FP4: Development Issue?

[DareFail]

I also developed two other rolls of TMX with the same batch of chemicals, in the same manner, with no issue.

Were they stored in your freezer too? When you say freezer you mean -18 celsius right?

 

[Duceman]

I, for one, certainly won't blame you for your problem. In fact, I feel a little bit the same way as you. We went through this with Shanghai GP3 bleed-through, Kodak bleed-through, Ilford bleed-through and both Kodak and Ilford mold/mildew emulsion issues. I'm sorry, it is not a user issue as far as I'm concerned. I guess we should treat film the same as salad dressing in the fridge. If it's past the expiration date, then just throw it in the garbage. I'd be willing to bet that many of the film emulsion and other defects stem from cost-cutting, but that's the way life is now, I guess. Still, I'll take the occasional defects and live with them as compared to having no film at all. I don't like it, but that's life.

Thanks. The thing is, though, is that 120 film technology, including backing paper, is nothing new, it having been around at least 100 years now. So I can only assume that the reason these issues started popping up just recently is because they are using inferior materials. And being that Ilford's first press release came out in March 2020, supply chain and/or Covid related issues is really not at play.

Now, I suppose it would be great to abide by Ilford's lawyer-written CYA of "definitely use before expiration," but I simply cannot run to the (non-existent) photo shop down the street every time I need a roll of film, nor am I in the mood of wasting well over an hour of my time to drive to a film store that may have some in stock. I therefore usually buy in bulk, wherein all of what I buy immediately goes into the freezer upon returning home. I recently shot a roll of (non-Ilford) film that expired in 2006... no problems.

I'm going to try one more roll of film to rule out the possibility that it wasn't user error.

Backing paper issue seems most likely, but I've also seen something similar from freshly mixed (pseudo, foma) X-tol which upon closer examination had some undissolved particles in it. If it was the first roll through the batch of dev, it could be that.

This was not the first roll of film I did with my latest batch of XTOL, nor was it the first roll of film I developed that day. The other rolls I did that day (which were TMX) turned out fine.

Were they stored in your freezer too? When you say freezer you mean -18 celsius right?

Yes, all of my film, upon receipt, is put directly in the freezer, where it is stored at 0 degrees Fahrenheit.

 

[Duceman]

And after you bought the film Ilford discovered they had a problem and fixed it. ...

Not exactly. Checking my records, I bought this film in December, 2021. As admitted by Ilford in the press release linked to in this thread, Ilford's first public statement and acknowledgement of the problem came out in March, 2020, so they obviously knew of the issue before that. Further, reading the latest press release carefully, there is no acknowledgement by Ilford that they indeed "fixed it;" instead, they just put out a CYA saying use the film before the expiration date and make sure it never gets above 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Apparently FP4 in 120 is not a summertime film.

 

[rcphoto]

I can't remember who had put this information out but one of the big manufacturers had guidelines for thawing frozen film stating that improper thawing can cause issues in the emulsion. If I remember correctly the recommendation was to thaw film in the box for several hours to let it get up to temp. I'm not saying this is your issue but something to consider.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The notion that reasonably stored medium speed black and white film is going to potentially go bad just two years after "expiration date" is ludicrous. Twenty years perhaps. There has to be some other explanation. Did you check the batch number against the known batches with the backing paper issue?

Why would FP4 be any less reliable in the summer than any other film? No film should be in your car trunk or glove compartment in 115 degree weather; you'd die in there yourself.

Again, none of these rumors match either my experience or that of any one else I personally know. ALL manufacturers inevitably encounter a subcontractor issues at some point in time; and 120 backing papers did change. Still, I've yet to encounter any such problem; and in my opinion, the quality control of Kodak and Ilford fims is probably better than ever.

And yes, ALL films consigned to the freezer or refrigerator should be fully sealed, and then fully thawed before breaking that seal.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks. The thing is, though, is that 120 film technology, including backing paper, is nothing new, it having been around at least 100 years now. So I can only assume that the reason these issues started popping up just recently is because they are using inferior materials.

The manufacturing landscape for this sort of product has completely changed. It is a specialized paper product that once was available from many competing sources, and now is difficult and expensive to obtain, with long lead times, burdensome minimum order requirements and problematic differences from traditional materials, due most likely at least partially to the changes in the inks used by the printing industry.
Historically, Kodak made their own. When the film market imploded in the early 2000s, they were left with many years of inventory and, of necessity, their production facilities were scraped. When the inventory ran out, they could only find one manufacturer in the entire world who could produce new backing paper to their specifications, and as it turned out, that within specification material wasn't actually acceptable - unexpected wrapper offset problems started appearing on random examples of customer film in unpredictable situations, under conditions that could never be determined as having a causal connection. Most likely the problems relate(d) to the combination of modern improvements to emulsion technology combined with the differences arising out of use of modern (soy based) inks when pressed against the emulsions, but even that was never determined for sure.
Kodak was very close to ending all 120 film production as a result of the problem.
The solution that they arrived at seems almost like a plastic replacement, and its formulation is a guarded proprietary secret. Even with it, the recommendations for film storage and the "use before" dating are much more conservative than they used to be. Part of that relates as well to how the distribution network for 120 film is much harsher than it was when film was king.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The current Kodak backing paper has a distinctly different feel (indeed, slightly "plasticky") than either the prior suspect version or their traditional type. I've used it in quite a range of travel temperatures with complete success. None of that newer 120 stuff has been around long enough to comment on seriously out of date response. I do keep a surplus in the freezer, but always rotate that, using older film first.

And I'm in no mood to criticize companies who are doing their best to keep supplying us with roll film, despite new challenges in the supply chain. That kind of issue afflicts nearly every manufacturer nowadays to some degree.

But it is we end users who ultimately control the purchasing and feedback cycles. So discussing potential issues is helpful, even if we don't alway sleuth the correct cause right away.

 

[Duceman]

Did you check the batch number against the known batches with the backing paper issue?

Presuming this question was directed at me, where does such a database exist? I couldn't find one.

Why would FP4 be any less reliable in the summer than any other film?

Because Ilford has essentially said so. From their press release: "We have also seen more cases in hotter / humid climates than colder ones."

 

[DREW WILEY]

That is nothing new. Hotter, more humid environments are bad for all emulsions, and always have been, whether film or paper, black and white or color. A more susceptible backing paper might be yet another layer of annoyance added to that fact. But all along, informed photographers have necessarily taken care to protect and insulate film from such extremes. I am especially conscious of it in the tropics or low desert.

An issue I haven't seen mentioned yet is the fact that roll film can swell in very humid conditions, and get overtly susceptible to marring or jamming in that manner. That plagued some MF shooter in tropical jungles. They had to very careful not to leave film loaded too long under humid circumstances.

In terms of suspect batch codes, ask Ilford directly. Kodak outright published theirs. And thankfully, my own preferred sources for purchasing film honored that, and responsibly pulled any suspect 120 film from their shelves immediately after the notice was sent out. I credit that for my own escape from any of the bad rolls.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Because Ilford has essentially said so. From their press release: "We have also seen more cases in hotter / humid climates than colder ones."

FWIW, I have shot few 120 FP4 rolls and didn't have any issues. Then, I loaded one, but left it sitting in the camera for all of the summer and more, I just didn't do any shooting with it. The developed film had patches of increased density. And yes, the weather here can get hot and humid. Any other FP4 rolls I used were shot and processed within days, this one was within date, but spent too much time outside the foil wrap.

 

[BrianShaw]

Doesn’t anyone spot prints/negatives anymore. Is that a lost art?

 

[koraks]

Doesn’t anyone spot prints/negatives anymore. Is that a lost art?

Sure. But spotting a print made from one of the negatives this thread is about...I'd cut my losses and re-shoot the whole thing instead of dedicating hours upon hours spotting each print.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Brian, of course anyone making presentable prints needs to spot them to a degree. It will never be a lost art until printmaking itself of any variety ceases to be. Needing to routinely spot negatives, however, is another matter. That's trickier and usually due to mishandling the film under dusty circumstances to begin with.

 

[Duceman]

Against my better judgment, I heeded the recommendation of a few in the this thread and contacted Ilford through their website. A few days later, I got a lackluster response confirming that this was a mottling issue, that my film was part of the bad batch, and providing me with the links to the two press releases already mentioned in this thread. What I found interesting is that they've never published which batches were bad. In any event, I had mentioned that, in addition to this bad roll, I still had 8 rolls from that batch remaining. I was advised not to use those 8 rolls, and that they'd "sort for a couple of replacement films..." as a goodwill gesture. Today, three rolls of FP4+ arrived in the mail. Guess I'm out the remaining five.

 

[warden]

Against my better judgment, I heeded the recommendation of a few in the this thread and contacted Ilford through their website. A few days later, I got a lackluster response confirming that this was a mottling issue, that my film was part of the bad batch, and providing me with the links to the two press releases already mentioned in this thread. What I found interesting is that they've never published which batches were bad. In any event, I had mentioned that, in addition to this bad roll, I still had 8 rolls from that batch remaining. I was advised not to use those 8 rolls, and that they'd "sort for a couple of replacement films..." as a goodwill gesture. Today, three rolls of FP4+ arrived in the mail. Guess I'm out the remaining five.

Glad to hear they made the effort even though it would have been better to replace all of the defective rolls. If you’re too pissed off to use the film I’ll send you my address.

I’ve had quality issues with Kodak (film and developer) but still love ‘em. I like Ilford too. Everybody makes mistakes.

 

[logan2z]

Against my better judgment, I heeded the recommendation of a few in the this thread and contacted Ilford through their website. A few days later, I got a lackluster response confirming that this was a mottling issue, that my film was part of the bad batch, and providing me with the links to the two press releases already mentioned in this thread. What I found interesting is that they've never published which batches were bad. In any event, I had mentioned that, in addition to this bad roll, I still had 8 rolls from that batch remaining. I was advised not to use those 8 rolls, and that they'd "sort for a couple of replacement films..." as a goodwill gesture. Today, three rolls of FP4+ arrived in the mail. Guess I'm out the remaining five.

I'm very surprised to hear that they didn't replace all of your defective rolls. When I had a problem with some rolls of HP5+ recently they replaced all of the bad ones, and then some. I'd send them a reminder that you still have 5 defective rolls that need to be replaced and see what they say. Someone may have just made a mistake and sent the wrong number of replacements.

 

[MattKing]

I'm very surprised to hear that they didn't replace all of your defective rolls. When I had a problem with some rolls of HP5+ recently they replaced all of the bad ones, and then some. I'd send them a reminder that you still have 5 defective rolls that need to be replaced and see what they say. Someone may have just made a mistake and sent the wrong number of replacements.

I agree.

 

[cliveh]

Why anyone would keep black & white film in a fridge, let alone a freezer is asking for trouble.

 

[Duceman]

Why anyone would keep black & white film in a fridge, let alone a freezer is asking for trouble.

Ilford disagrees with you. From their press release: "All of our films, regardless of format, should be stored below 20C / 68F as shown on the bottom of each box."

 

[logan2z]

From the FP4+ data sheet:

 

[cliveh]

I don't care what Ilford says, I'm talking from practical experience. Let's not forget that Ilford thinks it is a good idea to use a squeegee. Perhaps the marketing board of Ilford should consult with a group of photographers outside their own employees?

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I don't care what Ilford says, I'm talking from practical experience. Let's not forget that Ilford thinks it is a good idea to use a squeegee. Perhaps the marketing board of Ilford should consult with a group of photographers outside their own employees?

Hear hear! No squeegee! I know everything about B&W, and I prewet film, fill the tank up (almost) all the way, and never have problems. Agitation two inversions per minute.