Ilford Film manufacturing defects: post here

[Tom Kershaw]

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.

Did your problem rolls occur after the film had been exposed to wide temperature / humid swings?

 

[ooze]

Did your problem rolls occur after the film had been exposed to wide temperature / humid swings?

No, not after I purchased them from the same place I've been getting my film for the past 20 years. Of course, I have no idea what kind of life the film had before coming to the shop.
I know of at least one more local photographer who had the same problem in her last roll of 120 HP5.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I'm currently scanning in a few frames from a non-ILFORD film that appears to have some manufacturing defects. Will post on the relevant thread later.

 

[Ian Grant]

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.

I bought HP5 sheet film in Istanbul and it was out of date. The Forte papers in the same shop were useless I asked another member here if he'd tried it and he said he'd tried iton't buy it, boxes of Ilford paper were old style packaging. It was summer on a first floor widows open and sweltering. I can't remember the shop's name but it was 2 mins walk from the Ilford importer, in an arcade. Definitely stored incorrectly in this store, no problems anywhere else though (but no sheet film).

Ian

 

[warden]

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.

Omar I'm glad to see you're posting here, if only to tell you how much I've enjoyed your blog for the past five years or so. Wonderful work.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I don't know anything about "the backing paper problem". I have photographed throughout the world with never an issue, only Xray damage. Kenna came home one time to have 81 rolls ruined by Xray damage. Awful stuff.

The Pan F film was dated to expire 05/19 and the Delta 400 was dated to expire in 2/2021 or 3/2021.

This is not a backing paper problem. There is no way it is. Period. End of that discussion in this thread. Please refrain, as it is an impossibility. We are discussing the faults in the manufacturing processes, ilford film in particular.

Question, when have you ever gotten a roll of 120 film that has a creased spool end cap? Hashtag never. Here is a roll I received as new. Quality control at Ilford has gone downhill, and I firmly believe changes in marketplace has lead them to cut corners in the traditional film marketplace. I have not found that with papers yet. Only film.

Check it out, sold as new! quality control issues? ummm, yes. And I believe it is running into the film coating lab too.....

Not to derail this thread, but the small version of the photo looks like a partially veiled face.

 

[pentaxuser]

Not to derail this thread, but the small version of the photo looks like a partially veiled face.

You are right, it does. It's a bit like the kind of small robotic machine's face that in space films has the kids amused. By the way I am not sure that your observation or my agreement will be met with a smile by the OP unfortunately

pentaxuser .

 

[Adrian Bacon]

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?

For stuff I regularly shoot and will have shot within the year, I don’t bother with cold storage. It’s kept unopened, indoors at room temperature. I can just grab as much as I need and go.

For stuff I probably won’t shoot for a while (a year or more out), I deep freeze. To go from freezer to shooting, it gets pulled out at least a few days before hand and sits at room temperature until I use it. That sort of thing is planned and I always give it at least a couple of days sitting at room temperature before using it.

I don’t remember the last problem I had due to keeping conditions.

 

[ooze]

I bought HP5 sheet film in Istanbul and it was out of date. The Forte papers in the same shop were useless I asked another member here if he'd tried it and he said he'd tried iton't buy it, boxes of Ilford paper were old style packaging. It was summer on a first floor widows open and sweltering. I can't remember the shop's name but it was 2 mins walk from the Ilford importer, in an arcade. Definitely stored incorrectly in this store, no problems anywhere else though (but no sheet film).

Ian

Ian, don't you think it's strange that the same kind of problem is increasingly being reported all around the globe? E.g. there is an SFX200 thread running in parallel. Is it possible that all of them are suddenly due to poor storage at the reseller/user side?

The film I buy is never expired. But as I said, neither I nor anybody else can safely say that the film they buy has been treated perfectly until it reaches the store.

 

[ooze]

Omar I'm glad to see you're posting here, if only to tell you how much I've enjoyed your blog for the past five years or so. Wonderful work.

That's very kind of you. Thanks!

 

[Dali]

That's very kind of you. Thanks!

Yes, I find the blog's pictures interesting but I don't understand a single word... Too bad! I shall try Google Translate though...

 

[Ian Grant]

Ian, don't you think it's strange that the same kind of problem is increasingly being reported all around the globe? E.g. there is an SFX200 thread running in parallel. Is it possible that all of them are suddenly due to poor storage at the reseller/user side?

The film I buy is never expired. But as I said, neither I nor anybody else can safely say that the film they buy has been treated perfectly until it reaches the store.

I'd use an analogy, I used to buy pasteurised milk from Migros, but founnd found on some occasions it was going off quickly. Then one day I noticed pallets of milk etc being delivered which then sat outside the store for about an hour in 38°-40°C heat so I stopped buying it.

The OP of this and the SFX thread should have contacted Ilford technical support directly, they hold samples of finished products from every batch of film and paper coated. So they need the batch number off the film box and where it was purchased. Sometimes issues arise caused by circumstances outside a company's control and impossible to spot during manufacture, the backing paper issues both Foma and later Kodak suffered are a good example of this.

Unfortunately the Ilford importer in Turkey doesn't (or didn't) carry sheet film in stock, but they do import to order, so they sent me to a shop they supply it to. Luckily .the HP5 was only just out of date and these days film expiry dates are very much shorter than 20-30 years ago, more to conform with ISO 9002 and stock turnover than realistic shelf life.

Ian

 

[tezzasmall]

Yes, I find the blog's pictures interesting but I don't understand a single word... Too bad! I shall try Google Translate though...

I've just put a good bit of text from the blog through Google Translate and I am mighty impressed!!

I'm sure it doesn't get it right word for word, but the translation made sense to me and it was a good read.

I'll keep the site open and try and run some more through the translator later.

Terry S

 

[M Carter]

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.

I've never seen a pattern like this on any film I've handled/developed since the 1980s, and I'm overly paranoid about processing tips - pre wash (if used), developer and stop are within 1° or so of developer temps, and I do a post-stop rinse that's maybe 3° more, the idea being to work the temps up to the slightly warmer tap water wash. (I know I'm being pretty anal about temps, but I think it just "feels" right to control it like that, sort of "because I can", and you never know which neg will be the one you print again and again - a Foma neg from that week has been a big seller for me). I ran Foma 200 and Rollei IR the same session with no issues, but I know there was a post somewhere on the internets regarding Delta 100 and the cracking pattern. (I store my 4x5 films in the wine fridge, cool but not as cold as the fridge or freezer, and they were in holders for a couple days before processing).

So, like I said, I'll do a really controlled tray fix-out for starters, and run some more sheets and see if it repeats. But if it's processing temp issues, it's odd that 1 batch of a specific film would be that sensitive to a well-controlled process that works fine with all other sheet films I have.

 

[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.

And Harman Tech Service have got back to me, with a confirmation that they are not actively monitoring Photrio, but they want to hear ASAP if people encounter a problem with their products.
Quoting from their response (I'm sure they won't mind):

"Of course we do take all product issues very seriously and so that we can properly investigate and log these problems the best course of action is for people to report to us directly via our website form;

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/contact-form/ (Selecting Technical)

As always the more information we have regarding batch numbers / processing methods / storage etc.. the better.

The contact form doesn’t allow upload of images, but we will request these directly if necessary."

 

[pentaxuser]

Good of you to take the time to contact Ilford, Matt, when it is not your problem, and it doesn't surprise me that it no longer keeps a presence on Photrio, nor should it really surprise anyone else. It is clear how Ilford wants to deal with its problem i.e. by direct contact from those parties affected.

However I fear that the OP does not feel that way and probably will not take that course of action based on everything I have seen so far. A real pity for his sake but that's his choice.

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Actually, Harman does keep a presence here - they spend real money, they invite contact using the messaging system (even if they prefer their own system) and from time to time they participate in threads. Some of the staff also participate sometimes in the Postcard Exchange.
But just like the moderators here, you need to draw their attention to issues - simply posting in a thread won't do it.

 

[Harman Tech Service]

Actually, Harman does keep a presence here - they spend real money, they invite contact using the messaging system (even if they prefer their own system) and from time to time they participate in threads. Some of the staff also participate sometimes in the Postcard Exchange.
But just like the moderators here, you need to draw their attention to issues - simply posting in a thread won't do it.

Hi All,
As Matt says we do try to keep an eye on what's going on on here, but we are not on here all the time. It's not that we don't care, we are just a small team of three and handing worldwide tech support is just one aspect of what we do. So we can only really deal with individual complaints or support requests via our tech support link on the Ilfordphoto website. If we had to offer support via forums and social media too it would be impossible to manage with current resources.
We do always follow up when people have problems, logging a complaint allows us to properly log batches, usage, history, look for patterns, prioritise etc.. so I would definitely encourage that.
Of course we are looking at the issues raised on here too and not just ignoring them!
Kind regards,
Neil

 

[AgX]

Harman Tech Service, see here too:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/partner-forums-a-proposal-for-a-change.167366/

 

[bunip]

Same problem here
Ilford fp4 x-tol replenished expiry date jul 2021

 

[IvoCar]

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.

It looks like I am experiencing the same problem on the last 10 FP4 120 rolls (46AFN1C01/03 Oct 2020). For the first time yesterday I have used deminarilezed water for the whole process but the defects are still here. Please take a look of some images. Awaiting your comment, best regards. Ivo

 

[pentaxuser]

Ivocar, we do not know what bunip did when he received no replies some 8 months ago but he should have contacted Ilford as should have the OP who was last seen about 3 weeks after he wanted to start a campaign which respondents rejected

I'd suggest that you also contact Ilford directly with your information and tell us what Ilford says by all means. I'd forget any idea that Photrio can be an instrument for solving a problem by having Ilford conduct its investigation via Photrio

pentaxuser

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

It looks like I am experiencing the same problem on the last 10 FP4 120 rolls (46AFN1C01/03 Oct 2020). For the first time yesterday I have used deminarilezed water for the whole process but the defects are still here. Please take a look of some images. Awaiting your comment, best regards. Ivo

I've been seeing this on Ilford film as well. Recently a roll of Delta 100 had pinholes which is very rare.

 

[Ian Grant]

It looks like I am experiencing the same problem on the last 10 FP4 120 rolls (46AFN1C01/03 Oct 2020). For the first time yesterday I have used deminarilezed water for the whole process but the defects are still here. Please take a look of some images. Awaiting your comment, best regards. Ivo

Looks like poor temperature control either during development or washing.

Ian

 

[AgX]

Looks like poor temperature control either during development or washing.
Ian

None of the artefacts shown in this and the SFX thread shows signs of reticulation.