Kodak 120 film backing problem currently?

[calico]

Hello.

I've been dealing with the Ilford problem of specs (sometimes called mottling) in their 120 film — dark spots in emulsion (generally all over frame) which appear as whitish spots when film scanned or printed.

FP4 is my favorite film, and that's where I saw it. I was in touch with Ilford directly earlier this year and also am aware of their announcement on their site regarding the problem. They say humidity, extreme temperatures, and expired film could be causes. I do all the right things re environment for the film, but I noticed that the rolls with problems were expired when I shot them. So I thought I'd be okay as long as I used fresh film.

Well, I recently shot a roll that expires in 2022, and lo and behold, the specs were there.

Though I always give the film plenty of time to come to room temperature (more than 24 hrs), I've begun to wonder if the film should not be put in refrigerator or freezer, if somehow the moisture can get to the film. Last night, I saw a thread here where others have wondered the same thing. In that thread, the person who started the thread had problem with Bergger film that he had never put in refrigerator or freezer. His problem was vertical drippy-looking lines. I have had that problem with FP4, too (in addition to the specs problem). Here is that thread, in case anyone is interested:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/and-the-backing-paper-plague-hits-bergger.175465/

The refrigerate/not refrigerate is an interesting issue, but that's not what my question is about. I'm tired of dealing with the Ilford problem. I give up on FP4 and want to switch to a different ISO 100 film.

I like the oldstyle grain, so I considered Rollei RPX 100. But after researching it on internet, it appears it is made by Ilford! Or at least put together by them. So I imagine I'd be at risk of having the same problem I had with the FP4. I also read a post by someone who had trouble with RPX 25, not exactly the same issue I had, but some sort of manufacturing issue which caused problems in emulsion.

I read that Fomapan has a serious curling issue which would be bad for scanning. So that's out.

So I thought I'd go to Tmax 100, even though it has the more modern style grain.

But then I ran across posts which mentioned paper backing issues with their 120 films. Don't remember if it was just Tmax or also Trix. I actually had this problem myself a few years ago with a roll of Tmax 400. Numbers and and other things appeared in my images when film developed. When I called my lab, they said they see this sort of thing with film shot in toy cameras, so I thought maybe my Hassy back had a leak, or I had caused the problem in some other way. I didn't have the problem with any other rolls, so I didn't pursue it. It was only last night, in a thread in this forum (I think the thread I pasted above), that I found out other people had the same problem, and it had something to do with the Kodak's paper backing.

I have used a good amount of Tmax 400 without problems since I had the problem roll. I have also used Trix fairly often recently without problems.

Here is my question: Is the problem with backing paper for Kodak 120 film gone? Is it a known fact that Kodak fixed the problem?

I'm really sick of putting a lot of effort into taking photos, paying to have film developed and contacts made, scanning, working on images in Photoshop.....only to find the film was defective.

Thanks.
Kat

 

[Saganich]

Haven't had an issue with TriX since they changed the backing paper.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It appears that the film with the bad backing is out of the Kodak supply chain now. I am not sure but I believe that the same may be true now for Ilford.

 

[MattKing]

The newest Kodak 120 backing paper is almost plastic looking, and all indications are that it is much more resistant to wrapper offset than the problematic batches.
Wrapper offset will never disappear entirely, but the most recent Kodak solution seems to have reduced the frequency of occurrence back to the more common, very infrequent levels.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

My limited experience:
Kodak Tri-X 400 in 120, no issues at all.
Fomapan 100 classic, no unusual curling, it was fine but I concluded not my style.

Suggestion: try Fuji Acros II

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Suggestion: try Fuji Acros II

Which is made by Ilford

 

[calico]

It appears that the film with the bad backing is out of the Kodak supply chain now. I am not sure but I believe that the same may be true now for Ilford.

No, there is still a problem with Ilford 120 film. As I mentioned in my initial post, there were specs in emulsion on a roll of FP4 which expires in 2022 which was developed a couple weeks ago. I actually got that roll of film (along with others with various expiration dates) directly from Ilford as replacements for the film I had bought which had the specs.

I just found the thread below in this forum re the Kodak problem. Started in 2016, so I imagine the problem has been addressed by now, as people have mentioned above.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ing-paper-problems-emulsions-affected.137251/

Nice that emulsion numbers were listed. I found 4 rolls of Tmax 400 and one roll of Trix in my stash which are in the affected batches. So I know not to use those. At least Kodak could say which batches were affected. And they admitted the problem is on their end (or in some part of their production chain).

For the Ilford problem, they're saying the problem arises after the film is out of their hands: from environments the film is in or if film is shot after expired. Basically they're saying it's not their fault. I'm really questioning both of their explanations. The specs appeared on the film with 2022 expiration date, and my film is never in extreme environments (humidity, heat), at least not while in my possession.

I'm kind of questioning whether putting it in refrigerator or freezer could be causing a problem. But I have been doing this for the 12 years I've been shooting 120 film and never had problem before. Also, when I was emailing the tech at Ilford, I told her I kept the FP4 in refrigerator or freezer, and she didn't say "don't do that." She just said let it be out for 24 hours before you use it. Which I do. It's usually out longer than that, because I keep a few rolls in my camera bag all the time, so it is usually out of refrigerator or freezer for a week before I use it. My camera bag is in the house, not in a car (unless I'm out on a shoot).

I do realize it's not really necessary to refrigerate b&w film and will probably stop doing it.

But I'm not going to use FP4 anymore anyway. Too bad. Was my favorite.

 

[calico]

Which is made by Ilford

Yes, I also read that Acros II is made by Ilford. I'm staying away from anything possibly made by Ilford.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

T-Max 100 is an excellent film. I've found it workable @ E.I 100 in XTOL. 50 E.I is a good option for Rodinal.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

But I have been doing this for the 12 years I've been shooting 120 film and never had problem before.

I have been storing extra 120 film in the freezer for 4 decades and, so far, have not experienced the degradation or numbers bleeding through that you describe. My remaining rolls of Panatomic-X are fine. Maybe all my film pre-dates the backing paper that many people have reported.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

My remaining rolls of Panatomic-X are fine. Maybe all my film pre-dates the backing paper that many people have reported.

I have some room temperature stored Kodak Plus-X '120' that still seems to be working perfectly at an exposure index of 50.

 

[calico]

I have been storing extra 120 film in the freezer for 4 decades and, so far, have not experienced the degradation or numbers bleeding through that you describe. My remaining rolls of Panatomic-X are fine. Maybe all my film pre-dates the backing paper that many people have reported.

The Kodak problem of numbers and letters from backing paper appearing in the images is different problem than the specs in the Ilford film. I was referring to the Ilford film problem when I discussed freezing and refrigerating film. Ilford says humidity could cause their problem, and I have wondered if condensation could occur within film's foil package if it's been in refrigerator or freezer.

As for you not experiencing the Kodak paper backing issue: Apparently it happened in distinct batches. According to the 2016 thread in this forum listed above, these are the emulsion numbers that are affected (these numbers are printed right on the plastic package the film is in; you don't need the box):

Kodak T-Max 400
Emulsion 0148 004 through 0152

Kodak T-Max 100
Emulsion 0961 through 0981

Kodak Tri-X
Emulsion 0871 though 0931

When I checked my stash today, I saw I had a couple Tmax 400 rolls that expired in 2013 which predated the problem period and had some others that were made after the problem period.....in addition to having some that are in the bad batches.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Which is made by Ilford

Yes, I also read that Acros II is made by Ilford. I'm staying away from anything possibly made by Ilford.

Packaged by Ilford, emulsion is made by Fuji.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/fujifilm-neopan-acros-ii-test-report.176672/

 

[Lachlan Young]

@calico the exact nature of how you are refrigerating your film is probably the issue - and it may be exacerbated by what could have been slight changes in the inks used (usually for environmental reasons). It sounds a lot like you are creating a far too humid environment and that is a definite cause for film problems - I've recently encountered a box of 8x10 Delta 100 that had been stuck in a fridge without extra protection, the humidity had swollen the gelatin & stuck the sheets together. Unless you can control the RH etc in your fridge, you really should be sealing the film in ziplock bags with dessicant. As far as film/ paper are concerned, good refrigeration may help, but bad refrigeration is far, far worse than none at all - at least if you use and process promptly.

 

[calico]

Packaged by Ilford, emulsion is made by Fuji.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/fujifilm-neopan-acros-ii-test-report.176672/

But does packaged by Ilford mean they are adding the paper backing? There is suspicion the specs/mottling problem in Ilford films is due to their paper backing. Or maybe it is some interaction between their emulsion and their backing. I don't know.

 

[AgX]

I like the oldstyle grain, so I considered Rollei RPX 100. But after researching it on internet, it appears it is made by Ilford! Or at least put together by them. So I imagine I'd be at risk of having the same problem I had with the FP4. I also read a post by someone who had trouble with RPX 25, not exactly the same issue I had, but some sort of manufacturing issue which caused problems in emulsion.

Maco (Rollei) do not convert any of their rollfilms themselves, instead they have such done by another manufacturer. If that one is amongst those with a reported backing paper issue, nothing is won.

 

[calico]

@calico the exact nature of how you are refrigerating your film is probably the issue - and it may be exacerbated by what could have been slight changes in the inks used (usually for environmental reasons). It sounds a lot like you are creating a far too humid environment and that is a definite cause for film problems - I've recently encountered a box of 8x10 Delta 100 that had been stuck in a fridge without extra protection, the humidity had swollen the gelatin & stuck the sheets together. Unless you can control the RH etc in your fridge, you really should be sealing the film in ziplock bags with dessicant. As far as film/ paper are concerned, good refrigeration may help, but bad refrigeration is far, far worse than none at all - at least if you use and process promptly.

As I said, the Kodak problem and the Ilford problem are two different things. I only experienced the Kodak problem once (letters and numbers appearing in images) and I see now that people say it had something to do with the inks Kodak was using on the backing paper,and Kodak has addressed the problem.

The Ilford problem is specs all over the frame. Re the Ilford film in my refrigerator or freezer: I have read that if the film is still in the foil, it should be fine, does not need to be in zip lock bags. And I have never read that the refrigerator or freezer had to be a certain temperature or humidity. I don't shoot 8 x 10 film. Maybe that isn't in sealed foil or plastic, and that's why humidity in refrigerator affected it?

In one of the discussions here, someone said he thought the 120 Ilford foil packages are not air tight, whereas the Kodak plastic packages are. I was trying to test that today and couldn't really tell if he was right about the Ilford packages. But if he is, that would explain how moisture could get in to the film in freezer or refrigerator.

 

[calico]

Maco (Rollei) do not convert any of their rollfilms themselves, instead they have such done by another manufacturer. If that one is amongst those with a reported backing paper issue, nothing is won.

Exactly.

 

[ic-racer]

You might want to try HP5. I have shot about 20 rolls in the last two months without any issues. I stopped refrigeration or freezing of B&W film years ago.

 

[calico]

You might want to try HP5. I have shot about 20 rolls in the last two months without any issues. I stopped refrigeration or freezing of B&W film years ago.

Interestingly, Ilford says the specs/mottling have most often occurred on their low ISO films (they say this at their site). I have a friend who had the problem with her Pan F. And I had the problem with FP4. If the problem is caused by the backing paper, maybe the paper interacts differently with higher ISO film like HP5? Ilford doesn't say the problem has anything to do with backing paper. At least not publicly. Backing paper issue is just rumor.

Anyway.....interesting about your good HP5 experience.

I do use Trix without problems, so would probably just stick with that for higher ISO film. I'm so wary of Ilford film at this point.

 

[MattKing]

All of the problems with backing paper - the Kodak problems, the Ilford problems, Foma problems , etc. - they all relate to the interaction between the paper, the ink, the emulsions and the storage and use conditions.
It is unlikely that any of the films exhibit the problems before they leave the factory.
Storage and use are particularly important. Manufacturers strive to reduce the susceptibility of backing paper film to those problems, but they can never completely eliminate them.
Within particular batches, even particularly problematic batches, not all films will exhibit the problems.
Even if you have some film in a particular batch that exhibits the problems, you may have other rolls from the same batch that you bought and received together with the problematic rolls and have handled in exactly the same way that won't exhibit the problems.
I have a bunch of TMax 400 from the problem batches that Kodak Alaris promptly replaced without charge. I use the "problem" rolls for testing and for other interesting projects. Sometimes I see the numbers and letters - places where the emulsion has been made more sensitive by contact with the ink - whereas in other rolls there are no problems.

 

[calico]

All of the problems with backing paper - the Kodak problems, the Ilford problems, Foma problems , etc. - they all relate to the interaction between the paper, the ink, the emulsions and the storage and use conditions.
It is unlikely that any of the films exhibit the problems before they leave the factory.
Storage and use are particularly important. Manufacturers strive to reduce the susceptibility of backing paper film to those problems, but they can never completely eliminate them.
Within particular batches, even particularly problematic batches, not all films will exhibit the problems.
Even if you have some film in a particular batch that exhibits the problems, you may have other rolls from the same batch that you bought and received together with the problematic rolls and have handled in exactly the same way that won't exhibit the problems.
I have a bunch of TMax 400 from the problem batches that Kodak Alaris promptly replaced without charge. I use the "problem" rolls for testing and for other interesting projects. Sometimes I see the numbers and letters - places where the emulsion has been made more sensitive by contact with the ink - whereas in other rolls there are no problems.

When I complained that Ilford just says the specs/mottling problem is due to environment the film is in after it's out of their hands (or if film is expired), I wasn't saying the problem existed in the film before it left the factory. I understand how the problem could be an interaction between emulsion and backing, as you say, and environment would probably be a factor in that interaction.

But why are the backing and emulsion interacting? That is the question. Has the paper changed in the last few years? Or does some other change in the process of manufacturing cause the interaction later? What about all the years FP4 existed without this specs/mottling problem? Something has changed. I have not changed how I store or handle film.

Also, as far as I know, Ilford has not said anything about potential backing/emulsion interaction. At least not publicly. The woman I was communicating with at Ilford was very nice, but all she said was they think the problem comes from extreme environments or expired film.

It sounds like Kodak addressed their problem by changing to a different type of backing.

When I use perfectly fresh film sent to me directly from Ilford, store it appropriately, give it plenty of time to get to room temperature, and I still get the specs/mottling.....I give up. I put too much effort into my photos (and money, too, as I don't develop the film myself) to deal with this anymore. Ilford could be working hard to figure out what's going on. I don't know. I hope they do figure it out.

 

[Mackinaw]

I've had no issues with either Tri-X or Tmax 100 (new stock, with the new backing paper).

Jim B.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

The Kodak packages for 120 film, both foil or plastic, are, as far as I know, air tight. Years ago, I read that they were sealed in a nitrogen atmosphere, but I am not sure if this is still (or ever was) true. The air-tight packaging is the reason I do not like the plastic film boxes where you take the film out of its foil packet and put it in the box. The film and backing paper then is much more susceptible to humidity. Of course, if you are going to use all the film in a day or two, it does not matter, but I still recommend you do not open it. I see a lot of film listed on the 'Bay where the seller took the film out of its foil pack.

 

[MattKing]

But why are the backing and emulsion interacting? That is the question. Has the paper changed in the last few years? Or does some other change in the process of manufacturing cause the interaction later? What about all the years FP4 existed without this specs/mottling problem? Something has changed. I have not changed how I store or handle film.

They always have interacted - in the wrong circumstances. It is the frequency of interaction that appears to have increased, although at least part of that appearance is likely due to the incredible ability of the internet to spread bad news.
A lot of things have changed. There is essentially only one paper manufacturer left who makes the paper and prints the necessary information on it - it is quite complex, not least because it isn't the same thickness throughout. The inks being used now are different due to changes in the industry, and that means the paper has to be adapted to them. Any changes in FP4+ can also lead to new interactions, because it is the emulsion contacting the backing paper that results in the problem.
Most problematic though are the changes in the distribution channels, and the resulting changes in what happens to film before it gets to you. One thing to consider is that any Ilford film that makes it to the US goes by ship - I doubt that it is refrigerated.
Harman has posted in the past that it costs them more to buy the backing paper for a roll of 120 than it does to make the film itself, and that the minimum order requirements of the manufacturer are a considerable burden to them.