MF Image Area Placement - Ilford

[Shawn Dougherty]

I have shot a considerable amount of film over the last 16 years, 8x10 - 4x5 - MF and 135. I am loving HP5+ in MF but have been experiencing a problem lately.

The image area is off center on the film at the beginning of the roll to about the midway or 2/3 mark where it seems to work itself out. It's off center enough so that it significantly overlaps the "Ilford HP5+" imprints (and the numbers between them). It's always the "Ilford" name at the bottom, never the frame numbers at the top. I have experienced this on 2 different backs with my RB67 AND my Rolleiflex T. Even through the Rolleiflex loads differently (images are vertically oriented on the film) the overlap still occurs over the "Ilford HP5+", never on the frame numbers. In some cases just about half of the "Ilford HP5+" is into the image area.

Because it seems to work itself out by the end of the roll I assumed it was a loading issue. I have made certain the film is lined up properly when I load it. A friend suggested that I pay close attention to how tightly my leader is wound when I load the film. I've done that as well and it helps but has not cured the problem. There is a number between the "Ilford HP5+" imprints, "4130" I believe, and this is still creeping into the image area... that number is imprinted higher than the "Ilford HP5+". There does seem to be some variability as to how far from the edge of the film the imprinting is positioned, that being said the major problem is still the position of the image area.

I looked through my film and cannot find an example of this when I was using Kodak film, no overlap at all using the same equipment at the same time... As much film as I've shot I have not used much Ilford MF until the last 9 months or so. I've shot / loaded many hundreds of rolls Kodak MF film without issue. Is there something I'm missing when loading Ilford MF film specifically? I'm not new to this but just can't think of anything else to try... I have two rolls of HP5+ left. If I can't get this figured out I'm going to go back to Tmax400 in MF which I don't want to do... I'm using HP5+ in 4x5 and really enjoying it. I would like to use the same emulsion in both formats. I respect Ilford as a company and would prefer to use their film exclusively.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Hi Shawn,

I do not understand this at all, do you have scan that you can show me?

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

 

[fotch]

Have you tried a recent roll or two of T-Max to see if the problem disappears. Having the problem on the different cameras/back sounds more like a film problem however, trying a different brand Kodak, Fuji, Adox would be telling.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Hi Shawn,

I do not understand this at all, do you have scan that you can show me?

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

Not with me but I can can try and scan something when I get home.

In the meantime the simplest way I can think to explain it is that the image area is off center - always to the bottom / side with the "Ilford" imprint, never the top / side with the frame numbers. It's off center to the point that as much as half of the "Ilford" imprint is overlapping the image area. And as I said, multiple backs on the RB67 and the Rollieflex T.

I've loaded a ton of film over the years and it's not happening with the Kodak film I've been using in the same equipment at the same time. It could certainly be a loading issue... something I'm doing wrong with Ilford film specifically but I can't think of what else to do differently.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Have you tried a recent roll or two of T-Max to see if the problem disappears. Having the problem on the different cameras/back sounds more like a film problem however, trying a different brand Kodak, Fuji, Adox would be telling.

Yes. No problems. But it could still be something that I'M doing wrong when loading Ilford specifically... the leader is a little different. But I can't imagine what.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Yes. No problems. But it could still be something that I'M doing wrong when loading Ilford specifically... the leader is a little different. But I can't imagine what.

I think that maybe testing a roll of TMY-II or TX, just to make sure that something did not happen to your camera between now and then.

Or, do you have a different camera to use that you could try to duplicate the issue with? If you got the same results in two different cameras it might be time to suspect the film.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Thanks for taking a look at this, Thomas.

Let me restate for clarity:
I have used Kodak film in both backs on the RB67 and in the Rolleiflex T before, during and after experiencing the problems with the image area placement on the HP5+. No problems with the Kodak film.

I've spent a fair amount of time (and film) trying to figure this out on my own... I seems like it has to be a problem with me loading it or the film itself but I seriously doubt the latter. Is there anything I should be looking for when loading the Ilford? The leaders ARE a little different than Kodak film...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thanks for taking a look at this, Thomas.

Let me restate for clarity:
I have used Kodak film in both backs on the RB67 and in the Rolleiflex T before, during and after experiencing the problems with the image area placement on the HP5+. No problems with the Kodak film.

I've spent a fair amount of time (and film) trying to figure this out on my own... I seems like it has to be a problem with me loading it or the film itself but I seriously doubt the latter. Is there anything I should be looking for when loading the Ilford? The leaders ARE a little different than Kodak film...

OK. Understood now. Thanks for clarifying.

Is the width of Ilford 120 film exactly the same as Kodak? That might be interesting to know. I have a feeling it is just a hair narrower. When I use HP5+ compared to Kodak TMax / Tri-X the image area is usually 'off center' along the width of the film. If the film is narrower it would be allowed to 'wander around' a bit more. The tension of the take-up spool changes as more film is rolled up onto it, as does the tension of the spool the film came from. I wonder if that has something to do with it? Also, is it possible for the film spools to move at all, side to side, where they are mounted inside the camera? I'm just brainstorming, thinking up possible causes.

Sometimes I find, as I unwind film from 120 spools, that towards the beginning of the take-up spool, where the film leader starts to wind up before the actual film medium starts, that the leader is jammed towards one side of the take-up spool. That makes me wonder about how critical the alignment inside the camera is, and how maybe film to film they react differently to that?

I never really let this bother me since I enlarge I can just place the film in the neg carrier slightly differently. I rarely print full frame; almost always crop a little bit into the image area.
Since you are contact printing I could see how this would be more obvious, unless you can find a way to mask it somehow. Do you use Rubylith in your contact printing process at all?

 

[MattKing]

Is there a larger margin on the other side of the film (away from the numbers) or is the image area just expanding and contracting on one side?

Is there a variation if you run a Kodak roll first than an Ilford roll next is the behaviour different on the second roll when compared to running two Ilford rolls one after the other? I ask, in case it is the take-up spools that are causing the problem.

 

[ntenny]

Is the width of Ilford 120 film exactly the same as Kodak? That might be interesting to know. I have a feeling it is just a hair narrower.

I agree, although I think Kodak is unusually wide rather than Ilford being unusually narrow. I used to have a very slightly misaligned developing spool for 120, and everything would load fine EXCEPT Tri-X (the only Kodak film I use regularly), which seemed to be just minutely too broad to go into the spool properly.

If you overlay affected and unaffected strips of film on one another, is it clear that the difference is in the image area, not the placement of the edge markings? From the original post it sounds like the answer is yes.

Assuming that there's a slight difference in the width of the strip, it might be possible to make a tiny shim---maybe a sheet or two of paper---for the "top" (frame-number) end of the takeup spool. That should hold the film a little more snugly against the opposite (name and batch number) end and reduce wandering accordingly.

For that matter, does it make a difference to use different takeup spools? It might be worth a try. This is a weird problem, and I kind of think you'll end up doing some shotgun debugging until some strange technique Just Happens To Work.

-NT

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Thanks, fellows! I'll try and answer all 3 at once.

The spools seem to fit snuggly in both backs AND the Rolleiflex. I have tried making sure that the Ilford film is being wound onto an Ilford take-up spool and that doesn't seem to matter.

As Thomas notes, I mostly make small contact prints so loosing any image area is bad news for me. Plus, I take great pains to compose to the edge of the frame and have a pretty good idea what is going to be in the small area I cannot see in the viewfinder.

Yes, there is a larger margin on the top / frame number side on the affected frames.

Yes, the MAIN difference is in the image area placement. The Ilford markings vary in placement more than the Kodak but not enough to cause the amount of overlap that I'm experiencing.

A shim... hmmm? That might work but if it comes to that I'm just going to use Kodak MF film as that is a much simpler solution. I did not realize that Kodak MF film is slightly wider... I will measure that when I get home tonight. That would certainly make a difference.

Thanks again for helping me out with this fellows! =)

 

[fotch]

Maybe that is why Kodak is in trouble, giving customers extra film? I doubt it. However, easy enough to measure the width with a caliper. Also, the paper backing is wider than the film, isn't it? Measuring that also would be informative. I would think the width difference would have to be a couple of millimeters off. Is this just something that started happening in the last few months?

 

[pentaxuser]

If it's the combination of the Ilford film and the two cameras you mention I'd have expected it to affect all of those two cameras and for Ilford to be in deep trouble because of it

I can't help but think that the explanation has to be a lot simpler and nothing to do with Ilford film.

pentaxuser

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

If it's the combination of the Ilford film and the two cameras you mention I'd have expected it to affect all of those two cameras and for Ilford to be in deep trouble because of it

I can't help but think that the explanation has to be a lot simpler and nothing to do with Ilford film.

pentaxuser

I don't understand what you mean by "all of those two cameras". I have 2 backs for my RB67 and a Rolleiflex T. That is the extent of my MF equipment and it's been a problem in all of them.

As far as explanations, I'm all ears.

 

[pentaxuser]

Sorry if I have confused you. My point was simply that many people must use these two models of cameras and Ilford film and as such I am surprised that no-one else appears to have had a problem.

It just suggests to me that unless something has gone badly wrong with the manufacture of Ilford 120 then we need to look elsewhere to solve the problem. If it is an Ilford film problem then as I said, it means that it is a big problem for Ilford as 1. It appears from Simon Galley's reply that Ilford has no knowledge of the problem and 2. It means that many thousands of feet of Ilford 120 has been produced all of which you'd expect to give at least owners of these two models a problem similar to yours

Of course it might be that there is something unique to your cameras and backs which would explain why you are the only one affected but this takes us away from the problem being that of Ilford 120 film specifications

I hope this explains the point I was trying to make in my earlier post

pentaxuser

 

[Simon R Galley]

I need to see it....

I immediately thought......camera problem... I still do.

Or a loading issue, but its important to get the facts and see it, upsetting experienced photographers who know their kit sounds patronising and frankly its not our style, we find out the reason.

As to 'film widths' on all film sizes ( I mean every film size imaginable ! ) an ISO standard exists, KODAK, ILFORD and FUJI will cut to this, and the tolerences are tiny, much less than a mm, so I am surprised at a noticible difference between 120 film sizes.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[VPooler]

I have the similar problem, the writing ILFORD rudely being on my images. With two different cameras! It does not show up in scans as the scanner mask eats away a bit of frame away anyway but it is a pain when making enlargements or even contacts. The cameras have been a Kodak Brownie and a Zeiss Ikon folder, film Pan F +

I need to see it....

I immediately thought......camera problem... I still do.

Or a loading issue, but its important to get the facts and see it, upsetting experienced photographers who know their kit sounds patronising and frankly its not our style, we find out the reason.

As to 'film widths' on all film sizes ( I mean every film size imaginable ! ) an ISO standard exists, KODAK, ILFORD and FUJI will cut to this, and the tolerences are tiny, much less than a mm, so I am surprised at a noticible difference between 120 film sizes.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[pentaxuser]

VPooler, does this only occur with the two cameras you mention and only with Pan F or is Pan F the only 120 film you have tried and only with these two models?

All very strange

pentaxuser

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I wouldn't think that Ilford manufactures the film in a faulty way. They have standards, and I believe it would be impossible for them to not cut the film and imprint the edge markings perfectly straight.

I believe that it has to do with how film is loaded into the camera and how the film subsequently travels through the camera transport. I'm 99% convinced it's a camera problem.

 

[VPooler]

I have shot Pan F in only these two cameras. I usually shoot Kodak Tmax100 (I am a sucker for the tones it produces) without any problems but Pan F was on sale and I bought 5-6 rolls of it to feed it to my simple point-and-shoot cameras. The lettering ILFORD is half outside the image area, half inside the image area. Maybe the placement of the lettering is the problem. As I said, it has no effect on scanning since most scanner frames will probably mask it out but it is a real bummer with contact printing. I dont have the negs with me right now but I can provide scans upon request once I get back home.

VPooler, does this only occur with the two cameras you mention and only with Pan F or is Pan F the only 120 film you have tried and only with these two models?

All very strange

pentaxuser

 

[VPooler]

Mr. Galley, I believe you stick to the standards strictly, but placement and size of the lettering might be the issue with some cameras.

I need to see it....

I immediately thought......camera problem... I still do.

Or a loading issue, but its important to get the facts and see it, upsetting experienced photographers who know their kit sounds patronising and frankly its not our style, we find out the reason.

As to 'film widths' on all film sizes ( I mean every film size imaginable ! ) an ISO standard exists, KODAK, ILFORD and FUJI will cut to this, and the tolerences are tiny, much less than a mm, so I am surprised at a noticible difference between 120 film sizes.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[appletree]

Hmm, all very interesting. We really could use some photos/scans of this though. Especially if being reported from different Ilford films, different cameras, and different users.

Not knowing an extreme amount about cameras (still a novice by all regards), but I too would imagine this would have to be something within the cameras being off a tiny bit. Perhaps it is enough to have the Ilford text creep into the image area while not other films.

To the two users: In these same cameras what about different film/brands? While it seems you both reported no text creeping in for other films I would be curious if the images are not even on the negative strip and also off centered a tad. Maybe the same amount as the Ilford but perhaps with the other brands the text is located slightly different to not cause an issue...yet the same problem is universal.

Surely if it is specific to only Ilford film then this is quite odd. Also considering you both are using different cameras and even different film, HP5+ and Pan F+.

 

[kazuo]

I have the similar problem, the writing ILFORD rudely being on my images. With two different cameras! It does not show up in scans as the scanner mask eats away a bit of frame away anyway but it is a pain when making enlargements or even contacts.

Can you try to photography it in front of lightbox or a computer screen with a white image?

 

[VPooler]

Can you try to photography it in front of lightbox or a computer screen with a white image?

Yeah, sure, I have to rummage about in my negative folder when I get home. I think the lettering is laser etched to the film base, so it might not even show up in all occasions. But it still bothers me. Kodak lettering seems a lot more to the edge of the film. I actually remember having problems with lettering with Rollei RPX100 film, too, that had it too close to the frame area. This was yet with another camera, a Graflex 6x7 back. I think the issue might be with many cameras utilizing the film to a bigger extent, so with some brands of film the lettering might creep into frame. I dont blame Ilford or Rollei or anybody, it is just a stupid coincidence. But Ilford could take a note and reduce the size or decrease the margin from the edge if it does not involve massive recalibration of machinery.

 

[Ian C]

I measured the width of a rolled-up 120-size Delta 100 backing paper with dial calipers as 2.468”.

I did the same with the negative stip. It measured 2.412” for a difference of 0.056” = 1.42mm.

IF the film was somehow shifted completely to one side relative to the backing paper, then I’d expect that, at most, one margin would be half that amount, 0.71mm narrower and the other margin 0.71mm wider than the usual situation with the film centered over the backing paper.

For smaller de-centering of the film relative to the backing paper, obviously the effect would be less.

Might this be the effect that was observed in post #1?

If so, I’d suspect that the automated machinery that unites the film and backing paper might have been out of adjustment temporarily until noticed and corrected. Even if this did happen, the negative should be otherwise perfect and satisfactory for normal use.