Ilford Film manufacturing defects: post here

[Tom Kershaw]

Hopefully ILFORD / Harman will be able to make a further statement at some stage when they believe these problems are more fully understood.

 

[bunip]

finally photoimpex refunded all my defective film.

 

[Bikerider]

It is no good ranting and raving on here to satisfy you injured ego. Get in touch directly with Ilford. They are very approachable, and if there is a fault then they are the people who can fix it.

On the other hand I have been using Ilford film since I started photography in the very early 60's and have never experienced a problems such as you have found. Nor have I ever found Pan F to be prone to fade if not processed immediately or within a few days. Some of the 'damage' looks like shoddy processing or the film has been kept in unsuitable conditions.

 

[Bikerider]

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

The examples you have uploaded seem strange that these are from only one person. If they were bad all over then there would be an uproar. I think it is down to operator error.

 

[PhotoJim]

Nor have I ever found Pan F to be prone to fade if not processed immediately or within a few days.

A few days don't matter, but if you wait long enough, Pan-F absolutely does have latent image fading. It is not at all tolerant of neglectful delays prior to processing. (It does seem to preserve the latent image decently well if frozen while stored, though.)

 

[Bikerider]

A few days don't matter, but if you wait long enough, Pan-F absolutely does have latent image fading. It is not at all tolerant of neglectful delays prior to processing. (It does seem to preserve the latent image decently well if frozen while stored, though.)

A few days, a week, or a month I have never ever found fading a problem. About 6 years ago I lost a part exposed 35mm film after I removed it to replace the slow film with HP5+. It apparently dropped out of my camera bag and didn't realise it has gone until I got home. I thought it must have dropped out onto the ground so accepted I had lost it. 5 weeks later my partner found it on the garage floor. How it got there I have no idea, but when developed, it was perfectly normal. Perhaps because I always expose Pan F at 40iso instead of 50 and reduce the development in ID11 by 10% that makes the difference, I don't know.

 

[AgX]

The examples you have uploaded seem strange that these are from only one person. If they were bad all over then there would be an uproar. I think it is down to operator error.

You mixed things up. I did not upload a single example, but just summed up a longer statement by Ilford Photo.

 

[pentaxuser]

For information Ilford now state as soon as possible but in any case withing 3 months for the processing of Pan F after exposure in camera

pentaxuser

 

[PhotoJim]

A few days, a week, or a month I have never ever found fading a problem. About 6 years ago I lost a part exposed 35mm film after I removed it to replace the slow film with HP5+. It apparently dropped out of my camera bag and didn't realise it has gone until I got home. I thought it must have dropped out onto the ground so accepted I had lost it. 5 weeks later my partner found it on the garage floor. How it got there I have no idea, but when developed, it was perfectly normal. Perhaps because I always expose Pan F at 40iso instead of 50 and reduce the development in ID11 by 10% that makes the difference, I don't know.

I had a roll fade so badly that the edge markings disappeared - all I could see was the fogging on the leader, and some very vague evidence that at least some of the frames had been exposed. Most were simply transparent.

Now, that roll was stored at about 15 C for three or four years, and possibly a couple of years longer. It's an extreme example. But I've seen fading happen after a few months with less severe results.

I realize one should process promptly, but just in case life gets busy, I always freeze my unprocessed film now just to be safe.

 

[tokam]

I had a roll fade so badly that the edge markings disappeared - all I could see was the fogging on the leader, and some very vague evidence that at least some of the frames had been exposed. Most were simply transparent.

I'm not surprised that the edge markings have disappeared as these are imprinted when the film is packaged.
I have a bulk roll of Pan-F in the fridge and I'm not expecting to see any edge markings when I finally get around to exposing and processing it. After exposure I certainly won't leave it lying around for a few months before developing it.

 

[jssaraiva]

I'm waiting for feedback from Ilford, have the spots problem on several Delta 400.

Looking into previous posts, someone reported directly to Ilford in February (2020) and got the reply in July. Is this the normal leadtime?...

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Was great when Simon Galley popped in regularly.

 

[Pieter12]

I'm waiting for feedback from Ilford, have the spots problem on several Delta 400.

Looking into previous posts, someone reported directly to Ilford in February (2020) and got the reply in July. Is this the normal leadtime?...

Ilford responded to me within a few days and replaced the film (HP5+) soon after. There is a form to fill out on their website.

 

[bunip]

I made the mistake of sending everything back to the seller instead of the Ilford team and had to wait many months, till ilford publicly recognized the problem. than got the refund.

 

[jssaraiva]

Ilford responded to me within a few days and replaced the film (HP5+) soon after. There is a form to fill out on their website.

Thanks! I had already filled the form but got no news, not even an email confirming reception. By coincidence got it today and it is now sorted.

 

[piu58]

I have just developed two Delta 100 films with Atomal 49. Both film have heavy mottling. Print on the box is
54CTAIC03/02
JUN 2020
I know they are beyond the recommended time. But 100 ASA film should be usable even 10 years after buying it.

 

[grain elevator]

I have just developed two Delta 100 films with Atomal 49. Both film have heavy mottling. Print on the box is
54CTAIC03/02
JUN 2020
I know they are beyond the recommended time. But 100 ASA film should be usable even 10 years after buying it.

Was this 120 film? The infamous backing paper related mottling?

 

[piu58]

Yes 120 Film, mottled by the backing paper. When the film was fresh it was ok.

 

[gorbas]

Maybe manufacturers found the way to steer us away from using expired films???

 

[Pieter12]

Maybe manufacturers found the way to steer us away from using expired films???

I doubt that. The mottling issue was happening films that had not expired. And it doesn't do well for Ilford's brand image to have issues with any film, even though they have no responsibility for the film after the expiration date.

 

[George Mann]

For information Ilford now state as soon as possible but in any case withing 3 months for the processing of Pan F after exposure in camera

pentaxuser

Is this true for 35mm as well?

 

[MattKing]

Is this true for 35mm as well?

Yes - Pan F is unusual that way.

 

[George Mann]

Yes - Pan F is unusual that way.

Then I am going to have to quickly finish the roll and send it out for development since it doesn't work well with monobaths.

 

[Auer]

Then I am going to have to quickly finish the roll and send it out for development since it doesn't work well with monobaths.

?

I shot a few rolls of it and developed it in DF96 without issues.

 

[George Mann]

?

I shot a few rolls of it and developed it in DF96 without issues.

Time and temperature?