Lab for b&w that makes real darkroom contacts

[calico]

We already have the forum "Availability"

I guess you mean the "Product Availability" forum in "Darkroom" section. That does not suggest labs to me at all. It suggests products used in the darkroom. Labs are a service, not a product. I think a forum about labs, and clearly labelled so, would be useful and appreciated. My two cents.

 

[calico]

Waaaa?!?!?!?! There's no need for a hardener with modern films.......

I wondered about that, too. It's been many years since I developed film myself, but I didn't remember ever using a hardener. Thanks for confirming my suspicion that there was something odd about doing so.

Given what you said about the fix hardener issue with this particular lab, I'd be worried about the quality of the fix, but would still first just do a test wash with one roll to see if that makes a difference. You can do that by putting the roll (or a cut section of it if it's already cut) into a little pot or pan and put it under a water facet with the water turned on to a dribble........

Thank you for the instructions for how to rewash the film. Really appreciate. Also, nice of you to offer the service (and refixing, if necessary). I'll have to think about whether I want to dive into this.....will be a big project either way. Upsetting, of course, to think the negs might degrade if I don't do it.

Kodak has been putting what looks like a clear plastic coating on both sides of the backing paper and that seems to have fixed the issue. Ilford hasn't seemed to do that, but it looks like in order to completely get rid of it, they need to completely separate any printing on the paper from the emulsion via some barrier similar to what Kodak has done.

I had the Kodak 120 film problem, too. That was the type on the paper showing up on the negs (as you say). For the Ilford FP4, it wasn't type, it was specs that appeared all over the image. But, yes, it seems that if Ilford followed Kodak's lead and put a coating on the paper, the issue could be resolved.

Attached is sample of FP4 with the mottling. (The darkish band at top of image is a scanning artifact which I hadn't dealt with yet. Ignore that.)

 

[calico]

Last time I used them was about 30 years ago - yes, that's not a typo, I do mean thirty - when they were in a different location under different ownership, though the current owner was part of the staff back then. IIRC they have always positioned themselves as a high-end specialty lab that serves institutions and professional artists but is also open to the public. The owner also operates a small gallery in Boston: https://www.panopticongallery.com/. While that doesn't tell you how good their execution is today, it does at least speak to their aspirations.

Thanks. I'm kind of surprised I hadn't heard of them before now.

 

[calico]

New Tri-X has pink cast to the base depending on developer used. Rodinal and xtol pretty much get rid of it. Alkaline fixer will also do better. Last step that always works is letting film soak. After washing just let it sit in plain water for 30 mins and watch all the dye come out. It’s crazy.

If getting rid of the dye requires a lot of extra time in water, after normal washing, I can see why a lab who just wants to get to next batch of film, would skip that part. Question is whether leaving the dye in causes degradation of neg over time. From what Adrian has said, it is not clearcut issue.

 

[AgX]

I guess you mean the "Product Availability" forum in "Darkroom" section. That does not suggest labs to me at all. It suggests products used in the darkroom. Labs are a service, not a product. I think a forum about labs, and clearly labelled so, would be useful and appreciated. My two cents.

Yes, but one could equate service to product. If one is bothered by the terminology, lets's change it into Product and Service Availability. But I admit I never realized that it was in "Darkroom" and not "Analog"...
Still better than to install a furter forum. And for sure better than to post such questions in a major forum as this. Who in Europe cares for a lab being searched for in the USA?

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Attached is sample of FP4 with the mottling. (The darkish band at top of image is a scanning artifact which I hadn't dealt with yet. Ignore that.)

looking at the sample you posted, that looks more like dust on the neg more than anything else. Any dust, dirt, grime, etc that is on the neg when you print or scan it will show up as little white flecks in the resulting positive image. Did you clean it before scanning it? The automatic dust removal stuff with scanners doesn’t work with black and white negatives, and the more you handle them the more they’ll pick that stuff up.

 

[calico]

looking at the sample you posted, that looks more like dust on the neg more than anything else. Any dust, dirt, grime, etc that is on the neg when you print or scan it will show up as little white flecks in the resulting positive image. Did you clean it before scanning it? The automatic dust removal stuff with scanners doesn’t work with black and white negatives, and the more you handle them the more they’ll pick that stuff up.

No, it absolutely is not dust. There are dark grey specs in the emulsion side of the film which are visible with loupe — and on scan, as you can see in my jpg. I spent a lot of time dealing with this problem. I can tell you with certainty it is not dust. A lot of other people have experienced this problem, too. I have a friend who experienced it with Pan F. Ilford said it is more likely to happen with lower ISO films. Here is their statement:

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/statement-120-roll-film/

I was in touch with one of their tech people multiple times about this and sent samples with edge codes showing (which meant they could tell me expiration date of that particular roll). They are totally aware of the problem and are working on it. The person I was in touch with was very nice, by the way.

 

[JBrunner]

There is a sticky in the Product Availability section specifically for labs. The easiest way to find an appropriate forum for something is to do a search. There is never a good reason to cross post. All Shriners are Masons but not all Masons are Shriners.

--Message ends---

 

[calico]

The statement you link to refers to mottling.
This is a well known artefact due to the interaction between backing paper and emulsion under long storage under extreme humidity. For unknown reason this artefact shows meanwhile up under normal conditions, at photographers who have not changed their kind of operation, yet experience such for the very first time.

Specks in the emulsion in the emulsion as you call it, makes me think of some contamination as dirt (but I am no native speaker), but part of a regular silver image, only that its origin is not light-induced.

The tech at Ilford saw the image I posted here, as well as others, and confirmed it was an example of problem they are dealing with. I agree that "mottling" isn't the word I would use to describe it. I would say "specks." If this was caused by dirt, it certainly didn't happen on my end. I only had this problem with FP4. Whatever it is or whatever you call it, it is a problem related to manufacturing.

Also, I saw the problem in film developed at two different labs.

 

[AgX]

But mottling is the meanwhile established term for that very artefact.

And without that link I would not have realized that you mean just this.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

No, it absolutely is not dust. There are dark grey specs in the emulsion side of the film which are visible with loupe — and on scan, as you can see in my jpg. I spent a lot of time dealing with this problem. I can tell you with certainty it is not dust. A lot of other people have experienced this problem, too. I have a friend who experienced it with Pan F. Ilford said it is more likely to happen with lower ISO films. Here is their statement:

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/statement-120-roll-film/

I was in touch with one of their tech people multiple times about this and sent samples with edge codes showing (which meant they could tell me expiration date of that particular roll). They are totally aware of the problem and are working on it. The person I was in touch with was very nice, by the way.

I don't doubt that there is a problem, however, I feel compelled to point out as a third party looking at the image you posted, without having the benefit of seeing what you saw through your viewfinder, and not particularly looking for a problem, the first thing I notice is the white flecks that register as dust, and only really after really zooming in and looking extremely closely. Granted, there's enough of them that it would give me pause, especially if I knew I did a good job of cleaning the neg beforehand. I wouldn't be so quick to say it's a backing paper issue though unless it was affecting everything 120 coming out of Ilford. I have occasionally seen similar artifacts like that in the past that went away when I switched to a different developer. I also used to use Kodak fixer (the old fashioned hardening fixer) and that sort of thing popped up more frequently, but since switching to Ilford rapid fixer, haven't really seen that sort of thing. This makes me wonder if it might have something to do with the process being used.

 

[calico]

I don't doubt that there is a problem, however, I feel compelled to point out as a third party looking at the image you posted, without having the benefit of seeing what you saw through your viewfinder, and not particularly looking for a problem, the first thing I notice is the white flecks that register as dust, and only really after really zooming in and looking extremely closely. Granted, there's enough of them that it would give me pause, especially if I knew I did a good job of cleaning the neg beforehand. I wouldn't be so quick to say it's a backing paper issue though unless it was affecting everything 120 coming out of Ilford. I have occasionally seen similar artifacts like that in the past that went away when I switched to a different developer. I also used to use Kodak fixer (the old fashioned hardening fixer) and that sort of thing popped up more frequently, but since switching to Ilford rapid fixer, haven't really seen that sort of thing. This makes me wonder if it might have something to do with the process being used.

As I said, it absolutely is not dust. Believe me. The specs are in the emulsion. I've been shooting film for decades and know how to get dust off negs.

I'm not the only one who has had this problem. Probably if you do a search on the internet, you will see other people's samples.

If you have seen this happen with a certain type of Kodak hardening fixer, maybe that is a clue. My situation did NOT fit any of the criteria that Ilford listed which is likely to cause the problem: film being in extreme humidity, extreme heat, being shot before brought to room temperature. Being expired was another criteria. Some of my rolls were expired. But one with the problem was fresh — came directly from Ilford, as a matter of fact, was one of the rolls they sent to compensate me for ruined rolls.

What is the name of the Kodak fixer you're referring to?

 

[AgX]

I meanwhile saw your photo and that does not show what we are subsumizing as mottling.

But rather this (and I see you found that thread too):
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/snow-on-ilford-fp4-120.173011/

 

[Adrian Bacon]

What is the name of the Kodak fixer you're referring to?

Kodak Professional Fixer. Catalog number 105 8304.

Again, I have no doubts that there is a problem somewhere, but what is actually precipitating it I suspect could be a number of things somewhat outside of Ilford's control.

 

[calico]

I meanwhile saw your photo and that does not show what we are subsumizing as mottling.

But rather this (and I see you found that thread too):
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/snow-on-ilford-fp4-120.173011/

That person's problem looks very similar to mine. Except they had dust in their scan, as well.

 

[calico]

Kodak Professional Fixer. Catalog number 105 8304.

Again, I have no doubts that there is a problem somewhere, but what is actually precipitating it I suspect could be a number of things somewhat outside of Ilford's control.

Thanks for the fixer info.

Maybe the problem is out of Ilford's control. But I don't know what else I can do to prevent it, other than what I am doing, which is taking very good care of my film.

In another thread here on this subject, someone suggested that perhaps Ilford film is subjected to extreme temperatures or humidity when it is shipped to the US from the UK. I wonder if it is mainly people here who have had the problem, not people in UK. I haven't looked into that.

I also wonder if the problem would be resolved if Ilford changed the paper backing in the way Kodak did for their 120 film. Is it little bits of paper getting into the emulsion which would not get in there if there was a coating on the paper? Seems they must have considered this....

 

[MattKing]

I also wonder if the problem would be resolved if Ilford changed the paper backing in the way Kodak did for their 120 film. Is it little bits of paper getting into the emulsion which would not get in there if there was a coating on the paper? Seems they must have considered this....

The reason Kodak went to the coating was to prevent the chemical interaction between the ink, the paper and the emulsion.
I've seen nothing to indicate that the paper (used by Kodak or Ilford) itself has become so substandard as to be flaking off into the emulsion. That paper is expensive stuff!

 

[calico]

The reason Kodak went to the coating was to prevent the chemical interaction between the ink, the paper and the emulsion.
I've seen nothing to indicate that the paper (used by Kodak or Ilford) itself has become so substandard as to be flaking off into the emulsion. That paper is expensive stuff!

Is it correct that the Ilford problem is considered to be an interaction between the paper and the film? The person I communicated with at Ilford never said that to me. However, people here have said it is film/paper interaction, as if it is common knowledge.

As Ilford says humidity can lead to the problem, I could imagine that when paper becomes moist to some degree, it could decompose in some way. Just trying to imagine what might be happening. I'm no scientist.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Is it correct that the Ilford problem is considered to be an interaction between the paper and the film? The person I communicated with at Ilford never said that to me. However, people here have said it is film/paper interaction, as if it is common knowledge.

As Ilford says humidity can lead to the problem, I could imagine that when paper becomes moist to some degree, it could decompose in some way. Just trying to imagine what might be happening. I'm no scientist.

Another thing to keep in mind is often when talking about problems, they mean time frames in the multiple months or longer. The film getting a little hot for a day or two or a little humid for a couple days generally doesn't do major damage. It's getting hot for weeks to months, or humid for weeks to months that does it. It's not so sensitive that you have to keep it refrigerated at all times all the way up until the point that you shoot it. I just recently revisited Kodak's TMAX 400 tech sheet and noticed that their guidance for storage is:

"Store unexposed film at 75°F (24°C), or lower, in the original sealed package. For protection from heat in areas with temperatures consistently higher than 75°F (24°C), you can store the film in a refrigerator. If film has been refrigerated, allow the package to warm up to room temperature for 2 to 3 hours before opening it."

Ilford says in HP5s tech sheet:

"For immediate use, store HP5 Plus in a cool (10–20°C/50-68°F), dry place in its original packaging. HP5 Plus may be stored in a fridge/freezer but allow plenty of time for the film to acclimatise prior to use."

 

[MattKing]

Is it correct that the Ilford problem is considered to be an interaction between the paper and the film? The person I communicated with at Ilford never said that to me. However, people here have said it is film/paper interaction, as if it is common knowledge.

As Ilford says humidity can lead to the problem, I could imagine that when paper becomes moist to some degree, it could decompose in some way. Just trying to imagine what might be happening. I'm no scientist.

It is more likely an interaction involving moisture, with the paper being the route that the moisture takes.

 

[calico]

It is more likely an interaction involving moisture, with the paper being the route that the moisture takes.

Oh, I see. That makes sense.

 

[AgX]

Is it correct that the Ilford problem is considered to be an interaction between the paper and the film? The person I communicated with at Ilford never said that to me. However, people here have said it is film/paper interaction, as if it is common knowledge.

As Ilford says humidity can lead to the problem, I could imagine that when paper becomes moist to some degree, it could decompose in some way. Just trying to imagine what might be happening. I'm no scientist.

Well, the classic mottling effect only appears with films that got backing paper, one even gets the impression to a see a fiber orientation. Now we got an artefact that looks identical, but seemingly lacking the conditions that existed in the old cases, except that there still is a backing paper.

I simplify the issue a bit, thus just to give you an idea.

 

[calico]

Another thing to keep in mind is often when talking about problems, they mean time frames in the multiple months or longer. The film getting a little hot for a day or two or a little humid for a couple days generally doesn't do major damage. It's getting hot for weeks to months, or humid for weeks to months that does it. It's not so sensitive that you have to keep it refrigerated at all times all the way up until the point that you shoot it. I just recently revisited Kodak's TMAX 400 tech sheet and noticed that their guidance for storage is:

"Store unexposed film at 75°F (24°C), or lower, in the original sealed package. For protection from heat in areas with temperatures consistently higher than 75°F (24°C), you can store the film in a refrigerator. If film has been refrigerated, allow the package to warm up to room temperature for 2 to 3 hours before opening it."

Ilford says in HP5s tech sheet:

"For immediate use, store HP5 Plus in a cool (10–20°C/50-68°F), dry place in its original packaging. HP5 Plus may be stored in a fridge/freezer but allow plenty of time for the film to acclimatise prior to use."

Good point about time frame. But it doesn't apply to my film. It was never exposed to extreme heat or humidity over long periods of time. I had been keeping film in freezer or refrigerator until I used it. Sometimes a couple rolls would be in camera bag a week or so. But my camera bag is always kept in humidity-controlled room.

The last roll which had the problem had come in the mail from Ilford, had been here just a couple of weeks, in frig, then was out for at least 24 hours before I used it. And I still had the specs.

In the discussion in earlier thread here about the problem, some people wondered if moisture could possibly be getting inside the sealed foil which the film is in. So I took all my b&w film out of frig and freezer and store at room temp now. I haven't shot any FP4 since I've done that. I feel I'm at risk of having the specs no matter what I do re film storage.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I feel I'm at risk of having the specs no matter what I do re film storage.

It very well may not be storage. I'm personally not convinced that it isn't a process problem, or a combination of process and manufacturing, or something like that.

 

[Lachlan Young]

It very well may not be storage. I'm personally not convinced that it isn't a process problem, or a combination of process and manufacturing, or something like that.

I think there's also the possibility that the end users are subjecting films to more extreme humidity changes than they are aware of. Especially given that bad refrigeration/ freezing habits are worryingly commonplace. I've seen what happens to 8x10 film when stuck in a fridge without appropriate humidity controls or environmental sealing - quite a spectacular mess.