Backing paper visible through negative?

[Tom Kershaw]

Found this defect on some Delta 100 '120' format film processed last Friday in a Jobo. Developer used was fresh XTOL and processed T-Max 400 on the Wednesday with normal results. I've been more of a TMAX user recently but haven't seen this defect before although the ILFORD film is dated Oct 2015. All solutions temperature controlled - XTOL in distilled water, and film is physically clean.

Any ideas?

Scan from print:

 

[trendland]

Found this defect on some Delta 100 '120' format film processed last Friday in a Jobo. Developer used was fresh XTOL and processed T-Max 400 on the Wednesday with normal results. I've been more of a TMAX user recently but haven't seen this defect before although the ILFORD film is dated Oct 2015. All solutions temperature controlled - XTOL in distilled water, and film is physically clean.

Any ideas?

Scan from print:

Where is the defect Tom?
Is it the line through the horizon ?

with regards

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Where is the defect Tom?
Is it the line through the horizon ?

with regards

The huge amount of mottling visible in the sky.

 

[trendland]

Aha - this grainy part of the sky - hmm?
It wasn't such clear before.But this defect is identicaly positioned in order of symetric lines to the horizon.
This may be the first evidence we consider - so it is more seen on more lighted areas of the film.
Sorry - cause I had not even a trouble in the near of your damage ever !
But it is definitive NO shutter problem - so far so clear ....hmmm?
A real phenomenon.

with regards

 

[miha]

When was the film exposed and how was it stored for the last ~ 6 years?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Almost looks like some wonky reticulation I once had on Tmax 100 sheet film...

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Hi Miha,

Film was exposed a few weeks ago, stored at room temp. I've never seen this before. Two rolls of Delta 100, both with the problem, two rolls of TMY-2 absolutely fine. I'll run a test roll of the same batch as soon as possible.

Tom

 

[railwayman3]

The mottling looks very like dampness at some stage in storage of the film?

 

[removedacct1]

I suspect that fact that the film is dated 2015 has something to do with it. How the film has been handled/stored in the past 4-5 years is going to reveal something I bet.

 

[miha]

Hi Miha,

Film was exposed a few weeks ago, stored at room temp. I've never seen this before. Two rolls of Delta 100, both with the problem, two rolls of TMY-2 absolutely fine. I'll run a test roll of the same batch as soon as possible.

Tom

Tom, I tend to agree with railwayman's comment above.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Tom, I tend to agree with railwayman's comment above.

I suspect so as well, just that I've used expired film before with no problems.

Tom

 

[trendland]

I suspect so as well, just that I've used expired film before with no problems.

Tom

Thats exact my position Tom - I never had any evidence with expired bw films.
With E6/c41 it is a little different of cause.A friend developed an old HP5 from his fathers camera. Possible more than 15 years old - total normal bw prints from 6x6 I personaly saw from his HP5.

with regards

 

[AgX]

The artefact is typical for rollfilm stored too long.

I am surprised though that it shows that strong with a film only being two years overdue.
We shall have to look into the storing conditions.

 

[Ian Grant]

it's not the age of the film (or how long it's stored), that film would have once had a much longer expiry date but Ilford and others cut the times to meet ISO 9002. I regularly use Delta 100 that's older never had an issue.

It's more likely a storage issue and possibly warming up to quickly after freezing (which Ilford don't recommend) or refrigeration. On a factory tour Ilford told us that was one of the frequent issues with films and that goes for all makes. They indicated frozen film should be placed in a normal refrigerator and allowed to slowly defrost.

Ian

 

[Craig]

I have seen the same thing on old film that has inadvertently been put into checked baggage on a plane. I put it down to X Ray damage.

 

[AgX]

it's not the age of the film (or how long it's stored),...

Well, one manufacturer stated such artefact as being due to the film being "overdue", another as being "stored too long, too damp".

At any storing period the climate is of influence.

 

[AgX]

Had the package sealing been broken long before exposing?

 

[Ian Grant]

Had the package sealing been broken long before exposing?

120 Delta 100 as with other Ilford films is individually wrapped in sealed foil. However all backing paper will contain some moisture as will the emulsion and anti-curl rear coating and rapid changes in temperature can affect how this moisture behaves. What Tom is describing can happen with quite fresh film.

Of course old unsealed films will be more prone to issues.

Ian

 

[AgX]

The emulsion is a vapour sink. Though in industrial packaging one strives to keep the air humidity and the air volume low.

Rapid changes of temperature you already have when you bring a sealed roll from warm interior to the cold outside of a winter day. If this would spoil a film roll, then there would not be rollfilm photography.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

FIlm was taken from the sealed foil directly before exposure. I'm surprised then I've not had this problem before.

 

[AgX]

You should inform Ilford Photo.

 

[pentaxuser]

Like AgX I think that Ilford will want to know about this. I'd let them know the exact storage conditions.

pentaxuser

 

[AgX]

In the worst case we would have here another case of much enhanced interaction between backing paper and film. BUT as the film used was a batch some years old, there likely would have been more reports here of that kind.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Problem with the backing paper exhibits itself as printing on the negative not straight lines. It appears to be caused by poor storage in particular moisture.

 

[lensmagic]

I think that's the way the sky looked when you exposed the film.