FYI - film issue.

dr5chrome - I don't read Simon's reply as being on the defensive, or concluding that it is definitively a process problem. He writes:-

"2 ) This film does exhibit a fault post processing, this fault is not necessarily with the processing :

"As with any performance issue with any ILFORD Photo product it should be returned to us ( the full address is in the thread) , it will be investigated and if it is a fault in manufacture we will replace the product and tell you if it is our fault.

"All companies that have iso 9001 accreditation as we do, have a system to do this, this system is audited annually."

He also asks that the "faulty" product be returned to Ilford for examination....I don't see that he can be reasonably expected to comment any further without the opportunity to see and test the problem?

railwayman3 said:

dr5chrome - I don't read Simon's reply as being on the defensive, or concluding that it is definitively a process problem. He writes:-

"2 ) This film does exhibit a fault post processing, this fault is not necessarily with the processing :

"As with any performance issue with any ILFORD Photo product it should be returned to us ( the full address is in the thread) , it will be investigated and if it is a fault in manufacture we will replace the product and tell you if it is our fault.

"All companies that have iso 9001 accreditation as we do, have a system to do this, this system is audited annually."

He also asks that the "faulty" product be returned to Ilford for examination....I don't see that he can be reasonably expected to comment any further without the opportunity to see and test the problem?

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly.





And it looks to me like a film that was in a humid environment at some time, not a processing issue.

My biggest problem with this and this thread......if there was a problem with the manufacture of a popular film by a popular manufacturer, wouldn't APUG be going off like a cracker at Chinese new years? If there is a problem with the film, surely others would be reporting it?

hoffy said:

My biggest problem with this and this thread......if there was a problem with the manufacture of a popular film by a popular manufacturer, wouldn't APUG be going off like a cracker at Chinese new years? If there is a problem with the film, surely others would be reporting it?

Click to expand...

I've not used or got any of that batch.
The batch has been in the wild all 2014 but no Fire crackers - manufacturing, storage or processing is a three horse race.
Three will get you four...
But if you get bad results with 120 ship the paper backing back as well as the negs.
Note I do keep the box and paper until I loupe negatives, mainly for bulk loading BTW, when you need to quarantine the remaining 100 (or 1000 feet).
Kodak inspected processed Kodachrome well as I frequently got 'the frame was too close to end of film' warning...

hoffy said:

My biggest problem with this and this thread......if there was a problem with the manufacture of a popular film by a popular manufacturer, wouldn't APUG be going off like a cracker at Chinese new years? If there is a problem with the film, surely others would be reporting it?

Click to expand...

As stated in post #39

Sirius Glass said:

Three people out of 10,000 have a problem. The problem is with the three people.

Click to expand...

The OP should now publicly apologize for starting the thread. Next time do your due diligence before firing the send button.

Simon R Galley said:

From DR5Chrome ' film manufacturers store master rolls in deep freeze to sell years later, all film companies do this'

Well this film company does not do that, never has, never will, I cannot speak for other companies but I would be astounded if any stored parent rolls in this manner ( ie as frozen ).

We coat 46 weeks out of 52 ( 6 weeks are holiday and deep machine maintenance ) why would we ever coat when all we would need to do is store ? When we do coat we do store film as parent rolls as part of the normal supply chain and stock rosta, its kept in a conditioned area, never frozen and for a period of weeks.

From Grommi ' They probably got a bad supply of paper'

No we didn't, we never do, 120 backing paper is a highly sophisticated coating and construction made to exacting standards, these standards cannot be varied, each batch is tested, as is every raw material used in every manufacture of ILFORD Film or Paper products.

Monochrome film, and all ILFORD Films as finished product in its packaging and suitably protected can be frozen ( or kept cold as refrigerated ) that will help to extend its life beyond the 'use by' date. Ensure all film from frozen or refrigeration is allowed plenty of time to come up to normal room temperature.

Click to expand...

Simon and my other APUG friends;

I have verified that Kodak does indeed freeze master (parent) rolls of film if needed.

I have also verified that the 35mm cans are not suitable for any long term cold storage unless supplemental protection against humidity is supplied. So, a tightly sealed plastic bag or 2 can be used to protect 35mm film.

Roll and sheet films have sealed containers that once opened need additional protection such as a plastic bag or two.

And as noted in several threads here, some companies have had problems with paper backing for 120/220 films, but neither Kodak, Ilford or Fuji have due to superior quality control.

PE

i have had the problem with some pan f in 120 too. it's quite a nice effect but only if you want it.

monst said:

i have had the problem with some pan f in 120 too. it's quite a nice effect but only if you want it.

Click to expand...

So what did Ilford say caused it?

There is a similar thread started by the OP in respect of problems on Foma film in his same reversal process. I'm not suggesting that it's a processing fault, but might the issue be storage of the film before or after use, or in transit.....I notice that his customers are in many parts of the world, including hot/humid areas. Is there anyone in a general B&W or color lab that has found similar issues in normal processing of films from customers in different areas?

For the photographer it is of minor importance who is to blame, as long he knows the cause and may change something.
By changing the manufacturer, the lab or his own procedures.

But as long as people just shrug their shoulders... or are blaming someone for blaming someone else...

railwayman3 said:

There is a similar thread started by the OP in respect of problems on Foma film in his same reversal process. I'm not suggesting that it's a processing fault, but might the issue be storage of the film before or after use, or in transit.....I notice that his customers are in many parts of the world, including hot/humid areas. Is there anyone in a general B&W or color lab that has found similar issues in normal processing of films from customers in different areas?

Click to expand...

The problem with the Fomapan R is a completely different one and has been verified by two very experienced labs here in Germany (a country with rather moderate climate) which do not use the proprietary DR5 process. So I do not think the Fomapan R problem is humidity/heat related.

Xmas said:

Just bought 100 foot of FomaR 16 mm (for 110 and Kiev30) stills but going to stay 'negative' though I do have a subminiature projector!

Click to expand...

When developing as a negative, how do you clear the anti-halation layer?

mnemosyne said:

When developing as a negative, how do you clear the anti-halation layer?

Click to expand...

Presoaking is one way. Developers also clear the anit-halation layer.

Read here: http://foma-cz.cs4.cstech.cz/en/fomapan-R-100

Sirius Glass said:

Presoaking is one way. Developers also clear the anit-halation layer.

Click to expand...

Not in the case of Fomapan R, unfortunately. It is said the anti halo layer of Fomapan R needs the bleach stage to clear and my own experience confirms that. After a normal negative development/fixing/wash cycle the film is completely opaque.

Ricardo Miranda said:

Read here: http://foma-cz.cs4.cstech.cz/en/fomapan-R-100

Click to expand...

I know it will clear during the normal reversal process; the question is how to achieve this in a negative process that doesn't have a bleach stage

I apologize for taking this thread off track. Maybe it is better to continue the discussion in a separate thread

dr5chrome said:

With all due respect... As a very seasoned film processor, Mr Galley, you might wish to reread what I posted. To conclude that this was a "process" problem, is, well, insulting to intelligence.

dw/dr5

Click to expand...

You might want to re read Ilfords post.

mnemosyne said:

I know it will clear during the normal reversal process; the question is how to achieve this in a negative process that doesn't have a bleach stage

I apologize for taking this thread off track. Maybe it is better to continue the discussion in a separate thread

Click to expand...

Don't worry no one is reading they are just posting.
You need to start the R100 process that Ricardo linked at step 3 for negative or from step 1 for +I've.
I assume the anti Hal layer is silver and needs removal before last development.
It is very hard on emulsions temper closely and at 18-20C.
I'll PM you if it works the raw chemicals are difficult here.

mnemosyne said:

(...)
I know it will clear during the normal reversal process; the question is how to achieve this in a negative process that doesn't have a bleach stage

I apologize for taking this thread off track. Maybe it is better to continue the discussion in a separate thread

Click to expand...

Ah, so sorry. I missed the negative bit.

See what Noel posted above and good luck!

Should you skip the reversal step if you want a negative? Looks to me like steps 6 and 7 could be omitted from the negative process too as it might result in black film since you haven't hit any developer yet at that point if you skip steps 1 & 2.

Xmas said:

Don't worry no one is reading they are just posting.
You need to start the R100 process that Ricardo linked at step 3 for negative or from step 1 for +I've.
I assume the anti Hal layer is silver and needs removal before last development.
It is very hard on emulsions temper closely and at 18-20C.
I'll PM you if it works the raw chemicals are difficult here.

Click to expand...

What I did in my desperation when I found the film completely opaque after a normal b/W negative development/fixing/washing cycle was using some dilute RA-4 blix (working strength blix further diluted 1+1). It was the only type of bleach that I had a hand. That cleared the base successfully leaving only a slight brownish tint to the base. The negative image looks normal (a bit too dense, probably my guessed development time of 9m30s in Xtol 1+1 was a bit too long), but when scanning has a somewhat noticeable soft, fuzzy appearance when compared to a normal b/w negative scan. My best guess is this is due to the bleach just having begun to dissolve the metallic silver image. Also there are some areas with larger streaks and larger blotches of uneven density, difficult to say if this is due to uneven development or uneven bleaching. So while I succeeded in getting negative image, I wouldn't recommend this procedure as a good practice.

On a side note, the film was part of a pack of five with the same batch code, of which the first four had been developed by a very experienced and Kodak certified professional lab (Studio 13 in Stuttgart) in the Scala reversal process showing the infamous black speckles all over the frames. The same speckles (but white) are visible on the film that I developed at home with the procedure outlined above. All the solutions where prepared with de-ionized water (Xtol from a fresh batch and additionally filtered before use) and temperature was strictly controlled at 20°C.

mnemosyne said:

On a side note, the film was part of a pack of five with the same batch code, of which the first four had been developed by a very experienced and Kodak certified professional lab (Studio 13 in Stuttgart) in the Scala reversal process showing the infamous black speckles all over the frames. The same speckles (but white) are visible on the film that I developed at home with the procedure outlined above. All the solutions where prepared with de-ionized water (Xtol from a fresh batch and additionally filtered before use) and temperature was strictly controlled at 20°C.

Click to expand...

Thanks I'm still repairing my 110 and Kiev cameras. It will be a while before I load a film, into a cassette.

Xmas said:

So what did Ilford say caused it?

Click to expand...

no idea as they haven't seen it. i did notice that the backing paper was mottled too. it was a year back so haven't still got the backing paper. i thought it was just a dodgy one off but it doesn't seem the case. mine was just a standard process not a reversal one.

monst said:

no idea as they haven't seen it. i did notice that the backing paper was mottled too. it was a year back so haven't still got the backing paper. i thought it was just a dodgy one off but it doesn't seem the case. mine was just a standard process not a reversal one.

Click to expand...

That would be why you need to inspect and send paper back.

Normally the paper should be as new a mottle or other feature means bad paper or moisture.

I've had a roll where the backing paper and the film were glued together part way through the reel.

It was a found film in an old folder all fog on the film that unwound.

The (my conjectured) probable cause was moisture - the take up end of backing paper damaged the delivery end ok.

I never freeze film or carrots...