Backing Paper Bleed Through on Expired Film??

[Pioneer]

Out of curiosity -

I have been using up some Ilford FP4 Plus that expired back in 1996. Since I know that it is 20 years old I have been playing around with the film and not using it for anything that I would consider serious.

The film is developing quite well but I have definite backing paper marks coming through on the developed film. Numbers, leading dots, and other markings are coming through quite clearly.

I have no idea how the film was stored as I purchased it already quite expired. The film is boxed and still enclosed in the wrapping. If I develop it within a day of exposing it the marks are much lighter but still visible.

I am using HC110 dil B to develop the film at the recommended time.

It isn't the end of the world, I am just curious what is happening.

 

[Sirius Glass]

And we just had a thread where someone was cursing Kodak for the same thing.

 

[AgX]

The latter was fresh film.

But yes, in that other thread I wrote:

I got hundreds of sample film-artefacts collected by two major manufacturers. Ranging over decades.
Not one sample shows such "wrapper offset".

Though in case there had been reported cases they would typically been films processed within time.
But nevertheless I'm surprised by this case. Especially with the film (to my understanding) having been sealed all the time.

 

[Pioneer]

I have exposed three rolls, all with the same result. I have about 20 more rolls from the same batch. Not only are they sealed and in a box, some of them are still wrapped up in a brick of 10 rolls.

I am personally wondering if the effect has been caused by some form of radiation, maybe during shipping at some point. The film also shows some fogging, particularly noticeable in areas where there is no, or very minimal, exposure.

 

[Rick A]

I've shot Tri-X 120 and 220 from the mid 80's not long ago, no print through of numbers. The current paper Kodak is using is not light tight(I've read), and prints through.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I've shot Tri-X 120 and 220 from the mid 80's not long ago, no print through of numbers. The current paper Kodak is using is not light tight(I've read), and prints through.

Hmmm! As much as I am not a worshiper of the big yellow God I cannot believe for one minute that Kodak would switch to a new backing paper that was not 100% opaque. Chemical bleed/osmosis from number ink/dye? Very likely! Light leaking through the backing paper? No way can I believe that! Rick where did you read that?

 

[Rick A]

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Why, here of course.

 

[Xmas]

Out of curiosity -

I have been using up some Ilford FP4 Plus that expired back in 1996. Since I know that it is 20 years old I have been playing around with the film and not using it for anything that I would consider serious.

The film is developing quite well but I have definite backing paper marks coming through on the developed film. Numbers, leading dots, and other markings are coming through quite clearly.

I have no idea how the film was stored as I purchased it already quite expired. The film is boxed and still enclosed in the wrapping. If I develop it within a day of exposing it the marks are much lighter but still visible.

I am using HC110 dil B to develop the film at the recommended time.

It isn't the end of the world, I am just curious what is happening.

Hi Dan

I've not had much fog from any 100ISO film except when it was stored warm ie hot. What maximum temperature has it been stored at?

Noel

 

[AgX]

Rick, in that case there was no indication at all that the backing paper was translucent.

 

[Rick A]

Rick, in that case there was no indication at all that the backing paper was translucent.

You're correct, but at my advanced age I claim "oldtimers" disease. It does however bring to light an issue with the new backing paper Alaris is using.

 

[aoresteen]

Can you post a photo of what the bleed through looks like?

 

[Pioneer]

Here is a sample.



As for storage temperature I can't give an answer.Since I have owned it the tep has been 65F or below, sometimes a lot below. It was part of a bulk purchase a couple of years ago. The rest of the film does not show this bleed through although none of the rest is quite this old.

 

[Chris Livsey]

A bad case indeed: HP5+ dated Expiry 2001
Harvey 777 Lytham Windmill Lancashire UK
Strangely it made Explore on Flickr with 9,000 plus views !!

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Hmm... interesting and worrisome. I thought the Kodak situation was an isolated event. I guess not...

 

[JW PHOTO]

A bad case indeed: HP5+ dated Expiry 2001
Harvey 777 Lytham Windmill Lancashire UK
Strangely it made Explore on Flickr with 9,000 plus views !!

I don't think you would have gotten such a nice picture with good film. I like it just the way it is. Very nice!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hmmm! As much as I am not a worshiper of the big yellow God I cannot believe for one minute that Kodak would switch to a new backing paper that was not 100% opaque. Chemical bleed/osmosis from number ink/dye? Very likely! Light leaking through the backing paper? No way can I believe that! Rick where did you read that?

I agree. The film was probably in a hot location for a very long period of time. That is one of the best ways to get wrapper print through.

 

[piu58]

It would be of interest whether the direct contact between the paper and the film lead to the markings. Or the markings came from light which the film caught in the course of years, causing some kind of flashing.. The markings could have absorbed some of the stray light.

 

[MattKing]

It would be of interest whether the direct contact between the paper and the film lead to the markings. Or the markings came from light which the film caught in the course of years, causing some kind of flashing.. The markings could have absorbed some of the stray light.

But only on the outside layer.

 

[Chris Livsey]

I don't think you would have gotten such a nice picture with good film. I like it just the way it is. Very nice!

Thank you that seemed to be the consensus, I have some more rolls to shoot just needs the right subject, speed was fine.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Thank you that seemed to be the consensus, I have some more rolls to shoot just needs the right subject, speed was fine.

Yes, like old boats, old buildings and the like. Not so hot for a family portrait, but you never know? Rules are made to be broken!

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Pioneer, I have had the same problem but with the last of the 120 Agfa APX 400 I have which expired in '07 I think. I took quite a few good images with it before I realized it was happening which was a bummer.

Old film.

 

[Pioneer]

Fortunately I wasn't too bummed. I was shooting up some of it in my Brownie just fiddling around with focus distances and exposures. On mine it is very obvious, even when I am looking over the negatives. It is still useful for that type of work so I'll hold onto it. But I can see it would be a real pain in the rear if you were doing some serious work when discovered it.