Ilford Quality Control - A Question

Dave Miller · May 19, 2006

Whose Beckham? :confused: Does he post his prints here?

UKJohn · May 19, 2006

Simon,

Many thanks for your input into this thread. I will certainly pass your comments onto the University and Lecturer in question. I will also be printing this thread out, along with all the replies and passing it on also.

It disappoints me, as a student, that the information we are given is not always accurate. Although I had an outlet to ask a question, and one I didn't want to ask because my experience of Ilford products has always been superb and I have never doubted the quality, there is a concern that other students will take such unreliable statements as gospel. This in my opinion is unhealthy and I will to my utmost to spread the word amongst my peers to disregard these comments and urge them to continue to use Ilford film, paper and chemicals.

Once again thank you Simon and also to everyone who has replied, it is very much appreciated.

Cheers

John

Andy K · May 19, 2006

John, I assume the majority of students, and indeed lecturers, have access to the internet. It might be an idea to direct them to APUG. They might learn a thing or two.

Ps. Never be embarrassed to ask a question. No question is stupid if you do not know the answer.

Curt · May 19, 2006

The question is this, are Ilford having difficulties with their quality control?

Not that I is aware of.

cheers
curt

UKJohn · May 19, 2006

Andy K said:
John, I assume the majority of students, and indeed lecturers, have access to the internet. It might be an idea to direct them to APUG. They might learn a thing or two.

Andy,

Good point and one I will pass on.

John

david b · May 19, 2006

QUESTION AUTHORITY....

Take what your instructors say with a grain of salt. The entire photographic process is about experimentation. Try Ilford products. See if they work for you.

Mick Fagan · May 20, 2006

I have been using Ilford film almost exclusively since 1974 for my personal use. During my hero years, I was getting close to 2,000 rolls of 35mm a year, this was for about 6 years in a row, I then shifted to colour for a lot of work.

These days I'm running a lot less, about 150 B&W rolls a year.

In all of that time I have only ever had one problem/fault with an Ilford film. The fault was with a bulk roll of HP5 and the fault was that there were no markings on the edges of the films. No frame numbers, no Ilford name, just the imprint HP5 (I think) at regular intervals.

When I rang Ilford Australia, the fella there was unbelieving as that sort of thing couldn't happen due to QC. Whatever, he insisted in coming to my darkroom in the evening to actually see the issue first hand.

He lobbed over that evening, we went to the darkroom where he perused my 18 sheets of negatives in disbelief.

Fortunately for him I still had the last 18 frame piece of film in the bulk loader, this he took with him.

Being the nice person that he was, he gave me three 30m bulk rolls of HP5, took down the batch number, which I still had, then went on his merry way.

I was chuffed and immediately started looking for more Ilford stuff ups, hoping to get more free film. Unfortunately for me, fortunately for Ilford, I've never encountered another film problem since.

By the way I would like to add my welcome to Roger Hicks, you don't know me from a bar of soap, but I feel as though I know you from reading you weekly for quite some time.

Mick.

Cooki · May 20, 2006

david b said:
QUESTION AUTHORITY....
Take what your instructors say with a grain of salt.

"Those who can, do; Those who can't, Teach" a quote from my mom, 35 years a teacher in the first grade.

Early Riser · May 20, 2006

Ilford has been having a serious problem with their Multigrade paper. The problem is what Ilford calls "bad coating mottle". It occurs when using high contrast, like grade 4 or 5, in what should be smooth tonal areas they appear to have a very obvious textured mottle. I have been told by ilford that this problem, and I am not the only one to have experienced it, is due to a change in the formulation of the paper base made by the Felix Shoeller company. Schoeller makes the paper base for many of the photo paper manufacturers, which explains why this problem also appeared in varying degrees with several other brands of paper that i tested. Due to this problem, I have not printed a single print in 8 months and given that I make my living through the sale of prints consider this to be very serious.

I am at a point now where if I can not find a product that actually enables me to make silver prints to my satisfaction, I will either turn to platinum printing or digital technologies. I use roughly 30 - 40 boxes of Ilford paper a year and Ilford is about to lose me.

roteague · May 20, 2006

Early Riser said:
Ilford has been having a serious problem with their Multigrade paper. The problem is what Ilford calls "bad coating mottle". It occurs when using high contrast, like grade 4 or 5, in what should be smooth tonal areas they appear to have a very obvious textured mottle. I have been told by ilford that this problem, and I am not the only one to have experienced it, is due to a change in the formulation of the paper base made by the Felix Shoeller company. Schoeller makes the paper base for many of the photo paper manufacturers, which explains why this problem also appeared in varying degrees with several other brands of paper that i tested. Due to this problem, I have not printed a single print in 8 months and given that I make my living through the sale of prints consider this to be very serious.

Why don't you PM Simon directly. He is a really nice guy, and he takes these things very seriously. I'm sure he will be able to help you.

Early Riser · May 21, 2006

roteague said:
Why don't you PM Simon directly. He is a really nice guy, and he takes these things very seriously. I'm sure he will be able to help you.

Robert, I've been dealing with Rod Parsons here at Ilford in New Jersey and he seems like he is sincerely trying to resolve the problem. However whether Ilford UK considers it a serious problem is a whole other matter. They have been aware of this problem for quite a while now, yet they are still selling paper, by their own admission, that they know to be defective. While it's true that for most photographers this problem may never materialize, but never the less, ilford multigrade paper in all reality is at most a grade 3 1/2 to 4 paper.

I can not help but notice just how fragile is the reliance that I have on silver gelatin printing materials. Most of the papers out there use Schoeller paper base. I have tested Kentmere, agfa, forte, bergger, Ilford, and oriental. Ilford, my standard, had the problem the worst, and only Forte does not have this problem. Forte instead has a problem with the eveness of it's gloss coat and a strong yellow cast that takes at least a half hour of washing to make dissappear. Not good when you are trying to judge test prints. To bottom line it, there has not been a properly functioning paper available to me for nearly a year. How can anyone run a business with a supply problem like that?

Platinum or digital may be my only reliable solution. I am giving serious thought to replacing my enlarger with a drum scanner.

Photo Engineer · May 21, 2006

I have tested Schoeller baryta paper with my own emulsions and have observed intermittant foggy smears on the paper, probably related to the complaint in this thread.

In my own experience, this is a problem with baryta that Kodak had and eliminated years ago when they tinkered with the baryta formulation. It is also one of the reasons baryta or FB papers are so expensive. The formula for FB paper is more complex than RC paper and it needs very exacting tolerances.

The problem can be solved either in the paper manufacturing stage or in the coating stage, but if done it requires formulation changes and complete testing. This is not easy given the economics of todays analog photo paper market.

PE

Early Riser · May 21, 2006

PE, I agree with you that it may require extensive testing and reformulation to resolve the problem, but one has to ask why didn't Schoeller test their reformulated baryta paper before they released it and created a new problem, and why haven't the end manufacturers like Ilford, discovered the problem initially and either call Schoeller on it or work on a fix from day one? I know it requires work and effort to resolve this, but isn't that their job????

I just can't help but come to the conclusion that good quality printing paper is going to be such a problem to acquire that I should start working with technologies that people are spending time and money doing R&D on. I'm not enamored with film and silver technology for some romantic reason, I use it because I have gotten the best results with it, however as I can no longer produce prints that meet my standards, silver gelatin paper is losing it's value to me. I have seen prints produced on Roland 12 color printers and they are amazing, I have also seen platinum prints produced from oversize digital negatives and they too are amazing.

I can not believe that I am the only person who has these standards for print quality, as people like me leave silver printing because of the lack of QA and embrace other print technologies, it paves they way for others to do so as well. The market for the remaining, surviving silver printers is the manufacturers to keep or lose. And they may have well lost me.

Lachlan Young · May 21, 2006

Early Riser said:
PE, I agree with you that it may require extensive testing and reformulation to resolve the problem, but one has to ask why didn't Schoeller test their reformulated baryta paper before they released it and created a new problem, and why haven't the end manufacturers like Ilford, discovered the problem initially and either call Schoeller on it or work on a fix from day one? I know it requires work and effort to resolve this, but isn't that their job????

I just can't help but come to the conclusion that good quality printing paper is going to be such a problem to acquire that I should start working with technologies that people are spending time and money doing R&D on. I'm not enamored with film and silver technology for some romantic reason, I use it because I have gotten the best results with it, however as I can no longer produce prints that meet my standards, silver gelatin paper is losing it's value to me. I have seen prints produced on Roland 12 color printers and they are amazing, I have also seen platinum prints produced from oversize digital negatives and they too are amazing.

I can not believe that I am the only person who has these standards for print quality, as people like me leave silver printing because of the lack of QA and embrace other print technologies, it paves they way for others to do so as well. The market for the remaining, surviving silver printers is the manufacturers to keep or lose. And they may have well lost me.

Why not try some of the Fotokemika EFKE/ADOX paper that doesn't seem to have this problem?

Hope this helps,

Lachlan

Photo Engineer · May 21, 2006

I can offer several thoughts on the above posts.

1. Maybe the paper was changed to support the ink-jet digital market which by now may be the majority FB paper consumer. (and analog takes back seat)

2. Maybe FB consumption is so low that the change was considered insignificant or unimportant but needed for cost reduction reasons.

3. Schoeller does not make paper coatings, so how can they run real tests? Maybe they did, but the tests were so abridged that they didn't show the problem.

4. Maybe only Ilford paper emulsions or similar ones show the problem.

I can comment only on 4. I notice that the silver chlorides are more sensitive to this problem than the silver bromides, so therefore a test with the wrong emulsion and addenda would give an erronious conclusion. AAMOF, I talked to a senior Schoeller engineer at ICIS and told him of this problem.

I might add that Kodak dropped all B&W papers shortly after starting use of Schoeller paper. Azo went first. Azo was basically a chloride emulsion. This hints to me that the Schoeller FB paper was different enough that it would have required EK to reformulate some papers enough that it became uneconomical in a market already losing money. Therefore, they were literally forced to withdraw from that market.

This does NOT imply in any way that Schoeller paper is bad. It merely points out that it is different and in silver halide photography, different is not always easy to cope with.

PE

Early Riser · May 21, 2006

PE would you know what photo paper companies do not use Schoeller baryta paper? Also would you know why Forte paper has an uneven gloss coat and is deep yellow during and after fixing? Deep enough yellow to make it impossible to judge values until after the paper has washed for 1/2 hour?

Regarding the possibility that Kodak might have dropped it's production of photo paper after switching to Schoeller's baryta paper could have some truth to it. However Schoeller is in the business of making money through the sale of paper and you would think that if Kodak discovered a problem with Schoeller paper they would have spoken to Shoeller,and if the problem was bad enough for Kodak to cease all photo paper manufacturing, that Schoeller might have gotten the hint that their product had some issues. It doesn't serve Schoeller to make a product that causes their clients to cease buying from them.

The more we discuss this, the more I am thinking that silver gelatin paper is fast becoming a lost cause, at least for me.

Photo Engineer · May 21, 2006

Early Riser said:
PE would you know what photo paper companies do not use Schoeller baryta paper? Also would you know why Forte paper has an uneven gloss coat and is deep yellow during and after fixing? Deep enough yellow to make it impossible to judge values until after the paper has washed for 1/2 hour?

Regarding the possibility that Kodak might have dropped it's production of photo paper after switching to Schoeller's baryta paper could have some truth to it. However Schoeller is in the business of making money through the sale of paper and you would think that if Kodak discovered a problem with Schoeller paper they would have spoken to Shoeller,and if the problem was bad enough for Kodak to cease all photo paper manufacturing, that Schoeller might have gotten the hint that their product had some issues. It doesn't serve Schoeller to make a product that causes their clients to cease buying from them.

The more we discuss this, the more I am thinking that silver gelatin paper is fast becoming a lost cause, at least for me.

I have no idea who uses what paper.

FB paper constitutes such a small fraction of the market, when compared to RC, it was probably not worth the effort to work on reformulation of FB papers, especially Azo which was such a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction. Another factor was the one that AZO used SW FB which made it a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a tinier fraction again.

The uneven gloss and color in Forte paper implies uneven application of a chemical and/or application of a chemical that causes color. Whether it is in the emulsion coats or in the baryta is not possible to determine without physical examination and tests. Baryta is often tinted for effect, and if the tint is uneven or washes out somewhat, you will see that effect. Addenda in the emulsion layer can be tinted and if not washed out may cause colors.

Your last statement may very well be true, especially for FB papers, and as I understand it, Schoeller and others want to exit the FB paper market entirely. (see comments posted in another thread here)

In fact, manufacturers especially don't like making SW FB paper. Manufacturers hate coating on SW FB paper. It is like coating on wet paper towels.

In any event, that is precisely why I am making my own photographic paper from scratch and why I am developing emulsion formulas that can be coated on conventional art grade papers. If one depends on the mfgrs of emulsions and papers, then one may be dissapointed some day in the near future. You may wake up one day to find your favorite manufacturer making the same statement that EK did about B&W papers.

PE

Early Riser · May 21, 2006

PE are you coating your own papers solely with your own use in mind or for possible mass manufacture and sale? Are you make VC papers or only graded?

Simon R Galley · May 22, 2006

Reply From ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Dear All,

A few words about mottle on baryta...

It is not just base dependant as Photo Engineer points out, we ( and just about every other ) manufacturer has had it at one time or another. Firstly the way that this thread has been phrased its like every sheet has mottle !
This is patently wholly incorrect, we had an increased incidence late 2004 early 2005, when we were aware of an issue we withdrew all the affected master roll batches, very, very little got out ( and very little came back as QC's - our key measure ).

We of course work very closely with our base supplier, who are only too happy to supply us now ( and in the future ) Baryta base, and to work with us to ensure we have the ultimate quality and yield for our coatings. As an FYI whilst we have obviously benefitted from the Demise of KODAK B&W and
AGFA Photo , underlying sales of our Baryta products are increasing, especially MULTIGRADE FB.

So I think the obituary for Baryta papers is just a little premature...and remember if you have a Quality Complaint with any of our products, it will be investigated and if it is defective it will be replaced...

I also have a mental image of Photo Engineer being somewhat busy in the next few years....all I can say to him is remember the 'tea pot' method and if you need to borrow our coating machine for an hour or two give me a shout.

Kind Regards

Simon.

Early Riser · May 22, 2006

Simon I have tested at least 9 emulsion batches of Ilford Multigrade paper in the past year, ALL had the problem, Here are just a few of the emulsion #'s
058701c93,
02c702c42,
92c701c97,
80a701c09, ( least affected)
03d702c83,
84b701c19,
05C601C16 (warmtone),
97D702C33,
09B771X29,

For those who may think "user error" they should first know that I have done his professionally for 30 years and have never had this problem before, and in addition Rod Parsons of Ilford was nice enough to come to my darkroom and watch me work to see if it was "user error". I was really hoping I was doing something wrong because that would have been the quickest and easiest fix, but according to Rod I did everything exactly right. In addition he also said that they were able to easily replicate the problem themselves using Ilford Multigrade developer.

And speaking of developers I have had this problem with:
Ilford Multigrade developer,
Iford Universal,
Agfa Neutol,
Edwal Black,
Kodak Dektol,

I have even processed using distilled water eventhough my water is triple filtered and softened. Still had mottle.

What is now adding to my concern is the comment from Simon ,"we had an increased incidence late 2004 early 2005, when we were aware of an issue we withdrew all the affected master roll batches, very, very little got out ( and very little came back as QC's - our key measure )." This makes it sound like only a few bad batches got out, well from my experience I must have gotten the 9 batches that managed to slip through the cracks.

I can't help but be really concerned by what I perceive as a somewhat cavalier attitude on the part of Simon regarding this problem, maybe it is this attitude that kept this problem from being resolved. As this is my livlihood, not a hobby, and the sale of prints and licensing of my images is my sole source of income, I can not view the fact that I have been unable to print for 8 months and that there is no time table regarding when I will be able to print again, as a minor nuisance. I have also had to suspend all solo shows indefinitely, a further loss of income, as I can not reliably produce prints. Tell me Simon, when will I be able to make to print again? I sure hope it's soon, because after I come back from my current location shoot, in 2 months, I will have to decide how to print the nearly 2 years worth of work that has gone unprinted because of this paper issue.

To be clear this is not a problem that is going to appear on grade 2 or 3 of an image with a busy textured background and grain. It does not appear at all in contrasts less than 4. Busy, grainy, or textured backgrounds will mask most cases of the mottle. In my case I shoot MF or LF, diffuse the prints which requires grade 4 and above and tend to shoot scenes with large clear areas of tone and little texture. I guess Ilford feels that someone who works in my way and style is a tiny fraction of the market and they can afford to lose me. But as people like myself who exhibit their work pretty widely abandon the technology that is abandoning them and gravitate toward other technologies, those new technologies gain more and more acceptance.

Andy K · May 22, 2006

Early Riser, In my, and many other APUGgers', experience Simon is very far from 'cavalier' and has always taken any Ilford quality concerns very seriously. Also it has been stated that this is not an Ilford-only problem. So why are you giving Ilford such a hard time?

Early Riser · May 22, 2006

Andy K said:
Early Riser, In my, and many other APUGgers', experience Simon is very far from 'cavalier' and has always taken any Ilford quality concerns very seriously. Also it has been stated that this is not an Ilford-only problem. So why are you giving Ilford such a hard time?

Andy you think I'm being hard on ilford? They are selling a defective product, they themselves admitted that to me when they looked at the defective prints and called them "bad coating mottle". That was in the summer last year. How would you like to spend nearly half the year travelling to shoot, spend over a $100k a year producing images, build a 1000 square foot addition to your home for a darkroom and mounting studio, and then have a supplier that you are totally dependant upon say that there is hardly a problem and that just a few defective sheets slipped out. I've tested NINE emulsions, they were all screwed up.

If you want to understand where I'm coming from Andy, try working 60 hours a week six months months a year, 72 hours a week the other half, all to produce images to print. But then have to decline solo shows, turn away print sales, stall offers from book publishers and licensers, and basically spend a ton of money while your ability to make money is seriously hampered all because your main supplier seems to not acknowledge a problem with their product. Go through that and then ask me that question again.

Andy K · May 22, 2006

Early Riser said:
Andy you think I'm being hard on ilford? They are selling a defective product, they themselves admitted that to me when they looked at the defective prints and called them "bad coating mottle". That was in the summer last year. How would you like to spend nearly half the year travelling to shoot, spend over a $100k a year producing images, build a 1000 square foot addition to your home for a darkroom and mounting studio, and then have a supplier that you are totally dependant upon say that there is hardly a problem and that just a few defective sheets slipped out. I've tested NINE emulsions, they were all screwed up.

If you want to understand where I'm coming from Andy, try working 60 hours a week six months months a year, 72 hours a week the other half, all to produce images to print. But then have to decline solo shows, turn away print sales, stall offers from book publishers and licensers, and basically spend a ton of money while your ability to make money is seriously hampered all because your main supplier seems to not acknowledge a problem with their product. Go through that and then ask me that question again.

I understand your frustration, but if this was an Ilford-only problem you would have switched to another manufacturer's paper. You haven't.

And there is no need to personalise your frustration by casting aspertions on Simon.

Early Riser · May 22, 2006

Andy, I have been told by Rod Parsons that Ilford is taking this seriously, that they are working on it that it's a priority issue. And now I hear from Simon that it's basically a non issue. I have waited and not moved on to another technology in the past year because of what Rod said. I have wasted my time based on what Rod said. So who is right? Rod, who says it's a priority issue or Simon who makes it seem like there's no problem at all? You're damn right it's personal, it's my lving and someone is not being straight with me.

One other thing about switching papers that you might not understand unless you sell editioned prints in some quantity. They need to be consistent. Photographers who sell editioned prints create a printing formula for each print in their print catalog. Those formulas can take days, sometimes weeks in the darkroom to determine. It's this paper with that developer at that dilution for that long at that contrast with that diffusion with those burns and those dodges, etc. When you change paper, you have to reformulate your formulas so that you can make prints that are consistent with the previous ones you printed of that image. A huge expediture of time and resources. And what happens then, as is the case in our current analog photography climate, if the paper you just reformulated to ceases to exist or has QC issues as well. Who is the remaining giant or serious player in the photo paper market? Agfa? no they're gone. Kodak? No they're out of it. Forte? They come and go. Bergger? Are they still around? Oriental? What factory are they using this month? Ilford has the chance to step up and do it right. they can be the lone serious professional in an area that is seemingly becoming fly by night. And what I have heard from Simon gives me grave concern.

Steve Roberts · May 22, 2006

Early Riser said:
How would you like to spend nearly half the year travelling to shoot, spend over a $100k a year producing images, build a 1000 square foot addition to your home for a darkroom and mounting studio, and then have a supplier that you are totally dependant upon say that there is hardly a problem .

Personally I wouldn't do any of those things on the basis of being totally dependant on just one supplier, let alone all of them.

Steve

Ilford Quality Control - A Question

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency