Has Ilford fixed the mottling problem with 120 film?

[StevieRose]

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?

 

[retina_restoration]

When Ilford says use the film before its expiration date, we must take it seriously these days. I doubt there is a 120 roll film that won't do this if left to expire before using it.
The problem is "fixed" but you would be well advised to take the expiration dates on the package quite literally.

 

[Brook Hill]

Ilford told me that they have done a lot of work to resolve the problem and thought they had succeeded. They said that films where the batch number began with "FF -----" should be alright and I have found this is true of the FF films that I have exposed.

Tony

 

[StevieRose]

Ilford told me that they have done a lot of work to resolve the problem and thought they had succeeded. They said that films where the batch number began with "FF -----" should be alright and I have found this is true of the FF films that I have exposed.

Tony

Thank you. Very helpful.

 

[Alan9940]

I recently exposed several rolls of 120 HP-5+ and all good. But, this was fresh film bought within the last couple of months from B&H.

 

[Pieter12]

I have shot & developed many rolls of expired HP5+ with no issues. But I have had mottling with a few rolls, too. It seems to be random, except that I believe the rolls that showed mottling were left in the camera (my Hasselblad SWC is the main culprit) for a while rather than completed and removed within a week or the same day. Exposed film that was stored for weeks in a light-tight bag in a cooler did not suffer.

 

[JPD]

When Ilford says use the film before its expiration date, we must take it seriously these days. I doubt there is a 120 roll film that won't do this if left to expire before using it.
The problem is "fixed" but you would be well advised to take the expiration dates on the package quite literally.

Too bad. I bought a couple of rolls of FP4 but time flies too fast for me these days that they rolls now have expired. I'll take them to the recycling station. They will be the last Ilford films I bought. I never had any problems with mottling, but I don't want to take any chances.

 

[MattKing]

All experienced film manufacturers have had to deal with problems with interaction between 120 film and backing paper.
It is not a recent phenomena.
The problem depends on a myriad number of interactions, and a myriad selection of factors.
As none of the film manufacturers make their own backing paper any more, and as there is only a very small number (perhaps only one) of paper manufacturers and printers who have the capacity to make it - it is quite difficult to make - it isn't possible for the film manufacturers to eliminate them.
The frequency of occurrence seems to be unpredictable, but you will never be able to count it out with certainty.
Storage and handling affects it - both before and after sale to the consumer.
And the older the film, the more likely it is to be visited by it.
Fairly recently, it nearly forced Eastman Kodak to stop making 120 film altogether.
So be cautious about eliminating from consideration one of the highest quality and reliable sources.

 

[Pieter12]

All experienced film manufacturers have had to deal with problems with interaction between 120 film and backing paper.
It is not a recent phenomena.
The problem depends on a myriad number of interactions, and a myriad selection of factors.
As none of the film manufacturers make their own backing paper any more, and as there is only a very small number (perhaps only one) of paper manufacturers and printers who have the capacity to make it - it is quite difficult to make - it isn't possible for the film manufacturers to eliminate them.
The frequency of occurrence seems to be unpredictable, but you will never be able to count it out with certainty.
Storage and handling affects it - both before and after sale to the consumer.
And the older the film, the more likely it is to be visited by it.
Fairly recently, it nearly forced Eastman Kodak to stop making 120 film altogether.
So be cautious about eliminating from consideration one of the highest quality and reliable sources.

I think there may be more than one, or if there is only one, they make a variety of backing papers. Ilford paper is not the same as Fuji, nor is Kodak the same as the others. Can't speak for Cinestill or Rollei, Bergger or Agfa, I haven't used them much or recently. But Catlabs is definitely quite different than any of the above, their backing paper seems of lesser quality with a softer, rougher finish and is easier to tear. I use and continue to use almost 90% Ilford HP5+, some fresh, some expired. I have had mottling problems, maybe 3 or 4 out of hundreds of rolls. I also had the end sealing tape come off a roll of Ilford film, ending up inside the camera and showing up on an entire roll. Ilford replaced the problem rolls, but that's about the limit of their liability.

 

[retina_restoration]

Too bad. I bought a couple of rolls of FP4 but time flies too fast for me these days that they rolls now have expired. I'll take them to the recycling station. They will be the last Ilford films I bought. I never had any problems with mottling, but I don't want to take any chances.

It's not an Ilford problem, it's a 120 format problem, no matter whose film you're using. The way modern backing papers are made, they foul the film if left in contact for too long, hence the expiration dates. I have experienced this with Ilford, Kodak, Foma, Agfa and other 120 roll films if left to expire (and not stored cold).
You might as well not buy any 120 roll films if you don't expect to use them in a timely manner.

 

[MattKing]

For clarity, the problem is with the interaction between modern backing papers, modern inks, and modern emulsions.
All three have gone through changes - in some cases massive ones - since the times when we saw the problem less frequently. But the problem was always there.
The current type of backing paper used by Kodak - which is itself almost plastic - seems to be reasonably good at preventing those interaction problems, but the secrets of how it is put together are closely guarded ones .

 

[Pieter12]

There

For clarity, the problem is with the interaction between modern backing papers, modern inks, and modern emulsions.
All three have gone through changes - in some cases massive ones - since the times when we saw the problem less frequently. But the problem was always there.
The current type of backing paper used by Kodak - which is itself almost plastic - seems to be reasonably good at preventing those interaction problems, but the secrets of how it is put together are closely guarded ones .

is “plastic paper.” It was somewhat popular in the 80’s and 90’s. But I would think it would cause more problems because ink does not absorb well into the paper making it more susceptible to transfer to the film emulsion. I may be mistaken but the mottling I have experienced seems to be caused by humidity from the backing paper getting to the emulsion.

 

[mshchem]

I've never had a problem. With any 120 film. I treat it like it's the perishable thing that it is. Because I no longer have a local shop, I buy film in cool months and then store it in a refrigerator.
I've noticed the changes, especially Kodak. Seems like their solution was to put a protective, glossy looking clear coating over the ink. Works great, but I carry a rubber band as the sealing tape doesn't stick well to the clear coat.
Ilford is a great product

 

[MattKing]

There

is “plastic paper.” It was somewhat popular in the 80’s and 90’s. But I would think it would cause more problems because ink does not absorb well into the paper making it more susceptible to transfer to the film emulsion. I may be mistaken but the mottling I have experienced seems to be caused by humidity from the backing paper getting to the emulsion.

There are a bunch of potential problems that result from squishing paper with ink printing on to it into emulsions that are designed to be incredibly sensitive to small amounts of light,
And if you take steps to lower the potential for the ink to leave the paper and interact with the emulsion, you can end up increasing the potential for other things in the paper interacting with the emulsion - it always involves balance and fine tuning.
As mshchem mentions above, Eastman Kodak ("EK") and its backing paper supplier have arrived at a solution that appears to involve a type of overcoat, but you won't hear about them sharing that solution. They spent a lot of time, money and resources arriving at that solution, and they consider that solution to be a valuable trade secret.
It is important to remember that their solution has to work for C-41 and E6 colour film (and their much more complex emulsions) as well, because backing paper is so expensive, and minimum order quantities are so high, that it isn't economically feasible for them to have multiple different types made for them - at least not with the 120 volumes being as low that they are. No film manufacturer can stand having a bunch of capital tied up in a warehouse for years while one or more already paid for orders of backing paper gets slowly used up.
At the time of the EK bankruptcy, the low 120 sales volumes meant that EK had years worth of EK manufactured backing paper on hand. That is why they shut down and dismantled their own production lines.
It was several years later, when those supplies were finally exhausted, that they attempted to use third party manufactured (to modern specs) replacements, and discovered that the current paper and printing technologies they could access caused near catastrophic problems.
Not long before Eastman Kodak had their problems Ilford had similar problems with what is known as wrapper offset - transference of the ink. Ilford addressed them by making their back printing much fainter. That is why it can be so hard to see the numbers in so-called red window cameras with Ilford 120 film.

 

[JPD]

It's not an Ilford problem, it's a 120 format problem, no matter whose film you're using. The way modern backing papers are made, they foul the film if left in contact for too long, hence the expiration dates. I have experienced this with Ilford, Kodak, Foma, Agfa and other 120 roll films if left to expire (and not stored cold).
You might as well not buy any 120 roll films if you don't expect to use them in a timely manner.

Ok, I'll save my exp. date 2023 rolls of FP4. I have a roll in a holder I'll develop soon and hope for the best. Apropos restored Retinas, I should load a roll in one, but that's 135 film.

 

[250swb]

I've had mottling with two rolls of HP5, but I had it in my Holga so the effect was quite artistic. But I'm not willing to cry wolf for the sake of two experiences with film I suspected was in the time line for mottling. And while that HP5 had expired in 2020 all film bought since 2021/22 has been ok (including the two rolls Ilford sent me as replacements), but it's unusual for me to have out of date film around. The whole thing blows out the water the idea that 'I've never had a problem with out of date film' which is bandied around so lightly because people take it on as a general recommendation, but I'd steer well clear of any 120 film stock you don't know the history of while being confident of new stock. As always, buy from a big supplier who has a large turnover.

 

[JerseyDoug]

I never worried about the mottling until I saw it on a recently shot and developed 2023 expired roll of 120 FP4+. I never saw this before and the film did spend more than a month in the camera before I developed it.
But this conversation has me a little worried about THE picture of the extended family I take every Christmas Day. I have always taken it with a 6x6 camera using bounce flash off the ceiling. I would be reluctant to switch to another setup because of worries about 120 film.
Perhaps out of an excess of caution I now plan to load long dated rolls of two different manufacturers' films in my two Hasselblad backs and take the same picture with both.

 

[Pieter12]

If backing paper is such an expense, I wonder about two factors. First, a roll of 120 film costs about the same as a 36-exposure roll of 35mm, yet is about the same surface area but needs the aforementioned expensive paper. Second, why has 220 film been discontinued, since it doesn’t have backing paper, just leader and trailer?

 

[mshchem]

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

 

[Angarian]

If backing paper is such an expense, I wonder about two factors. First, a roll of 120 film costs about the same as a 36-exposure roll of 35mm, yet is about the same surface area but needs the aforementioned expensive paper.

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

Second, why has 220 film been discontinued, since it doesn’t have backing paper, just leader and trailer?

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.

 

[Sanug]

I have developed a FP4+ 120, expired Sept. 2023, yesterday. I stored it in my quite wet basement at 15-20°C. No issues at all, it came out perfectly.

 

[MattKing]

From the "may as well look at the bright side" department, the result of using some of the problem (wrapper offset) Kodak T-Max 400 film, in a Brownie Hawkeye, back in 2019. Please excuse the dust!

 

[Ian Grant]

Foma, then Kodak, and finally Ilford, had these backing paper issues. It was not these companies fault, or the backing paper manufacturers. It was minor changes to raw materials supplied to the backing paper manufacturers. Then the problem was these issues only showed up years after manufacture.

Ian

 

[joe bosak]

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.

 

[retina_restoration]

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.

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.