Tom Kershaw
Allowing Ads
Did your problem rolls occur after the film had been exposed to wide temperature / humid swings?
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.
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.Did your problem rolls occur after the film had been exposed to wide temperature / humid swings?
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.
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 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.....
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 unfortunatelyNot to derail this thread, but the small version of the photo looks like a partially veiled face.
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?
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?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
That's very kind of you. Thanks!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!
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've just put a good bit of text from the blog through Google Translate and I am mighty impressed!!Yes, I find the blog's pictures interesting but I don't understand a single word... Too bad! I shall try Google Translate though...
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.
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.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.
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.
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
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
None of the artefacts shown in this and the SFX thread shows signs of reticulation.Looks like poor temperature control either during development or washing.
Ian
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?