Ilford Film manufacturing defects: post here

[jim appleyard]

I've never had a problem with Ilford films and am currently shooting Pan-F and FP-4 in 120, fresh stock.

 

[Ian Grant]

It is was a coating defect many many rolls from the same batch would be affected, as film is coated in one big roll and then cut down, and not thousand at a time. I'm too in the "storage conditions" camp.

I think you missed the word "If" at the beginning But that was also my point same if it was a backing paper fault.

There's no reason for the OP to start a 2nd thread on the same subject, he's had plenty of similar responses already. Ilford's QC is extremely high. I've never had an emulsion defect with film from many manufacturers, Kodak Ltd, Eastman Kodak, Ilford, Foma, Forte. EKFE, or Forte. The only film defect I've had was due to confectioning with a Foma film where something happened as a 120 film had been slit putting indentation/pressure marks close to the edge of two frames.

Yes there have been issues with backing papers recently with Kodak films and a few years ago with Foma 200 but there were a great many cases, unlike this users issues.

Ian

 

[pentaxuser]

Can I ask, just out of curiosity, what the OP intends to do, once all those who have experienced problems which they think are similar to his, add their posts with all the pertinent information that Ilford deserve to receive?.

What is the strategy and the objective of the exercise and how will this objective be brought about by the OP? I presume that this will not end up as a thread with a list of complainants that eventually "fizzles out" and then just sits on Photrio until it fades from our collective memory?

Unless there is an objective and a means of achieving it, I have a terrible feeling that this may be the outcome

pentaxuser

 

[Tom Kershaw]

A few years ago when I ran across a problem with a few rolls of ILFORD film Harman were good enough to look at my sample and send back some complimentary film in compensation. I'm not sure what the response would be under the current ownership however.

 

[Willyekerslike]

I have been shooting Ilford for just about 60 years now. In 135, 127, 120 and various sheet sizes. I have never had a problem with Ilford films. I think the advantage I have here in the UK is that I can get very fresh film stock which at present only makes one stop at a dealers before being passed onto me. If you live halfway round the world from where it is manufactured you can have no idea how it has been stored during transit.

In my view it is poor show to come onto a public forum stating it is a manufacturing problem without even giving the manufacturer an opportunity to look at the problem first. I think I can say with some certainty that if it was a problem during manufacture there would be hundreds of people coming forward with the same problem.

So I will be continuing to use Ilford film and Kodak film, which I have never had a problem with despite shooting ten rolls from the problem batches.

The great thing about film is that if it turns out to be a problem during manufacture the manufacturer will replace the roll, that is guaranteed.

 

[mshchem]

I've only had one bonefide film defect issue in 50 years of shooting film. Last summer I shot 8 36 exp rolls of Fujichrome. On two frames out of the 8 rolls there were a couple of specks of foreign matter. I was shocked because I've never seen anything like that.
The Kodak backing paper never hit me, I must not have had the bad fortune of getting the bad lots.
I have always been careful with film. I hope this is an isolated issue.

 

[koraks]

Shoot some Fomapan, you'll learn all about coating defects...

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Shoot some Fomapan, you'll learn all about coating defects...

Does Fomapan still suffer from coating defects?

 

[warden]

In the Ilford Partner forum, there is a thread about the SFX 200 film defects. However, it has become apparent that the defects are widespread, covering multiple films and speeds. If you have had an issue such as described or visually similar to what is posted below, please contribute.

We all love Ilford Film, they have been a backbone of black and white photography for countless years. We hope in all our might that they continue with quality products, Film, Paper, Chemicals, filters and everything traditionally related.

That being said, this is what people are finding:

First post (not me), the first image image in the thread. Ilford SFX 200

I have talked to a couple photo store reps, though they are not Ilford reps. They all thought this and that and the other, (as eluded to by other posters here) but after some discussion, it seems that they saw it from my point of view: manufacturing defiects. SFX 200, Delta 400 and PanF 50. Surely there are others as well.

I develop two rolls at a time, in stainless steel tanks, and use fresh diluted photo flow every 10 rolls. The "mottled" parts are not dirt, debris, etc., and they are there on the film before it goes into the photo flow. The mottled bits are in the film, the emultion.

I will try to upload some of my photos scanned from RC workprints. The prints are not necessarily excellent prints, but they do show the flaws in the film and the horror of the retouching job necessary in order to have the prints made in the traditional sense. I am thinking somewhere from 30-40 hours of retouching per print.

I have been using Ilford Delta 400 for about 28 years exclusively in Pyro PMK, and just began using Ilford PanF after my stock of Agfa 25 ran out (need a slow speed film of course). This is 120 format film film. When a photographer tests out a film, for exposure index, development time, latitude and grain structure, once they come up with something good, they tend to stick with it. It becomes predictable, reliable, especially in the long exposures where reciprocity comes into effect and when using the Zone System or Tone System (as I use).

Photo 1 and 2 is Ilford Delta 400, same roll of film. The other roll developed at the same time was not affected.
Photo 3 is Ilford Pan F, printed a bit too contrasty, (awful print really) but shows the damage. the other roll I develop at the same time was not effected.

My bonafides: I have been doing traditional photography since 1986. Had my own darkroom since then and fortunately made a career of pursuing the black and white landscape. Graduated Honors Brooks Institute 1996 (before it became corporate), assisted Michael Kenna 1999-2001. Gallery represented since 1995.

I've had a roll or two that look exactly like yours, although I don't remember the brand of film. I was in the bad habit of impatiently grabbing film from the freezer and immediately loading it into the camera and using it, and have stopped doing that. I haven't seen the problem since, which may or may not have something to do with it.

My bonafides: I have no bonafides.

 

[koraks]

Does Fomapan still suffer from coating defects?

Last time I tried it, yes. I don't know about film produced in the last 12-18 months.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I personally have no way of comparing it to the temporary backing paper problem with Kodak, since the numerous 120 rolls of both color and b&w film I used during that period of time were all made either before or after the incident and were all perfectly good. Apparently the dealers I got my own film form were informed of the issue and pulled any suspect batch numbers before they sold.

 

[M Carter]

Well, I potentially have one - Delta 100, 4x5 - there's a "craquelure" texture to the film that I don't believe is processing error. That said, I hadn't done much 4x5 in some time, but Rollei IR 400 and Foma 200 sheets processed in the same period didn't exhibit this. I have to shoot 4x5 with the Delta next week, I'll first fix out a blank sheet and see if the issue arises and do a few more tests to be sure. But I'd seen posts a while back with some 120 Delta 100 having the same problem.

 

[Ian Grant]

Well, I potentially have one - Delta 100, 4x5 - there's a "craquelure" texture to the film that I don't believe is processing error. That said, I hadn't done much 4x5 in some time, but Rollei IR 400 and Foma 200 sheets processed in the same period didn't exhibit this. I have to shoot 4x5 with the Delta next week, I'll first fix out a blank sheet and see if the issue arises and do a few more tests to be sure. But I'd seen posts a while back with some 120 Delta 100 having the same problem.

It's unlikely it's coating defect due to the quality controls Ilford use to check their coated materials which are amongst the best. Delta 100 has been my main film in 120 and 5x4 for over 10 years and I use a lot of it and have never seen an issue.

A "craquelure" texture sounds like a processing issue due to temperature variations, There's a scant regard to temperature whether it's film storage or processing (not aiming at you M Carter), but most issues with films are poor storage or rapid temperature changes from freezing to use, and it's the same in processing. When some of us started films were poorly hardened, FP3 and HP3 were quite poor by today's standard softer than Fomapan and ona par with the last EFKE films, Kodak Plus-X and Tri-X of that era were no better. Unfortunately Kodak keep the same names even when they upgraded so you can't tell Tri-X name which generation of film 1939 to today.

FP4 and HP5 where the first B&W films to be well hardened, Kodak caught up a couple of years later. My point is though that those of us that used older films knew well that poor temperature control caused major issues full blown reticulation, emulsion flaking etc. All eliminated by tight temperature control, it's not the temperature itself it's sudden shock. While most modern films from Ilfor and Kodak won't reticulate you still get micro/incipient reticulation or as Kodak call it surface artefacts. Some film/developer combinations acerbate this Acros in Rodinal. the early Tmax 400 in Rodinal, both due to the free Hydroxide.

People are forgetting films use Gelatin based emulsions and Super-coats (and backing coats some 120/5x4). Gelatin reacts differently in the way it swells or contracts at different temperatures, that's dry as it absorbs or loses moisture or when swollen slightly and wet.

These potential issues affect all films not just Ilford, early Tmax 400 and Acros have had the most issues from the big three manufacturers. But even working with softer emulsions like EFKE there's no issues if you use tight temperature control.

Ian

 

[MattKing]

I've done what the OP should have done at the beginning - I have started a Conversation with Harman Tech Service to advise them of this thread and the earlier entries in the thread in the Partner forum.

 

[Photo Engineer]

To me, this looks like the coating defect you get from startup or shutdown of a coating run. Not sure, but in this case the lines are being emptied or filled and bubbles form and end up being coated. But usually, they end up looking more like comets due to the speed of the moving web.

So, it looks like one, but does not. IDK. I do know that small parts of the web can have a defect that does not appear elsewhere. I also know that defect mapping cuts around this. So, again, IDK.

All in all, this is looking less and less like a coating problem.

PE

 

[lpt10]

It's entirely possible that this was a storage+use problem. I do keep film in the fridge, in a dry bag. The 120 rolls are of course sealed anyway. I remove them 48h before use from the fridge to give them a chance to aclimatize but since this problem happened with PanF+ in a hot and humid Bangkok day i was left wondering what to do in this case.
What would the fellow members of APUG suggest in terms of storage and aclimatization prior to use? What are the general practices? Do you find some films are more lenient than others?

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've only had this kind of effect on film twice in my life, once on a sheet of 8x10 film and once with roll film in a 6x9 holder, with both happening under especially cold damp conditions where I had to quickly unpack the camera and get the shot off before my gear got soaked. In other words, it was a situation ripe for condensation and I knew it at the time. But condensation can happen in analogous scenarios without a camera even being involved yet. I don't know if this is a possible answer in this particular case, but it's another thing to ponder or sleuth. Reticulation patterns are suprisingly hard to achieve in modern thin emulsion films. There are ways you might get a few blisters on the emulsion from rapid shift between hot and cold solutions, or in the case of certain EU films with odd gelatin, from too strong a stop bath. My older brother sometimes deliberately reticulated good ole thick-emulsion Super-XX sheet film for a creative effect of cracks all over the picture, much like certain methods of firing pottery glazes deliberately do. But the posted images don't begin to resemble that, so to me at least, I'd rule out reticulation in this case.

 

[mshchem]

Get ahold of Ilford. Follow the instructions for the film. Ilford (I'm sure) has QC results from testing, probably retained samples of the lots in question.

 

[John51]

I have had mottling like that only once, it was a role of Delta 400 that I loaded into a Paterson tank then for whatever reason had to leave until the next day before processing. Learned my lesson from that and now only load right before development. One and only failure I have had from home processing and run through about 20 rolls of Ilford since all which have come out perfectly clean and defect free.

I have had two or three weird QC issues though with Ilford film recently, first was the tab towards the end of the role got caught in my Hasselblad A12 back and tore off. Amazingly I managed to unload the role and get it into a foil wrapper and box where it was wound tight enough it didn't unwrap. After that I had another couple of rolls from the same batch that did something similar, the tab got caught up in the film back making unloading fiddly. After that no more problems at all weirdly and all Ilford film either Delta 400 or HP5. Seems like the tab was stuck on at an angle and flaying outside of the width of the backing paper when wound.

My bathroom has no window and at night with all lights off and doors closed, it's pitch black. So I load at night and process the next day. I haven't noticed a problem so far.

What could be happening for that workflow to give problems?

 

[NJH]

My bathroom has no window and at night with all lights off and doors closed, it's pitch black. So I load at night and process the next day. I haven't noticed a problem so far.

What could be happening for that workflow to give problems?

Fairly sure it was moisture in the air getting onto the film whilst it was in the tank, I got mottling identical to that in the OPs pictures.

 

[AgX]

Fairly sure it was moisture in the air getting onto the film whilst it was in the tank, I got mottling identical to that in the OPs pictures.

But such artefact as you described has not been reported by the industry in their reports.

I admit though that in general effect of plain water on the emulsion withouth any backing paper was described there as well as resulting in lower but also as resulting in higher density.

 

[devecchi]

2 months ago I had problems with some 120 rolls of FP4 expired 2021 and Hp5 expired 2020 (Two different emulsions!!! ) : Many black little spot on the emulsion. It was not a problem due to my treatment also because with the TriX I did not have this problem. 5 rolls thrown. I ordered others rolls of these films ( Hp5 and Fp4 ), the graphics of the pack has changed, and now everything is OK. I believe that a time when there was more "movement " than photographic material storage was minimized reducing related problems.

 

[removedacct1]

2 months ago I had problems with some 120 rolls of FP4 and Hp5: Many black dots on the emulsion. It was not a problem due to my treatment also because with the TriX I did not have this problem.

You are comparing Apples to Oranges by stating that HP5/FP4 didn't behave exactly the same as Tri-X!

 

[devecchi]

You are comparing Apples to Oranges by stating that HP5/FP4 didn't behave exactly the same as Tri-X!

Sorry I don't understand the meaning of your answer. I'm talking about the spots of emulsions and not of treatment of the same.

 

[ooze]

For the record, I've had the same problem as the OP with several 120 rolls of FP4 and HP5. This was after I switched to Ilford because of many wasted Kodak Tmax400 rolls that had the backing paper imprint problem. Out of frustration I've moved on to Delta400 now and they've been fine so far, but seeing that the OP had problems with Delta400 I see I might be up for a similar surprise soon.