Ilford Film manufacturing defects: post here

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,273
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
NortheastPhotographic said:
This happens when using computer controlled processing machines with precise temperature regulation.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to your post or issues, I was quoting someone else - IvoCar and I think the issue with his negatives is quite different.

I suspect as Tom Kershaw has posted there's been a storage and backing paper problem. On a factory tour some years ago Ilford told us freezing and warming films too quickly was often a source of problems. They don't actually recommend freezing but are aware it takes place.

Ian
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
Tom Kershaw said:
The examples could be some kind of backing paper interaction.
Click to expand...

Except for the last series they look exactly as the old paper/film interaction issue. Well described by big manufacturers. However only reasoned by them in the past by extreme damp storing conditions.

But of course looking not necessarily means being...

But Harman themselves relate it to the paper at least.
 

Agulliver

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
3,580
Location
Luton, United Kingdom
Format
Multi Format
1. Please do contact Ilford with all the info you have.

2. How was the film stored?

I ask (2) because I've seen similar effects on another brand of 120 film where it was frozen without it's silver packet and thawed too fast, creating condensation between the backing paper and the film.

I ask (1) because if there is an issue with a batch or two of Ilford films they've probably already heard about it and can cross-reference.
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
You overlook that Ilford already has reacted last June. Basically saying:
-) that these cases are utmost rare
-) only show up with films having backing paper
-) that there is no link to a whole batch of paper
-) that they assume it to be related to the coating of that paper
-) that they further assume that variations of that coating plus special conditions on the user side are triggers

These user-side conditions they assume each on its own
-) storing/handling other than advised
-) extreme long exposures
-) using a prebath
-) using Pyro
 

bunip

Member
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
282
Location
Parma, Italy
Format
Multi Format
since june i made some more tests with new different developer, new stop and fix, some fp4 from a different batch and more fp4 and hp5 from the same batch. I was afaid it was something in my processing sequence. it turned out from my tests that even with new and different chemicals the defect was there only in the “defective” batch, not the newer. fp4 was the worst but also hp5 was affected by the same defect even if slightly softer. So i sent all to photoimpex where i purchased the film (this in december) with backing paper, spools, unused film etc. and i’m waiting for a reply from ilford through photoimpex.
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
From what I understand from the Harman (Ilford) statement is that they deduced the issue on their side down to the type of coating applied to the backing paper.

If so, then one could assume that in future they will use a coating again that in the past did not stand out in linking with such artefacts.


But to be fair, the mottling effect has been reported by the industry many decades ago and not been related to any deficiencies on their side.
If now such artefacts show up at Harman, only by number they could trace that to anything they themselves might have changed.

Thus yes, if you got such artefacts and you think you yourself did everything right, send them in.
 

grainyvision

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Messages
695
Location
Denver, Colorado
Format
Multi Format
I recently processed a 120 roll of FP4+ that had some weird artifacts. The film was fresh when purchased, but I had shot half of it and then forgot about it and it was left for about a year in my camera. Everything looked decent when processed except for the last image that I shot had weird artifacts. The other images had some slight artifacts and seemed to be more grainy than it should've been, but that's probably just latent image loss or something similar due to it going unprocessed at room temp for a year.

Last image on roll showing weird stripey dot pattern


"mostly fine" image showing weird grain on edges of sky


Could this be an error on Ilford's part, or just weirdness from it being left in the camera for a year? The camera was pretty much kept at stable room temp the entire time and apparently had no light leaks, just this weird grain effect
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,247
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Most likely this has something to do with the backing paper and film and atmospheric moisture all interacting under the influence of the film transport system.
 

IvoCar

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
6
Location
Italy
Format
35mm

Thanks for your reply Agulliver. I have written an email this morning to the Ilford support. I never put my films in the fridge so they never are exposed
to temperatures below 20 and over 28° C. The only thing I do not know is what might happen during the transport from the (North Italy shop) to me, maybe in hot summer days (I do not remember when I purchased these films)...Anyway I have asked to a friend of mine to expose and develop another film from the same batch and (in obviously not exactly the same but similar condition) he observed the same artefacts but in a lower grade. I will keep you updated when I receive a reply from Ilford.
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
IvoCar said:
I never put my films in the fridge so they never are exposed
to temperatures below 20 and over 28° C.
Click to expand...
So you store and use your films only in climatized rooms?
 

IvoCar

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
6
Location
Italy
Format
35mm
AgX, I do not "use films only in climatized rooms" but I am not for sure store them and expose neither to Sahara's nor to Artcic's temperatures. I mean, these last (10) 120 films were old
but within theirs expiration date. I exposed them in summer (church and road image) september (high voltage pylons) and december (Fiat 500) and with more or less the same developing procedure (I have simply changed the drying process, 1- no action, 2 - warming the room with an heater, 3 removing the water and soap excess with the fingers). These artifacts are always present amd often I develop at the same time the 120 with 135 mm films that are as they should be. I am waiting for a reply from Ilford, and at the same time placing an order for fresh films to verify what happens. I will keep you informed.
 

IvoCar

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
6
Location
Italy
Format
35mm

OK, I am awaiting their direct reply. In the meanwhile I ordered this morning fresh films. I thank all of you very much for the suggestions. I am quite new in the forum and this morning I was
snooping around and I found this post of about 10 years ago of YANBOECHAT from Brazil with the same problem I am having now

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/ilford-film-problem-marks-all-over-the-strip.70192/

I do not know if at the end he got a reply from Ilford (at the time some guy from Ilford replied him to send the negatives to UK) but reading the replies I started to think
that my problem might be caused by the huge number of bubbles I see every time I develop the films with HC110. I usually load 200 ml of solution above the minimun
level required by the number of spirals I am using in order to have all the bubbles quite over the higher spiral but probably the 1-2 stokes I give to the tank when I am turning it might not be enough to remove all of them, moreover from the "large" surface of the 120 compared to the 35.
 

IvoCar

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
6
Location
Italy
Format
35mm
Follow up still waiting for to be contacted back by Ilford.

I ordered and received fresh FP4 120 films. I exposed and developed in the same condition the last roll from the "old" batch and the first from the fresh's one. What I did this time following
the suggestions of a friend:

1) "Manical" cleaning of the tank/spirals.
2) A more "calm" rotation of the tank during the process (in the past I always suffered of a lot of foam at the end of the developing process with HC110 dil. B).
3) As the last time I used deminaralized water for the whole process (Dev/Stop/Fix).
4) After the 20 minutes washing I put the spirals in deminaralized water and then I removed the excess of it with the fingers from the films.

So I now have 10 images with artifacts on the "old" film and 10 more or less perfect images on the "new" film. The artifact are less easy to find (need a lens) but they are on the old fim. Probably the more calm turning of the tank reduced the big effect I had this year during the developing of these films but in any case defects are there. Same effect had a friend of mine to whom I gave a film from the old batch: little, difficult to see but the artifacts are there on these films.
 

Attachments

  • Old-batch-001.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 147
  • New-batch-001.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 134
  • Old-batch-detail-001.jpg
    998.2 KB · Views: 134
  • New-batch-detail-001.jpg
    955.8 KB · Views: 145

IvoCar

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
6
Location
Italy
Format
35mm
Hello everybody,

I received today a reply from Ilford dealing with the "defects" on FP4 120 mm films. It looks like the received severals complaints from customers in the last months reporting defects and in order to clarify some points they published the following post on their website, https://www.ilfordphoto.com/statement-120-roll-film/ I had the proposal to receive some films directly from them free of charge. Thanks everybody for the time you spent on my problem, best regards. Ivo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…