MF Image Area Placement - Ilford

I just want to be clear (again) that I have suggested from the beginning and in subsequent posts that I felt the most likely problem was in loading the film. Ilford leaders do differ from the Kodak leaders which I have used for years. I tried everything that I could think of and turned to APUG for help brainstorming. I am not bashing Ilford, a company whom I respect and support.

Simon R Galley said:

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 :

Click to expand...

Simon, I appreciate your immediate response to this. I was looking for loading suggestions, the fact that Ilford (you) took an immediate interest is just one more reason I respect your company. Thank you.

I was not able to scan anything last night. I just moved and the scanner is still in a box... some box... somewhere.

Whatever happens with MF I will continue to use HP5+ in 4x5 as I love the emulsion and appreciate that there is no imprinting on that format (unlike Kodak). I also only buy Ilford paper. I am very happy with those products.

kazuo said:

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

Click to expand...

This is a good idea. I will do that as soon as possible, though, it might be a day or two before I can post it.

--------------------------------
As far as it being a camera problem, of course it COULD be. But, it would have to be a problem with two RB67 ProSD backs and a Rolleiflex. A problem that is happening intermittently and just so happens to only occur when I use a certain type of film... Reason tells me that since it's only happening with Ilford film (I've been shooting Kodak before, during and after with the same cameras) that it is either a loading issue or some difference between the film types. The former being the most likely. If that reasoning seems flawed I'm all ears as to how.
--------------------------------

VPooler,
it is intersting to hear you are having the same issue. If you can post images as kazue suggested that would be most helpful.

Thanks again to everyone for taking the time to help me get to the bottom of this.
Shawn

Ian C said:

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.

Click to expand...

I only saw this after I submitted my last post. Thanks for taking the time to make those measurements. That is an interesting question.
Thank you.

Can you put the problematic Ilford negatives on top of some well behaved Kodak negatives and advise whether:

1) the image area is on different parts of the films; or
2) the lettering is on different parts of the films?

This might help to determine whether it is a problem with the loading, or the lettering.

I don't contact print full frame, so I would never be bothered by this, but I have a sense that I have seen some variation over the years respecting the relative placement of the image area and the lettering.

I will do that as well as making pictures on my light table, Matt. Thank you. I will do it tonight but I'm not sure if I'll be able to get back online before Monday.

Have a great weekend folks.
Shawn

Simon, Thomas, Fotch, Matt, nathan, pentaxuser, VPooler, appletree, kazuo, and Ian. Thanks again for taking the time to help me out with this issue.
--------------------------

I've taken cell images against my monitor as requested. They are not ideal but show the placement of the image vs the lettering vs the edge of the film.

Image captions:

hp5rb67_1 and hp5rb67_2: were made using my RB67 (this has happened in both of my backs). Please note not only the overlap of the Ilford Logo onto the image area and the position of the image area BUT ALSO the distance of the Ilford Logo from the edge of the film.

hp5rolleiflex_1 and hp5rolleiflex_2: were made using my Rolleiflex T. Again, note not only the Ilford Logo / image overlap and image position BUT ALSO the distance of the Ilford Logo from the edge of the film.

hp5+rolleiflex_3: was made using my Rolleiflex T. This is toward the end of one off the affected rolls where it USUALLY works itself out as it had in this case.

The varying position of the ILFORD HP5+ logo against the edge of the film contributes to the worst cases but the varying position of the image area itself seems to be the biggest problem. When both are off is when it gets really bad.
--------------------------

After reviewing negatives made over the last year (about the extent of time I've used Ilford 120roll film (I've been using other brands of 120 roll film for well over a decade)), I have noted the following with ILFORD HP5+ 120 roll film:

The problem of overlap has ONLY occurred with Ilford HP5+. The problem started with film I bought in the fall of 2013. Before that my Ilford HP5+ would sometimes come CLOSE to the edge of the image area and occasionally touch the image area but barely - to the point that I did not and still do not consider it a problem.

The problem seems to be two fold. 1. The image area seems to move around on the film from the start of the roll to the end where it's position usually improves. 2. The Ilford HP5+ (and little number after it, ie 4130) moves in relation to the edge of the film itself. Sometimes it is stamped right on the edge, sometimes it's pushed quite a ways up into the film frame.

After reviewing negatives made over the last several years using Kodak films (mosly Tmax400 and some 125px and 400tx) I have noted the following:
I have NEVER had the image area overlap the Kodak Logo or frame numbers. Sometimes the image area is a little closer to one side than the other but not that much, and never enough to overlap.

Also, the Kodak Logo at the top and the frame numbers at the bottom are ALWAYS right against the edge of the film. Looking through years of negatives I could not find one example of the Kodak imprinting not being right on the edge of the frame.
--------------------------

I used my last two rolls of HP5+ over the weekend. I took a LONG time loading them and was as careful possible (I'm always careful...) I made sure everything was centered and the leader was secure... I used a roll in each of my two backs. I will develop them and see what happens. I've bought 10 rolls of TMY2 to follow them until / unless I can get this figured out.

Given the above, the only thing that makes sense to me is that:
1. I'm loading the film incorrectly... (if that is the case I'll be damned if I can figure out what I'm doing wrong and what I've changed since last summer.)
2. There is some difference between the Ilford 120 roll film I've used recently and the Kodak 120 roll film I've used for many years.

If you see any other options that make sense or have any other helpful thoughts PLEASE let me know.
Thanks again for your thoughts and help with this, everyone.

P.S. Incase you are new to this thread or did not read it fully... I HAVE USED KODAK FILM IN THE SAME BACKS / CAMERAS BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER HAVING THESE PROBLEMS WITH THE ILFORD FILM AND NOT HAD ANY ISSUES.

We can conclude that the imprint of the Ilford HP5+, arrows, and frame numbers, are not of equal distance to the edge of the film in your samples. It looks to fall roughly within the measured 1.42mm that Ian C measured as the difference between the film width and the backing paper width.

Judging by your attachments, it also looks as though the edge of the negative area is of consistent distance to the film edge.

The only conclusion I can draw is that the imprint is not always perfectly aligned with the edge of the film. It would be very interesting to know how the imprinting is done.

My Hasselblad makes a smaller negative area than both your RB67 and Rolleiflex, so I have never noticed the text of any 120 film enter the film area, be it Ilford, Kodak, or even Foma.
I have some HP5+ I shot back in 2004 using a Rolleiflex. When I get home I'll dig it out to see if there is any correlation to what you are showing, Shawn.

The pictures you showed do look like there's a lot of "wandering" in the image area, all right. Just to make sure, have you confirmed that if you got the *image* placement of the Kodak films, the larger imprint area on HP5+ would not overlap?---that is, in the worst case for Kodak image position, combined with the worst case for HP5+ imprint position, is there overlap or not?

The film gate isn't moving, so it follows that the film must be (sorry to belabor the obvious, but this is a weird enough result that I think it's worth questioning what we think we know). Have you tried placing the affected films against the gate, in room light, and seeing where they have to sit in order to account for the image position?

I'm just brainstorming here. It seems obvious that this shouldn't happen.

-NT

I am wondering whether Ilford (and Kodak and others) have a defined tolerance for the placement of the lettering, and if the movement you see of that lettering is within that tolerance.

It may be that your film gates are quite generous, in that they give you more image area than most. For most people, that wouldn't matter, because very few people make contact prints from 120 negatives in a situation where intrusion of the lettering into the extra image area would create a problem.

MattKing said:

I am wondering whether Ilford (and Kodak and others) have a defined tolerance for the placement of the lettering, and if the movement you see of that lettering is within that tolerance.

It may be that your film gates are quite generous, in that they give you more image area than most. For most people, that wouldn't matter, because very few people make contact prints from 120 negatives in a situation where intrusion of the lettering into the extra image area would create a problem.

Click to expand...

Yes, it would be interesting to know what the accepted tolerances are, with respect to the edge markings and their distance to the film edge.

Sorry if this seems to be only telling you what you have told us but if the edge of the film is where I think it is then it looks as if the Ilford writing in each case is in the same position and couldn't be closer to the edge without falling off but the film area overlaps the writing until you get to the last frame where the film area contracts enough to give clearance to the Ilford writing.

It seems incredible to say this but given that all 120 film is meant to be loaded the same way in a camera i.e. in the same camera there isn't a loading method for Kodak and a different method for Ilford and you are an experienced loader it is beginning to suggest that either the film wasn't entirely parallel between the edges of the backing paper. If it had shifted equally to one side then it is difficult to see how it corrected itself by the end but if it was at an angle then maybe it gradually righted itself after a fashion. However on that basis it would have eventually lost some of the negative had the film strip been long enough.

It really sounds as if Ilford's know-how might be needed

pentaxuser

Thanks for the replies, fellows. It's good to know that I'm not the only one confused by the info.

I wanted to correct the following two points:

pentaxuser said:

if the edge of the film is where I think it is then it looks as if the Ilford writing in each case is in the same position and couldn't be closer to the edge without falling off but the film area overlaps the writing until you get to the last frame where the film area contracts enough to give clearance to the Ilford writing.
pentaxuser

Click to expand...

You must be identifying the film edge location incorrectly. The Ilford Logo varies in it's placement to the edge of the film. Sometimes it's right on the edge, sometimes it is moved considerably "up" into the film with a couple of mm in between the bottom of the lettering and the edge of the film.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Judging by your attachments, it also looks as though the edge of the negative area is of consistent distance to the film edge.

Click to expand...

The image area is NOT consistent with the edge of the film.

-------------------------------
Everything else you gentlemen have written sounds correct. I apologize for the quality of those snapshots. It's the best I can muster right now. I have no access to a film scanner at the moment.

Just to reiterate : The Ilford Logo is NOT always consistent in it's placement AND the image area is not always consistent, it wanders as it runs through the length of the roll, USUALLY correcting itself by the end. When these two things are both off is when the overlap gets really bad.

Shawn, I took your pictures and put them side by side on a single image.

You can clearly see that the distance of the text to the edge of the film is inconsistent.

ntenny said:

The pictures you showed do look like there's a lot of "wandering" in the image area, all right. Just to make sure, have you confirmed that if you got the *image* placement of the Kodak films, the larger imprint area on HP5+ would not overlap?---that is, in the worst case for Kodak image position, combined with the worst case for HP5+ imprint position, is there overlap or not?

The film gate isn't moving, so it follows that the film must be (sorry to belabor the obvious, but this is a weird enough result that I think it's worth questioning what we think we know). Have you tried placing the affected films against the gate, in room light, and seeing where they have to sit in order to account for the image position?

I'm just brainstorming here. It seems obvious that this shouldn't happen.

-NT

Click to expand...

Nathan,
I did check what you are asking in the first paragraph. The image area wanders A SMALL amount with the Kodak film, not very much. Not nearly as much as with the Ilford film. The Ilford imprint text is a little bit larger than the Kodak text. That is a good point, BUT, it's not much larger and that alone wouldn't solve the problem.

MattKing said:

I am wondering whether Ilford (and Kodak and others) have a defined tolerance for the placement of the lettering, and if the movement you see of that lettering is within that tolerance.

It may be that your film gates are quite generous, in that they give you more image area than most. For most people, that wouldn't matter, because very few people make contact prints from 120 negatives in a situation where intrusion of the lettering into the extra image area would create a problem.

Click to expand...

That is a good point as well, Matt. Maybe the RB67 backs and the Rolleiflex T both have larger image areas than most cameras... I don't know. I exposed a very large amount of film with Bronica systems over the years. Those negatives did not overlap but I have never checked to see if the image areas are the same size as my other cameras.

Even so, the amount of "wandering" of the image area with the HP5+ vs the Kodak seems strange to me.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Shawn, I took your pictures and put them side by side on a single image.

You can clearly see that the distance of the text to the edge of the film is inconsistent.

Click to expand...

Thomas, you are absolutely correct on that account. Both the distance of the text to the edge of the film AND the placement of the image area in relation to the edge of the film vary. And the problem is at it's worst when both of those things happen.

That said, the "snaps" I took were made handheld at different distances so lining them up isn't going to give accurate distances. BUT you are still correct, you can plainly see just looking at them that sometimes the logo is right on the film edge and sometimes the logo is moved up a good bit from the film edge.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

I have some HP5+ I shot back in 2004 using a Rolleiflex. When I get home I'll dig it out to see if there is any correlation to what you are showing, Shawn.

Click to expand...

This also reminds me of something. I shot a roll of Ilford PanF+ which expired in 1998 just this past fall when the issues with the HP5+ began. None of the old PanF+ imprints overlapped any of the image areas.

Shawn Dougherty said:

Thomas, you are absolutely correct on that account. Both the distance of the text to the edge of the film AND the placement of the image area in relation to the edge of the film vary. And the problem is at it's worst when both of those things happen.

That said, the "snaps" I took were made handheld at different distances so lining them up isn't going to give accurate distances. BUT you are still correct, you can plainly see just looking at them that sometimes the logo is right on the film edge and sometimes the logo is moved up a good bit from the film edge.

Click to expand...

I would expect some slight variation from camera to camera, back to back and possibly roll to roll with respect to the image placement. In most cases, cameras use movable parts to position the film spools for 120 film, and those parts will wear.

You probably wouldn't see such movement with films that have perforations.

MattKing said:

I would expect some slight variation from camera to camera, back to back and possibly roll to roll with respect to the image placement. In most cases, cameras use movable parts to position the film spools for 120 film, and those parts will wear.

You probably wouldn't see such movement with films that have perforations.

Click to expand...

When I look at various negatives made by my Hasselblad, the actual image area is offset from center slightly to either side on almost every roll. Very few are completely centered.

Strictly going off of memory, but I gotta agree. I can attest to how finicky film backs can be. Spacing issues, overlapping, slightly off center on the strip, etc etc. Also my images are slightly smaller than when taken with my Rollei and this is across the board for film used.

Regardless though, it does seem odd, that this was something the OP never noticed/witnessed with the same cameras/materials and then over the past few months started having this occur. Either something in the tolerances changed (although not sure what) or the camera is now resulting in slightly larger images or more off center than before? I mean the photos do help, but it seems there could be a myriad of options and reasons.

appletree said:

Strictly going off of memory, but I gotta agree. I can attest to how finicky film backs can be. Spacing issues, overlapping, slightly off center on the strip, etc etc. Also my images are slightly smaller than when taken with my Rollei and this is across the board for film used.

Regardless though, it does seem odd, that this was something the OP never noticed/witnessed with the same cameras/materials and then over the past few months started having this occur. Either something in the tolerances changed (although not sure what) or the camera is now resulting in slightly larger images or more off center than before? I mean the photos do help, but it seems there could be a myriad of options and reasons.

Click to expand...

I just can't understand how it could be an equipment problem when everything is fine using Kodak film... As I've stated over and over, I've been shooting Kodak film before, during and after having this problem with Ilford and have never had an issue with Kodak film. I'm not talking 1 or two rolls, here. I'm talking about at least 20 rolls of each brand this year and I'm not sure how many in late fall.

The only things that makes sense to me thus far are:
1. I'm loading the Ilford film improperly (starting last fall...). I can't imagine what I'm doing wrong but I'm open to it.
2. There is a difference between Ilford and Kodak film. (obviously there is a difference in the precision of placement of the logo/#s themselves - but that is not the sole issue).

I still haven't heard anything else that makes sense.

Just to be clear Shawn.

Have you been making these small contact prints for a long time?

Because you may have encountered some variations in both image placement and edge printing placement before, but not been bothered by them if you weren't contact printing for final results.

Thanks, Matt.

I've been making them since 2006 or so. Even if I weren't contact printing them some of the logos intrude VERY far into the frame, so that a full half of the logo is into the image. That would be a problem with enlargements as well, at least for me.

Also, I've looked back through all my negatives since I've had the RB67 and the Rolleiflex. All Kodak 120 film back then I could not find one overlap nor one case of the Kodak logo / frame #s not being exactly on the edge of the film.

Hi Shawn, probably of no use at all so apologies in advance, just adding something to the mix. I used to have problems loading a new 120 roll of Ilford film onto a blank Kodak spool. Ilford film always always seemed to be tight on a Kodak spool and on my Mamiya C330s I would notice the paper backing tightening up on one side. I would have to help centre correctly by rolling it over slightly as I wound it on. When I used two Ilford spools everything OK. Not sure that accounts for the movement in the writing you show but just thought I'd mention it. Good luck with sorting it out.

ajmiller said:

Hi Shawn, probably of no use at all so apologies in advance, just adding something to the mix. I used to have problems loading a new 120 roll of Ilford film onto a blank Kodak spool. Ilford film always always seemed to be tight on a Kodak spool and on my Mamiya C330s I would notice the paper backing tightening up on one side. I would have to help centre correctly by rolling it over slightly as I wound it on. When I used two Ilford spools everything OK. Not sure that accounts for the movement in the writing you show but just thought I'd mention it. Good luck with sorting it out.

Click to expand...

Thanks, AJ. I appreciate that. The answer is somewhere in this thread which is getting on in length. I have already ruled that out. I've been making sure to roll Ilford onto Ilford and Kodak onto Kodak spools... It's easy to tell them apart as one is a flat head and the other is a philips head. Thanks again, though!

Just for comparison, a scan form a recent proof of a picture I took with my Rb67 and Hp5. (pint has some dust marks as it was done using a printfile page. The Ilford markings are rather large but still mostly in the area of the film allotted to them

Nice dog but you wouldn't want to tangle with him any more than tangle with Gary Cooper in High Noon. The Ilford film simply thought better of making trouble and stayed on the train

pentaxuser