Ilford statement on 120 roll film mottling

Luckless · Mar 6, 2020

AgX said:
But as in the Kodak case, quite some people stated that they have not stored their Ilford films irregularly, and that they stored different film types the same, but only one type or so was affected.

Which kind of highlights the difficulty in tracking issues like this down to a core source.

They may have stored all of their film under the same conditions from the moment they got their hands on it, but what about every supplier between them and the factory?

Even when all the film gets carried through the same channels, there is still the risk that mistakes will be made. Maybe a mid level supplier accidentally left a pallet sitting out somewhere that it shouldn't have, and no one noticed. Boxes of damaged film get shipped onward, split up, and mixed in with the general supply as the rolls slowly scatter to the winds...

Or maybe something in Ilford's affected batches just makes them less tolerant of poor storage practices than other rolls.

And as a bonus headache for tracking down the source of issues like this...

Maybe it isn't just one issue causing problems?

The wonderful joys of Quality Control and Assurance.

AgX · Mar 6, 2020

But why then were these faults not reported in the past?

I know several artefacts-compilations from different manufacturers. I Spoke with photographers much older than me.
Yes, there is a chance of cascading reports from the internet. Either that people report publicly who otherwise remained silent, or who only were provoced by the net to make unsubstantiated reports.

Luckless · Mar 6, 2020

Different eras, different tendency of film handling?

How many photographers bought up and held on to massive stockpiles of film back in the 70s or 80s that they used over years, vs how many dropped in to buy their film at a month's or even week's supply at a time?

I'm not exactly old, but I still remember dropping into a shop so my father could pick up a roll or two of film to use that afternoon at a family event, and getting film that probably got to the store sometime in the last few weeks.

Plus, from my understanding this issue was known 'back in the day', it just wasn't common. However, I'm not sure we're seeing reports of it actually being all that common today as it is, it is just easier for people's complaints and comments from around the globe to be noticed... There are after all not as many of us film using photographers left at this point, and we tend to concentrate in similar groups, so a complaint from one is more likely to be seen and read by a larger overall number of us.

I have a huge backlog of film waiting to be developed, so I can't say for sure that I've not yet been affected, but I'm also not seeing a reported incident level here that suggests an overly widespread impact.

MattKing · Mar 6, 2020

The materials used in the manufacture and printing of backing paper have changed a lot over the years.
Even the inks are very different.

AgX · Mar 7, 2020

Luckless said:
Plus, from my understanding this issue was known 'back in the day', it just wasn't common.

Not quite, the description of the issue by manufacturers decades ago does not coincide with the handling of their film of many who complain today.

radiant · Mar 7, 2020

It's still bit strange to blame on users while Ilford makes announcement in public that they have noticed problem. I bet they won't make announcement from small things.

BAC1967 · Mar 7, 2020

I just experienced this problem for the first time with a box of Pan F Plus 50 that I shot and developed recently. I purchased the film from a store in Honolulu that had it sitting on a shelf, not in a cooler, the store is air conditioned but not as low as 68F. It’s expiration date is July 2021 and there’s a code on the box, 67BPN1C01/01. You can see the mottling in the pond above the turtle, that showed up across the whole roll. I did develop this in beer so at first I thought it could have been something with my ingredients but I have developed a lot of film in beer and never seen this. I’m sure Ilford would have something about my development process if I tried to make a claim on it.

Byodo-In Temple Turtle by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

pentaxuser · Mar 7, 2020

BAC1967 said:
I’m sure Ilford would have something about my development process if I tried to make a claim on it.

Do you mean that it would repudiate any claim because of your process i.e. a beer development process per se disqualifies you from having a claim?

Why not try Ilford and see what it says?

pentaxuser

Byodo-In Temple Turtle by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

Agulliver · Mar 7, 2020

I have to say that I never stockpiled film or even bothered to put it in the fridge until around 2008. That was the point when prices started to increase and I'd look for deals...buy film in bricks instead of 2/3 at a time. The fact is that in the previous 30 years of my film usage, I could always guarantee that wherever I might find myself....I could get film of pretty much all kinds in shops. So there never was any chance that my personal storage of films would be a factor....because I rarely bought film more than a month before it was needed.

Now we have a host of factors....backing paper isn't made with the same inks and materials.t was 20 years ago...likely some retailers and many end users are storing it longer and in various ways (cupboard, fridge, freezer)....using it in older cameras....there are so many possibilities. All that said, I do remember being told as a child that 120 rollfilm should be processed more promptly than 35mm to minimise chances of the numers/text on the backing paper being transferred onto the negatives.

Hopefully Ilford will identify some common factors and either recommend different handling or sort out any issues with their production.

AgX · Mar 7, 2020

Agulliver said:
I do remember being told as a child that 120 rollfilm should be processed more promptly than 35mm to minimise chances of the numers/text on the backing paper being transferred onto the negatives.

In no manufacturer's report from decades ago I have found a hint at a non-optical transfer.

(Though the respective optical explanation given seems weird to me.)

mgb74 · Mar 7, 2020

vedostuu said:
Ilford statement defines that the problem is only with 120 film (not 135 or sheet). Which means the problem is in backing paper. ...

Perhaps, but not a given. 120 film might have been produced in batches only those batches affected. Perhaps a slight difference in substrate or coating. I don't know. And I won't want to assume I know the cause unless I do know that backing paper is the only variable.

Deleted member 88956 · Mar 8, 2020

AgX said:
In no manufacturer's report from decades ago I have found a hint at a non-optical transfer.

(Though the respective optical explanation given seems weird to me.)

Having developed a 120 roll shot about 20 years earlier, fogged up a bit but no signs of xeroxing backing paper on it? Yeah, love all advice based on hear say.

AgX · Mar 8, 2020

I was not referring to hearsay, but official manufacturer reports.
(Though they may be questionable in cases, as indicated.)

Deleted member 88956 · Mar 8, 2020

AgX said:
I was not referring to hearsay, but official manufacturer reports.
(Though they may be questionable in cases, as indicated.)

And I was saying I have not seen evidence outside manufacturer's reports. Power of iternet, power to misinform, power to cause panic with no supporting evidence.

Tom Kershaw · Mar 8, 2020

I've been using some > 20 year old Kodak Plus-X for a while for camera tests etc. and not had any problems with image transfer from the backing paper.

AgX · Mar 8, 2020

Witold said:
And I was saying I have not seen evidence outside manufacturer's reports. Power of iternet, power to misinform, power to cause panic with no supporting evidence.

And what about the mottled photos presented here at Apug?
The majority of the presented photos indeed show the typical backing paper mottling.

Deleted member 88956 · Mar 8, 2020

AgX said:
And what about the mottled photos presented here at Apug?
The majority of the presented photos indeed show the typical backing paper mottling.

Can't comment, not seen one myself, not yet anyways.

AgX · Mar 8, 2020

We got two other threads on this Ilford matter with members presenting artefacts.

warden · Mar 8, 2020

BAC1967 said:
I just experienced this problem for the first time with a box of Pan F Plus 50 that I shot and developed recently. I purchased the film from a store in Honolulu that had it sitting on a shelf, not in a cooler, the store is air conditioned but not as low as 68F. It’s expiration date is July 2021 and there’s a code on the box, 67BPN1C01/01. You can see the mottling in the pond above the turtle, that showed up across the whole roll. I did develop this in beer so at first I thought it could have been something with my ingredients but I have developed a lot of film in beer and never seen this. I’m sure Ilford would have something about my development process if I tried to make a claim on it.

Byodo-In Temple Turtle by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

I hope you send that information to Ilford, Bryan. I’m sure they would like to know about the problem, especially considering it’s fresh film. I don’t think developing in beer is the problem here at all and I bet Ilford would agree. Every customer that contacts them gets Ilford closer to the solution.

radiant · Mar 8, 2020

Witold said:
Can't comment, not seen one myself, not yet anyways.

I bet Witold didn't write this seriously There are many religions, Ilford is one of them

MattKing · Mar 8, 2020

Wrapper offset has always been a problem with 120 and other film sizes that rely on backing paper.
In modern times it has also been generally well controlled, with a relatively low rate of incidence.
Most of us long time users have had most of our experience with backing paper films during the heyday of film, when the shipping, handling and storage of film through the supply chain was handled in a relatively protected way. In addition, manufacturing volumes were high and in most cases done by the film makers themselves. Finally, and most importantly for our current perceptions, information about product problems tended to reside only with a small group of people, and was not widely distributed (i.e. there was no internet).
So much of that has now changed. As a result, there are more end-user experienced problems now, and there is a far, far, far greater likelihood that the information about those problems will be shared (and sometimes distorted) widely.
My Dad was the customer service manager at a Kodak processing laboratory in Canada for 20+ years. They only processed Kodachrome and Ektachrome, but between 120 and 127 Ektachrome and 828 Kodachrome they did deal with a fair amount of backing paper.
They encountered an extremely small percentage of film rolls (both with and without backing paper) that had problems due to something other than user error, but there were some. The film would be replaced for the customer, and the problem would be examined carefully and seriously in order to help prevent re-occurrence.
The vast majority of their customers never encountered a problem with the quality of the film they sent to the lab, no matter how many they sent, and over how long a period of time they sent them. That does not mean that no films ever had problems.

BAC1967 · Mar 8, 2020

jawarden said:
I hope you send that information to Ilford, Bryan. I’m sure they would like to know about the problem, especially considering it’s fresh film. I don’t think developing in beer is the problem here at all and I bet Ilford would agree. Every customer that contacts them gets Ilford closer to the solution.

Just filled out their form and sent the image. I don't care about getting a replacement roll, hopefully it helps solve the problem.

warden · Mar 8, 2020

BAC1967 said:
Just filled out their form and sent the image. I don't care about getting a replacement roll, hopefully it helps solve the problem.

Cool. It's a weird problem for sure.

BAC1967 · Mar 16, 2020

jawarden said:
Cool. It's a weird problem for sure.

Just got an unexpected package from the UK with 3 rolls of Pan F and a nice note. I only had a problem with one roll. They don't attribute the Beerenol to be the problem and had some nice words to say about my alternative developing method.

warden · Mar 16, 2020

BAC1967 said:
Just got an unexpected package from the UK with 3 rolls of Pan F and a nice note. I only had a problem with one roll. They don't attribute the Beerenol to be the problem and had some nice words to say about my alternative developing method.

Well how about that. I'm happy to hear it!

Ilford statement on 120 roll film mottling

Luckless

AgX

Luckless

MattKing

Moderator

AgX

radiant

BAC1967

pentaxuser

Agulliver

AgX

mgb74

Deleted member 88956

AgX

Deleted member 88956

Tom Kershaw

AgX

Deleted member 88956

AgX

warden

radiant

MattKing

Moderator

BAC1967

warden

BAC1967

warden

Ilford statement on 120 roll film mottling

Moderator

Deleted member 88956

Deleted member 88956

Deleted member 88956

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency