Awful grainy images

[lazyblow]

Hi,

I am new to this forum but I have been practicing for 20 years without a lot of problems in ZebraLab in Geneva.

I have develop a medium format FOMA 100 with Ifosol 3 at 20 degrees. I pre-washed, develop, stop, fixed (without temp control) and wash.

The results are awful as I have this huge grains that make the images useless. You'll notice that it's only visible in dark areas.

If anyone know what causes this, I am very curious. Thanks a lot!

Best,
Jean Luc Andrianasolo

 

[M-88]

If this is a medium format film, then this mottling (it's irregular and uneven, so it's not a grain) most likely caused by the backing paper - Foma is not exactly good at quality control.

Welcome to Photrio. Soon more proficient individuals are going to chime in.

 

[miha]

What M-88 said (apart from the quality control bit). How was the film stored?

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Foma is not exactly good at quality control.

It's a bit unfair to pin backing paper mottling on Foma alone. There aren't any shortages examples of similar defects in Ilford and Kodak stocks. If Fuji still made film they'd likely be affected as well.

 

[koraks]

Welcome to Photrio, @lazyblow!

I agree with the others that this looks like backing paper mottling. The following factors can influence this:

• Unpacking the film while it is much colder than the ambient temperature (causing condensation), for instance right after taking it from a fridge/freezer, or film that has been brought from outside and immediately opened.
• Long-term storage of the film under adverse conditions, e.g. high temperatures.
• Freezing film if it has been packaged under conditions of abnormally high humidity, causing crystallization

The above can be amplified if the film is old/expired, since it will then have had more time/opportunity to be subjected to any or all of the above.

Can you tell us a little more about this particular roll of film - how old is it, where did it came from, and has it gone through large temperature and/or humidity swings to the best of your knowledge?

If the film is fresh and within its expiration date, and it was handled properly, you could reach out to Foma to ask if they have any suggestions. I've done this once, years ago, and found them to be responsive and straightforward to deal with.

I have used quite a bit of Fomapan 100, also in 120 format, and have never seen this issue on this particular film. I am familiar with backing paper offset problems and this sure looks like it.

 

[M-88]

It's a bit unfair to pin backing paper mottling on Foma alone. There aren't any shortages examples of similar defects in Ilford and Kodak stocks. If Fuji still made film they'd likely be affected as well.

Sorry, was unaware of it happening to other brands as well.

 

[koraks]

Sorry, was unaware of it happening to other brands as well.

It's rare to hear about this affecting Foma films. Lately, it's mostly reported on Ilford films. Keep in mind that over- and underreporting can play a role, that market share/popularity influence reporting, that the majority of instances are likely never reported online, that mottling problems can be specific to certain production batches or products, and that mottling/offset problems are often related to factors of environmental conditions and thus aren't always due to a manufacturing defect per se.

As a result, it's difficult to establish a relationship between manufacturer and the occurrence of these problems, and the practical relevance of such a relationship is also debtable.

 

[Saganich]

It's rare to hear about this affecting Foma films. Lately, it's mostly reported on Ilford films. Keep in mind that over- and underreporting can play a role, that market share/popularity influence reporting, that the majority of instances are likely never reported online, that mottling problems can be specific to certain production batches or products, and that mottling/offset problems are often related to factors of environmental conditions and thus aren't always due to a manufacturing defect per se.

As a result, it's difficult to establish a relationship between manufacturer and the occurrence of these problems, and the practical relevance of such a relationship is also debtable.

LOL in other words...it's a crap shoot.

 

[koraks]

LOL in other words...it's a crap shoot.

For all intents and purposes: yes, it is!

 

[retina_restoration]

Question to the OP: was this film past it's expiration date, and how was the film stored for the past 6 months or more?
As others have intimated, this is about the interaction of the film with its backing paper, potentially under less than ideal storage conditions, or the film is expired.

 

[awty]

Same thing happened with me with condensation with all the major brands, Kodak, foma, Rollie, Ilford.
I never store my film in a fridge or freezer now, store it in a dry cool place, buy enough to use it with in date, never had a problem since.

 

[Pieter12]

It's a bit unfair to pin backing paper mottling on Foma alone. There aren't any shortages examples of similar defects in Ilford and Kodak stocks. If Fuji still made film they'd likely be affected as well.

As far as I can tell, Fuji still makes film, Acros in both 120 and 135.

 

[MattKing]

As far as I can tell, Fuji still makes film, Acros in both 120 and 135.

Probably at least finished/confectioned by Harman - based on the boxes.

 

[cmacd123]

As far as I can tell, Fuji still makes film, Acros in both 120 and 135.

although they are using a firm in the UK to package it

 

[MattKing]

Probably at least finished/confectioned by Harman - based on the boxes.

although they are using a firm in the UK to package it

It seems unlikely that it would be anyone other than Harman doing the final finishing/adding spools and backing paper or cassettes.
They offer that service for a fee.

 

[koraks]

Probably at least finished/confectioned by Harman - based on the boxes.

At least, yes. Harman has been manufacturing Acros for a long time.

 

[lamerko]

At least, yes. Harman has been manufacturing Acros for a long time.

I did not know that. Is that why it's always available?

 

[brbo]

I did not know that. Is that why it's always available?

Yes. High price also means it's a slow seller and that helps keep it on the shelves.


I'm fully aware there are people who think Acros 100 II is the best seller. Ever. By far. Please, spare me...

 

[loccdor]

One of the big reasons I prefer to buy expired medium format film in 220 rather than 120 - no backing paper - although I once had mottling from a batch of freshly made Ilford HP5+.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Mottling is hardly a crap shoot. I've never had that kind of issue with any roll film from any manufacturer in my life. I am aware of necessary recent changes in backing paper. But before blaming that, it would be wise to take a hard look at condensation instead. I routinely keep a surplus of film in the freezer. Don't blame that either. But if its not allowed to thaw to ambient air temp equilibrium before breaking the seal, you're just asking for trouble. Same goes for condensation in camera under certain circumstances.

The second question : Original Acros has pretty much sold out everywhere, and it was quite affordable. Acros II hasn't even been made long enough for it to have aging issues; but its drastically elevated price due to subcontracting might well doom it to extinction. Otherwise, it's an exceptionally good product, even better than the original Acros.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I had a couple of rolls of Acros II that had this issue about a year and a half back or so. It was about the same time, I had a brick of HP5+ that had a very similar problem, and it wasn't outdated either. Both were stored in the fridge in ziplock bags. I always bring my film up to shooting temps by taking the film from the fridge and wrapping it in a goose down jacket sleeve for several hours or overnight. That didn't help either the Fuji Acros II or HP5+ rolls. In my opinion, this is certainly a backing paper issue. I also think the issue is there even before the buyer purchases the film. I just took a box of 4X5 Tmax 100 out of the freezer that was expired on September 1995 and other than very slight fogging there was NO mottling. I say there is something going on in this newly manufactured backing paper compared to the backing paper used before the digital age. Like I said before, just my opinion, but I'm sticking to it.

 

[loccdor]

Yes, it happened to me once with HP5+ bought and shot within 6 months, never kept at any cold temperature. The whole brick was affected equally - including film from that brick I shot 10 years later (didn't get better/worse with time). I'm not sure if pre-washing can help it but I've started doing 5-7 agitated pre-washes anyway because it stops me from getting development bubbles from left-over wetting agent.

 

[koraks]

I just took a box of 4X5 Tmax 100 out of the freezer that was expired on September 1995 and other than very slight fogging there was NO mottling.

But this doesn't have a backing paper and as such, it doesn't say much about whether a backing paper offset problem is already present, exacerbated or even entirely caused by post-manufacturing handling. I think all three categories occur, in practice.

I'm not sure if pre-washing can help it

I doubt it, to be honest, but it would be interesting to try two rolls from an affected batch, one with and one without a pre-wash.

 

[John Wiegerink]

But this doesn't have a backing paper and as such, it doesn't say much about whether a backing paper offset problem is already present, exacerbated or even entirely caused by post-manufacturing handling. I think all three categories occur, in practice.



I doubt it, to be honest, but it would be interesting to try two rolls from an affected batch, one with and one without a pre-wash.

Yes, I know 4X5 has no backing paper and that was kind of my point. The reason I lay blame on the backing paper much more than the user. I truly believe that there must be moisture already be trapped in this new style backing paper when it's wrapped with the film at the factory. I have developed old Kodak Plus-X and even some old TRI-X from folders I have bought at yard sales, flea markets and even eBay, which were almost as old as me and no mottling. Heavily fogged, yes, but no mottling. I do like others now and shoot my film as soon as I can and treat my processing the same way now.

 

[MattKing]

The film emulsions are different from 30 years ago.
The subbing layers and other components are different from 30 years ago.
The sources for paper are different from 30 years ago.
The entities that can provide the narrowly specified, very high grade papers required are very, very, very different from 30 years ago.
The printers who print both colour and information on to backing paper are different from 30 years ago.
The inks used in that printing are different from 30 years ago.
The conditions under which film is distributed and retailed are different from 30 years ago.
And the problems with mottling, wrapper offset and other backing paper issues with 120 film all involve interactions between all the components.