall ever seeing the thin plastic inner wrap that Kodak, Fuji, and apparently Ilford now use that didn't have some air trapped inside -- I've got some 120 Ektachrome that I've had for at least five years (maybe ten) that's packaged the same way (got a roll in my Reflex II right now, hoping it doesn't have frame numbers printed onto the emulsion).

Adrian Bacon · May 28, 2020

BradS said:
+1 except I never put film in the freezer...just seems like such a bad idea.

...but people have their religious beliefs.

exactly.

foc · May 29, 2020

I shot film professionally, (weddings, studio, small commercial etc), from 1985 till I changed to digital in 2002.
I shot mainly Fuji Reala, some Pro 160s, NPH 400,Astia 100, Provia 100, Neopan Acros 100, Neopan 400 pro, in 35mm and 120.
I never put my film in a freezer or chilled it in a fridge (I live in a temperate oceanic climate).
I never had a problem with any of my films in all the years.
Maybe the phrase "shoot fresh and shoot often" is a good one.

AgX · May 29, 2020

Rollfilm is on the market for over 100years, fridges and freezers for 70years, but the industry has not reported such artefact until now.

Tom Kershaw · May 29, 2020

I've used roll film for around 15/16 years now and have only seen this reported more recently. No recollection of this issue when I joined APUG in 2004.

And the backing paper plague hits Bergger...

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency