Fuji Acros (sheet) and blotches

I have recently got weird blotches on my Fuji Acros 4x5 (quickload) sheets.


It's like a increased fog but not evenly distributed. Instead it's formed from kind of a blotches like this scan sample (about one quarter of sheet) shows. The density of fog is around 0.4 - 0.6 and it's visible everywhere including very edges of the sheet.




These are visible to bare eye and I really don't know the cause.

I have found them from negatives developed in Pyrocat-HD and D-76, so it's unlikely developer problem.
I have processed films on Paterson Orbital tank/daylight tray which is modified like this one: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps how orbital.html


One cause that I can imagine is roughened base.. But as it's against the base of the film it should not have any effect. It's only for preventing films from sticking on the base and allows some developer/pre soak water flow under the film sheet thus helping removing the antihalation layer.


The strangest thing is that this does not happen every time. Still the developing procedure is always as consistent as I can do.


The Neopan Acros is only film that has these. TMX, TMY, Fomapan 200, Fomapan 100, ... Not a single problem.


I have tried water stop and normal stop bath, no difference. Also refixing does not remove fog.
The temperatures should be really close to 20°C. The biggest change in temperature happens when pre soak water is poured in. The film and tank is initially around 22°C and the pre soak water is 20°C.

I have processed thousands of sheets of film over 35 years and that includes the last couple of years 4x5 Acros and I have never seen this problem before. Actually it looks like a platinum print made on an unevenly humidified piece of paper. My guess is this is a factory defect. I would expect Fuji to have very high standards and very tight quality control but stuff happens. I once got a bad batch of film from Ilford so it can happen to anyone. That is my vote, especially considering all the films and developers you have done and not seen the problem. I hope it goes away for you. You might open another box and try some out of it.
Dennis

Is this film old or out of date ?......

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

The film was outdated. Expiration 10/2011. It was last box of Quickload Acros that I had.
I bought 'enough' quickloads from Tokyo at spring 2009 but as prices went higher and Quickloads disappeared, I kept last box in the freezer (around -28 degree celcius) until november.


I have still around 10 undeveloped sheets. Now I am not sure should I develop them using some other developing style (if the modified Paterson Orbital is cause) or should I investigate this more and use my single sheet stocks for testing.
I guess that Quickloads and normal boxed single sheets has same film base.

Quickloads have a different base support than normal sheet film.

As the film is out of date and it seems to be exhibiting as issue I would just put it in the bin.

FUJI coating and product quality is outstanding, in every way, my guess is that it has reacted with the packaging around it, but that is absolutely a guess.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN tcehnology Limited :

Simon would know more than me but my thought was freezer burn, that some moisture got into them, froze at the edges, then of course thawed out when you took it out but damaged the emulsion when the crystals formed. Are you careful to put then in a sealed container before freezing or do you leave them in the freezer in just the original packaging? Sometimes that's not enough. That's my best guess.


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

I use ziplock type plastic bags for storing film in the freezer. But I cannot say that there haven't been any moisture.


Here's another example. Full frame and then crop.

Simon R Galley said:

Quickloads have a different base support than normal sheet film...

Click to expand...

I am reticent to question you Simon, but are you positive about that? Fuji Quickload Acros is adhered to its leader and trailer with some kind of adhesive, but the film base appears to be identical to standard (non-Quickload) Acros. Which is to say, the same 7-mil PET one finds most black and white sheet film coated on. Fuji's version, although I've measured it with digital calipers and found the thickness specification to be met, is more flexible than other manufacturers' film bases of the same material and dimensions.

Out of curiosity, do you make that statement from special knowledge provided by Fuji or have you perhaps been mislead by the film's higher than typical flexibility?

To the OP's question, a friend of mine stockpiled much pack film when Tri-X was discontinued in that format. Some time later, when removing it from his freezer, making exposures and developing it, he found the negatives unusable. It seems the paper used was not intended for extended storage and had attacked the film. I've no idea what the physical specifications of Fuji's black packet paper are, but wonder whether the film damage could have occurred because of extended contact with something that isn't safe for that situation.

Hi Sal,

I know it was a different support 'when quick loads came out' as we looked to provide a product and you had to have a different support ( base ) , and you are always welcome to question me, you could be correct if they reverted to the standard base.

Kind Regards

Simon.

Simon R Galley said:

...I know it was a different support 'when quick loads came out' as we looked to provide a product and you had to have a different support ( base )...you could be correct if they reverted to the standard base...

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply. My understanding that the base of QuicklLad Acros doesn't differ from the base of loose-sheet Acros is a result of observing the physical characteristics of each version, with reference to the most recent production. I can find no difference in length, width, thickness, flexibility, surface texture/gloss of the base and emulsion sides or resistance to tearing.

I have also been able to discern no difference between the base of READYLOAD and loose sheets of 100TMX; the same "adhered to a leader and trailer" approach was used for that product.

This is of great interest to me. Since you considered offering packet film at one time and were dissuaded by the need for a different film base, if that requirement has since been eliminated, perhaps you might look into the possibility again. A Quickload- (or READYLOAD-) compatible box of 4x5 Delta 100 would be a fantasy come true. Maybe you could obtain Fuji's now-idle (and hopefully not scrapped) QuickLoad manufacturing equipment at a very reasonable price.

Thanks again for being so responsive.

Here's one negative scanned as positive. The markings/blotches and fog are strongest on the area where negative is attached to quickload's flap.

However these blotches are everywhere. They're just much stronger on that area.






Yesterday I developed six sheets. Some of them have these markings, some are in perfect shape.
I did them in two batches. Three in D-76 1+1 and three in Pyrocat-HD 1:1:100. Similar results.

I had one unexposed quickload sheet.

The sheet was from same box than all sheets with blotches. It was stored along with others and I carried it during my two month trip with other sheets.

Now I took a test photo using that one remaining sheet. I also took test shots to fresh single sheet Acros.

Then I developed the test quickload, one quickload (exposed during trip) and two fresh single sheets. All in the same time, in Paterson Orbital.


All were fine except the one exposed during my Japan trip.


If the cause is freezer burn, how come that all sheets aren't affected similary. But most (all developed so far) has same kind of defect?

Usagi said:

I had one unexposed quickload sheet.

The sheet was from same box than all sheets with blotches. It was stored along with others and I carried it during my two month trip with other sheets.

Now I took a test photo using that one remaining sheet. I also took test shots to fresh single sheet Acros.

Then I developed the test quickload, one quickload (exposed during trip) and two fresh single sheets. All in the same time, in Paterson Orbital.


All were fine except the one exposed during my Japan trip.


If the cause is freezer burn, how come that all sheets aren't affected similary. But most (all developed so far) has same kind of defect?

Click to expand...

OH did you happen to go through an x-ray machine on your trip? Uh oh..... :/


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

I kept films with me. Ofcourse there's always security scan, but it should be safe up to iso 1600.
My tmy2 sheets are fine, like fomapan 200, ektar 100 and e100g also. Even velvia 100f quick loads (expired) are fine.
Only those acros quick loads has problems.


I really like quick loads and acros, but this is (or was, as I have developed almost all sheets) a bit alerting.

Usagi said:

I kept films with me. Ofcourse there's always security scan, but it should be safe up to iso 1600.
My tmy2 sheets are fine, like fomapan 200, ektar 100 and e100g also. Even velvia 100f quick loads (expired) are fine.
Only those acros quick loads has problems.


I really like quick loads and acros, but this is (or was, as I have developed almost all sheets) a bit alerting.

Click to expand...

Well I know they SAY it SHOULD be fine, yet when I did my kodachrome trip in 2010 the K64 film that went through the x-ray machine had a noticeable fog layer vs the stuff that didn't, and the one IN my camera had some very strange banding lines, but only on the roll that was in the camera at the time, so perhaps this quick load was already loaded in the holder making it more susceptible? Just a thought. Anyway hope Ilford can explain it.

Usagi said:

I kept films with me. Ofcourse there's always security scan, but it should be safe up to iso 1600.
My tmy2 sheets are fine, like fomapan 200, ektar 100 and e100g also. Even velvia 100f quick loads (expired) are fine.
Only those acros quick loads has problems.


I really like quick loads and acros, but this is (or was, as I have developed almost all sheets) a bit alerting.

Click to expand...

I was going to ask the same question as to Xray contamination. It could be very possible that that's exactly what happened. Fuji is usually pretty darn good in the QC department and you don't hear many complaints from customers about their products. Two words I use less and less as I get older are "shouldn't" and "never". Just as you think something shouldn't happen it does and when something is never suppose to happen it will! JohnW

i had something similar happen to me on fomapan but for 120mm i don't know if it applies... and once with fuji acros 100 (120 again) i think... If i remember correctly it happened when i did vigorous shaking the first 30 sec or so. In reading about this problem... others mentioned fomapan doing this over several blogs... They also mentioned the stop bath possibly being a problem.. but it's not so... cause i have never used anything other than water. I think perhaps it is air bubbles... I now use the turning rod provided with the patterson tanks. I haven't encountered this problem since.

Also if you wet the film before developer- i no longer do this (fuji says its unnecessary)- this might also contribute to it (the formation of 'spotting) for some reason, maybe saturating the film with water making it harder for the developer to take effect in some areas.

mesantacruz said:

i had something similar happen to me on fomapan but for 120mm i don't know if it applies... and once with fuji acros 100 (120 again) i think... If i remember correctly it happened when i did vigorous shaking the first 30 sec or so. In reading about this problem... others mentioned fomapan doing this over several blogs... They also mentioned the stop bath possibly being a problem.. but it's not so... cause i have never used anything other than water. I think perhaps it is air bubbles... I now use the turning rod provided with the patterson tanks. I haven't encountered this problem since.

Also if you wet the film before developer- i no longer do this (fuji says its unnecessary)- this might also contribute to it (the formation of 'spotting) for some reason, maybe saturating the film with water making it harder for the developer to take effect in some areas.

Click to expand...

PE is pretty adamant about the pre-soak thing, and I tend to think he knows what he's talking about LOL

I also agitate for a whole minute, relatively vigorously, with no issues like this.

Could be, but I've just never seen it except with x-rays or film that leaked moisture, frozen crystals etc.

So far perhaps best guess is leaked moisture or frozen crystals..

I have to investigate this a bit, although I don't have Acros quickloads any more and it's no longer in the production.

Usagi said:

So far perhaps best guess is leaked moisture or frozen crystals..

I have to investigate this a bit, although I don't have Acros quickloads any more and it's no longer in the production.

Click to expand...

You can experiment with any film, just take a clipping from a piece of film, put it in a plastic bag (ziplock) with a but of moisture in the bag (but not on the film, like take a piece of wet bread and put it next to the film (do this all in the dark room/ dark bag), then put it on a dark box (like an empty LF box) and leave it in a hot place for 30 minutes, like on top of a radiator or heat vent, then put that immediately in the freezer for 3 days. Take it out, shoot it, and see if the same effect is there. Theoretically this should work, I've never purposefully done this of course. But I've seen results like that on films that I put in the fridge where the seal on the can was not tight and so I assumed the moisture was the cause since it was only from the cans with loose tape. Now I re-tape everything and put it all in sealed plastic...


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk