Awful grainy images

[miha]

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.

I guess we also agree that all these components changed considerably and many times since 1901. Was is it only in the late 80s and early 90s that 120 film type has been faultless? I don't know but I guess no.

 

[koraks]

Was is it only in the late 80s and early 90s that 120 film type has been faultless?

I don't think it's ever been faultless all the time for decades on end. But today there's the internet so if one guy encounters a bad roll, a thousand can worry about it for years to come.

Not saying that quality problems can't fluctuate of course. With the dramatic reduction in manufacturing volumes, it's only logical problems increase.

 

[lazyblow]

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

The film was badly stored. It was shot during the heat wave and then I did not care much. That could explain why. Thanks a lot for all your answers.

 

[koraks]

It was shot during the heat wave and then I did not care much. That could explain why.

Yeah, that's probably it, or at least a large part of it.

 

[loccdor]

Since the mottling is on the non-emulsion side of the film, would wiping that side carefully with some type of solvent on a cloth potentially be effective?

 

[lamerko]

There's usually some kind of coating on it - trying to clean it off will probably make it worse...

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

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.

Best,
Jean Luc Andrianasolo View attachment 361623

As you didn't control the temperature, perhaps the developer was warmer than it should have been. That may have contributed to coarser grain.
I have also had an issue with backing paper problems too
Does your lab usually presoak films?

 

[koraks]

Since the mottling is on the non-emulsion side of the film

I don't think it is, though. It's generally density variations in the actual silver image.

 

[loccdor]

I don't think it is, though. It's generally density variations in the actual silver image.

Are you saying something from the backing paper can permeate from one side of the film to the other?

 

[koraks]

Are you saying something from the backing paper can permeate from one side of the film to the other?

No. But think about the term "roll film" for a bit, and consider what the implications are.

 

[loccdor]

No. But think about the term "roll film" for a bit, and consider what the implications are.

Ah, of course - that makes sense now.

 

[koraks]

It's funny, isn't it? But that's what makes roll film particularly complicated, and the backing paper so much more than just a piece of paper. It needs to be opaque, thin, and none of its materials should ideally be photographically active. Especially the latter aspect is very difficult, since a silver gelatin emulsion is sensitive to pretty much everything! Oily inks offsetting onto the emulsion will affect development rates, some of the chemicals used in the inks or even the paper itself may fog the gelatin emulsion, the paper itself will absorb moisture and this will affect the emulsion as well - the list goes on and on. If you think about it, it's actually a bit of a nightmare product with a piece of paper remaining in direct contact with the emulsion for months or even years.

 

[miha]

I wonder why it needs to be paper at all. Why not the same material as the emulsion is coated on, just opaques and thinner, a dyed PET perhaps.

 

[loccdor]

I'm wondering too why it even needs to be paper. When the new Kodak Gold 200 came out in 120 I noticed its paper was very shiny on the side with the numbers, like it had been coated with some type of plastic. It feels like that should improve things significantly regarding mottling.

 

[koraks]

I wonder why it needs to be paper at all. Why not the same material as the emulsion is coated on, just opaques and thinner, a dyed PET perhaps.

Paper is cheap. It's also antistatic, while two layers of PET rubbing against each other on a high speed-finishing line might be problematic. Just musing out loud.

 

[miha]

Paper is cheap.

One can often read to the contrary here at Photrio - backing paper is supposedly more expensive than the film itself.

 

[koraks]

Maybe it would be even more expensive if it were plastic.

Surely, if there were an affordable alternative that wouldn't be prone to these offset problems, they'd have used it. Apparently, the alternatives have drawbacks, too, and the offset problems are apparently insufficiently systematic or frequent to warrant a switchover.

 

[pentaxuser]

One can often read to the contrary here at Photrio - backing paper is supposedly more expensive than the film itself.

True but that's the fun of Photrio

pentaxuser

 

[miha]

True but that's the fun of Photrio

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's ridiculous to assert that major players like Kodak or Ilford or Fuji don't know how to properly control humidity at the time of production and packaging, or even master roll storage. Yes, when the old Efke plant was on its last legs, there were some issues with the last batches of certain things, but not humidity related in even that case.

Identified issues were evidently with an interim fashion of backing paper once the traditional choices started drying up. That's a
subcontractor issue, and the complaints ended once Kodak at least finally figured out a suitable substitute. Why paper? - and not a hypothetical second plastic liner? - for one thing, cameras are designed for a certain amount of tension and thickness; for another, a second whole layer of PET would raise cost even further, especially by those who have to buy this from Kodak to begin with.

And it's just not any kind of paper involved. They probably have to recoup millions of dollars in R&D expense, including special new equipment necessary in order to now make it themselves.

 

[MattKing]

I don't think it's ever been faultless all the time for decades on end. But today there's the internet so if one guy encounters a bad roll, a thousand can worry about it for years to come.

Not saying that quality problems can't fluctuate of course. With the dramatic reduction in manufacturing volumes, it's only logical problems increase.

+1
We did encounter wrapper offset back in the day.
It was just that it was much more unusual - mostly because the volumes of film used were exponentially higher, and most of the film used was not expired, and the distribution system was much more controlled - climate controlled shipping and store display for example, for professional colour stocks.

 

[Vaughn]

True but that's the fun of Photrio

pentaxuser

You betcha!

How about 220 film? I never used it, but was not the paper just on the ends of the roll to make them light-tight, and none for the middle part? Otherwise the rolls would be too large in diameter perhaps.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Don't forget climate. Sometimes rolls outright jammed in the cameras or their backs due to the emulsion swelling under especially hot humid tropical conditions. Then there could be mold issues if you stored your gear wrong, or didn't use the roll up fast enough.