FP4: Development Issue?

[Duceman]

Developed a roll of FP4 Plus with XTOL 1:1 and freshly mixed Kodak Fixer. The entire roll has little white spots dispersed throughout, which is most noticeable in the highlights. See the attached pic as an example. I also developed two other rolls of TMX with the same batch of chemicals, in the same manner, with no issue. So, I'm wondering if this is a development issue, or if this could be an airport x-ray issue? (this was the only roll of film that got passed through the upgraded x-ray scanners on a recent trip).

 

[MattKing]

Can we see the negatives themselves please - backlit, with the edges and spaces between the frames.
Is this 35mm?
What can you see on/in the negatives themselves?

 

[Duceman]

Here you go. It's 120 film. And using a loupe, I can see the spots on the negatives.

 

[logan2z]

Looks like the infamous backing paper issue. I've had that occur with a roll of 120 FP4 film as well. Report it to Ilford and they'll send you replacement rolls of film. Unfortunately, that doesn't help the fact that you have lost some images.

 

[MattKing]

120 film?
Probably the mottling issue related to backing paper.

 

[Mark J]

Roughly what was the expiry date of the film ?

 

[GregY]

Agreed it's likely the Ilford backing paper issue.

 

[Duceman]

Roughly what was the expiry date of the film ?

2022. Bought it fresh two years ago, and it was sitting in my freezer since its receipt.

 

[Duceman]

Looks like the infamous backing paper issue. I've had that occur with a roll of 120 FP4 film as well. Report it to Ilford and they'll send you replacement rolls of film. Unfortunately, that doesn't help the fact that you have lost some images.

Agreed it's likely the Ilford backing paper issue.

Ah, man... that's a bummer. I thought that these rolls would have been past that. I still have several more left.

 

[GregY]

Ah, man... that's a bummer. I thought that these rolls would have been past that. I still have several more left.

Contact them, Ilford is pretty good about sending out replacements.

 

[retina_restoration]

2022. Bought it fresh two years ago, and it was sitting in my freezing since its receipt.

It's almost 2024, so your film was well beyond its "best before" date. I've found the expiration dates must be taken quite literally in the current era of 120 film production, or you will get marks on the film from prolonged contact with the backing paper. Sometimes I find I can get away with letting Ilford films slip past their expiry date by a few months if refrigerated (never frozen!), but I try to avoid that. I no longer store a lot of 120 films, allowing them to exceed their "best before" date - I just buy when I expect to be able to use before things start expiring.

 

[retina_restoration]

Contact them, Ilford is pretty good about sending out replacements.

Asking Ilford to replace films that are over a year beyond their expiration date isn't fair to Ilford: it's not their fault that the film was left unused past its expiration date, that's the user's fault.

 

[Duceman]

It's almost 2024, so your film was well beyond its "best before" date.

Except this isn't a "freshness" issue; instead, it's a known issue.

Nonetheless, If that's the case, I just won't buy Ilford products anymore. I'm shooting other films from well beyond their "use-by" date, and never had this problem.

 

[retina_restoration]

Except this isn't a "freshness" issue; instead, it's a known issue.

A very small percentage of Ilford 120 rolls have had a problem with backing paper transferal fresh out of the factory - the vast majority of issues like what your photo shows happen only after prolonged (or improper) storage, so no - that isn't correct.

And just because you've not seen this happen with other films doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Your sample size is far too small to provide meaningful data.

 

[MattKing]

Modern manifestations of issues with backing paper nearly drove Kodak out of the 120 film business, and have bedeviled a number of other film manufacturers.
These are very complex problems that relate to a number of current market realities - not least of which being the incredibly few remaining sources for the exotic and difficult to manufacture (and print) paper required.
In a relatively tiny percentage of instances, and particularly after longer than recommended storage, the remaining small number of 120 film users are sometimes running into these problems. And the exact relationship between the issues and how the film is used and stored has never been identified.
It has always been my guess that the incidence of these sort of problems is at least partially related to the advancement of film emulsion technology, but historically there was always a few problems.

 

[GregY]

A very small percentage of Ilford 120 rolls have had a problem with backing paper transferal fresh out of the factory - the vast majority of issues like what your photo shows happen only after prolonged (or improper) storage, so no - that isn't correct.

And just because you've not seen this happen with other films doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Your sample size is far too small to provide meaningful data.

Why not let Ilford decide? We don't have details on how the film was stored by the user. I have lots of film (albeit in my fridge) from many manufacturers that are past their due date..... with no issues.
FP4+ (especially in 120) is my favourite film....& i haven't had issues with it...... but if i'm flying somewhere for a job that includes photography.... I take Kodak TMX/TMY-2.

 

[MattKing]

Here is the 2020 statement from Harman on the issue: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/updated-120-roll-film-statement

 

[Duceman]

We don't have details on how the film was stored by the user.

Stated in post #8: Bought it fresh two years ago, and it was sitting in my freezer since its receipt.

 

[GregY]

Stated in post #8: Bought it fresh two years ago, and it was sitting in my freezer since its receipt.

Thank you, i missed that post.... even so i think it's worth having the conversation with Ilford. Film has worked well after its 'best before date"......( Agfapan 25, Verichrome Pan).... As i say i haven't had issues with my 120 FP4+.....
Whether they choose to replace the film or not, the conversation is useful. I've used FP4+ from 35mm to 5x7" and love its characteristics. When Simon Galley worked for Ilford there was very thorough communication with the film community.
I'd like to know if they've had the issue with recent film or resolved it....

 

[Duceman]

Thank you, i missed that post.... even so i think it's worth having the conversation with Ilford. Film has worked well after its 'best before date"......( Agfapan 25, Verichrome Pan).... As i say i haven't had issues with my 120 FP4+.....
Whether they choose to replace the film or not, the conversation is useful. I've used FP4+ from 35mm to 5x7" and love its characteristics. When Simon Galley worked for Ilford there was very thorough communication with the film community.
I'd like to know if they've had the issue with recent film or resolved it....

Not really worth my time. What would I get out of it? Some free rolls that will most likely have the same questionable issue? And if I don’t shoot said rolls tout de suite, will some anonymous forum hack insinuate that the issue is my fault for not having shot them soon enough? Don’t have time for that.

BTW, the TMX I developed was mfg’d around the same time frame as this FP4, which I stored in the exact same manner, with no issues.

Overall, it seems the Universe is pushing me towards digital more and more each day.

 

[250swb]

Not really worth my time. What would I get out of it? Some free rolls that will most likely have the same questionable issue? And if I don’t shoot said rolls tout de suite, will some anonymous forum hack insinuate that the issue is my fault for not having shot them soon enough? Don’t have time for that.

BTW, the TMX I developed was mfg’d around the same time frame as this FP4, which I stored in the exact same manner, with no issues.

Overall, it seems the Universe is pushing me towards digital more and more each day.

And after you bought the film Ilford discovered they had a problem and fixed it. They are happy to replace faulty film. Take up their offer and report the problem because otherwise people may misconstrue your attitude as a big sulk.

 

[rcphoto]

I was really hoping we would have another thread on this.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Not really worth my time. What would I get out of it? Some free rolls that will most likely have the same questionable issue? And if I don’t shoot said rolls tout de suite, will some anonymous forum hack insinuate that the issue is my fault for not having shot them soon enough? Don’t have time for that.

BTW, the TMX I developed was mfg’d around the same time frame as this FP4, which I stored in the exact same manner, with no issues.

Overall, it seems the Universe is pushing me towards digital more and more each day.

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.

 

[grain elevator]

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.

 

[MattKing]

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.

Not really.
It is more in the "best before" category, than it is in the "discard after" category.
It isn't really cost cutting, when it comes to brands like Ilford. It is a combination of factors like much, much, much lower volumes, much less robust supply chains, highly advanced materials that as a consequence of those advancements may be more susceptible to adverse conditions than older materials, unavailability of traditional, long tested materials due to huge changes in the manufacturing world, and lack of a huge feedback generating retail market.
I don't know if historically Ilford manufactured their own backing paper like Kodak did, but Harman doesn't have that capability just as Eastman Kodak no longer does. So if all the testing methods available to Harman don't reveal the problems - they only show up once the product has been out in the vast variety of international user environments for an extended period - than the proper measure of the manufacturer's efforts really can only be how they respond to such problems.
All film manufacturers have historically had to replace materials when unexpected problems show up. The quality manufacturers have a low level of incidence. Harman/Ilford are in that group.