In another thread, I posted a scan of a sheet of LF film with severe banding on it. I did this due to reading several complaints about it on products from 2nd and 3rd tier manufacturers.
First tier manufacturers are Kodak, Fuji and Ilford. You will probably never see defects like this in their products. (I miss Agfa and wish it could still be in this list.) (I include Kentmere as a first tier paper manufacturer.)
Here I go through some common physical defects to look for.
COATING DEFECTS and FILM QUALITY
Banding is quite common on 2nd and 3rd tier products as are small imperfections due to dust, bubbles and undissolved gelatin (assorted grunge).
These serious problems are evident at different magnifications due to their sizes. For example, banding becomes bad in LF and MF while the grunge becomes evident at 35mm, otherwise the defects are somewhat masked by the format or magnification.
Some of their coatings lack sufficient hardener, have imperfections in the support and some have poor, little, or no suitable subbing leading to blisters, scratches and streaks. Along with this, you might observe the emulsion actually lift off the support. Lack of a proper humectant will cause cracks to form after the processed material dries down. The dry gelatin cracks.
As a side note, I would like to add this... As baryta paper production ramps down in favor of RC, getting SW FB is almost impossible, and DW FB is coming in fewer and fewer surfaces. What I have noticed are defects in the baryta itself. This is another problem to be expected. I also suspect that the quality of the raw film support may suffer.
So, as noted elsewhere, those buying cheap or inexpensive products are essentially depriving Ilford, Kodak and Fuji from revenue and are forcing the smaller companies to ramp up production.
Now that last is important. As they ramp up production in a marginal plant, quality goes down. So, you may have a plant that at normal capacity produces 90% acceptable product, but as you force them into overdrive, as it were, due to demand, then the quality will spiral downward.
I don't want to associate any company with any defect as all companies are capable of making very good product. It just seems that these complaints are increasing due to the fact that these factories are aging, the staff is aging, and the facilities are being pushed to the limit.
Therefore, don't judge them too harshly. Their products are good, but they do not meet the standards of the 1st tier companies in overall physical quality. The subject of photographic defects (speed, reciprocity failure, raw stock keeping, fog, curve shape and etc) is a whole other book length topic in itself which I will not address as I see more complaints directed to the physical defects described here.
And, don't forget that many defects are caused in your hands due to the more fragile nature of some of these products which are otherwise good. We cannot forget the human factor. A young student on a limited budget may buy a low priced film, but due to inexperience may mishandle it slightly and get inferior results. This must not be overlooked in your evaluation of the situation.
PE
First tier manufacturers are Kodak, Fuji and Ilford. You will probably never see defects like this in their products. (I miss Agfa and wish it could still be in this list.) (I include Kentmere as a first tier paper manufacturer.)
Here I go through some common physical defects to look for.
COATING DEFECTS and FILM QUALITY
Banding is quite common on 2nd and 3rd tier products as are small imperfections due to dust, bubbles and undissolved gelatin (assorted grunge).
These serious problems are evident at different magnifications due to their sizes. For example, banding becomes bad in LF and MF while the grunge becomes evident at 35mm, otherwise the defects are somewhat masked by the format or magnification.
Some of their coatings lack sufficient hardener, have imperfections in the support and some have poor, little, or no suitable subbing leading to blisters, scratches and streaks. Along with this, you might observe the emulsion actually lift off the support. Lack of a proper humectant will cause cracks to form after the processed material dries down. The dry gelatin cracks.
As a side note, I would like to add this... As baryta paper production ramps down in favor of RC, getting SW FB is almost impossible, and DW FB is coming in fewer and fewer surfaces. What I have noticed are defects in the baryta itself. This is another problem to be expected. I also suspect that the quality of the raw film support may suffer.
So, as noted elsewhere, those buying cheap or inexpensive products are essentially depriving Ilford, Kodak and Fuji from revenue and are forcing the smaller companies to ramp up production.
Now that last is important. As they ramp up production in a marginal plant, quality goes down. So, you may have a plant that at normal capacity produces 90% acceptable product, but as you force them into overdrive, as it were, due to demand, then the quality will spiral downward.
I don't want to associate any company with any defect as all companies are capable of making very good product. It just seems that these complaints are increasing due to the fact that these factories are aging, the staff is aging, and the facilities are being pushed to the limit.
Therefore, don't judge them too harshly. Their products are good, but they do not meet the standards of the 1st tier companies in overall physical quality. The subject of photographic defects (speed, reciprocity failure, raw stock keeping, fog, curve shape and etc) is a whole other book length topic in itself which I will not address as I see more complaints directed to the physical defects described here.
And, don't forget that many defects are caused in your hands due to the more fragile nature of some of these products which are otherwise good. We cannot forget the human factor. A young student on a limited budget may buy a low priced film, but due to inexperience may mishandle it slightly and get inferior results. This must not be overlooked in your evaluation of the situation.
PE
