Has Ilford fixed the mottling problem with 120 film?

[rcphoto]

Yes.
120 films have to be handled differently in this modern era: they MUST be stored correctly (preferably refrigerated) and should be used BEFORE the expiry date. A film that is both past its expiration date and has been stored at room temperature is almost guaranteed to suffer from this problem.
I've adjusted my habits in the past 5 years and all 120 films are stored cold, and I use them up before they hit that "best before" date.

We must also follow thawing procedures properly.

 

[Pieter12]

I had some rolls of HP5 120 film (expired Feb 23) that I shot this year, they came back from development at a reputable lab (AG) and all the shadows were full of small blotches (picture is after scanning and reversal). The film had been stored in a drawer for a few years. I assume this is the backing paper-related problem.

I store all my black and white film in an insulated bag. The few times I have noticed mottling with Ilford HP5 was film that stayed in the camera for an extended period of time. And the mottling showed up more in the mid-tones and highlights than the shadows.

 

[ags2mikon]

I just used 4 rolls of FP-4 with a FEB 2016 exp date 3 stored in a refrigerator and 1 that was in a camera case in the house. All 4 turned out just fine. I was testing some film backs for spacing and light leaks so it really didn't mater if I had some paper offset marking. I had this problem back in the late 70's with Pan-F that was past date. I inherited a large stock of film when a friend of mine passed away 4 years ago. It was all refrigerated before I received it and I put it directly into the fridge. I used a roll of T max 100 with a 2008 exp. and it also came out just fine. I think this is game of Russian roulette. I'm not going to use any of it for something important.

 

[Certain Exposures]

Back in 2020 and 2021 I ran into problems with Ilford MF film showing "mottling" of their emulsions that produced small irregular spots on the negatives. Ilford acknowledged the problem in a post on their site and I thought that they were trying to resolve it. This week I shot a couple of rolls of HP5+ 120 film that had expiration date of 10/22 and when these were developed they still showed this problem. So I tossed all of my film dated 2022. Before I go out and buy more film it would be great to know if they have fixed this. What has your experience been?

If any of you plan to toss rolls you suspect will mottle please reconsider. I will take them off your hands for the price of shipping. Film prices are high.

I noticed mottling on multiple 120 rolls of cold stored Ilford XP2 I developed this year. The expiration dates were between 2022 - 2023. I cannot justify printing the images because they are too spotty. I clone stamped what felt like an endless number of dots off scans of many frames so I could share them with the subjects.

I store all my black and white film in an insulated bag. The few times I have noticed mottling with Ilford HP5 was film that stayed in the camera for an extended period of time. And the mottling showed up more in the mid-tones and highlights than the shadows.

Unfortunately, my film was refrigerated at all times other than its delivery time and the day I exposed it (several hours). Nice photograph.

 

[AERO]

One thing that just dawned on me. I never leave film in my 120 film cameras. I load, shoot and develop in short order.

Quite.

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

AFAIK 35mm cassettes have become expensive in production, too. I think I remember a comment in regard to that by the Adox CEO.



Much too low demand. And you need a different machine for 220 format. It cannot be produced on 120 machines. E.g. Ilford stopped production of 220 because their 220 machine was worn out / broken. And a refurbishment was much too expensive in relation to the extremely low demand. There was an explanation here on photrio about that by Simon Galley of Ilford.

The only commercial 220 I know of currently is Shanghai GP3, and reportedly it's largely a by-hand operation. A few people on here do hand-roll their own also.

I've shot one roll of the Shanghai in 220, and have four more out in the freezer. I just shot it last week and am stalling a bit on developing, partially because I just ended up with a couple of nice Nikor 220 reels but am waiting on delivery of a tank to hold them(they require a 4 1/2" tank, not the standard 3 1/2").

I'd love more 220 selection. Everything about it is less expensive to shoot. 220 backs/inserts for almost every SLR are half or a third of the cost of their 120 equivalent. When 220 film was regularly available, it was usually 1.5x the cost of the equivalent film in 120(the last Velvia 100 in 220 I bought was about $65/box when 120 was running a little over $40 a box then). The lab I use to use charged 1.5x their 120 prices for 220, although I've seen everything from the same price to double the price.

As a nice little treat too, I found out that my fairly new to me Pentax 645N gets 33 shots on a roll of 220 compared to 16 on a roll of 120. That was really nice to find.

 

[Agulliver]

220 backs are relatively cheap now because they're next to useless. If Kodak, Foma or Ilford suddenly started to offer popular films in 220 you can bet the cost of 220 capable cameras and backs will skyrocket.