MF Image Area Placement - Ilford

Shawn Dougherty · Apr 16, 2014

cmacd123 said:
View attachment 86292

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

Charles,
Thank you for contributing. I've got lots of single frames with my RB67 and Rolleiflex that are fine, mostly at the end of the rolls where the problem works itself out. It is interesting to note how high from the edge of the film the numbers "4130" are compared to the "ILFORD HP5+", which appears to be right on the edge of the film. Is this representative of your entire roll(s) or does the placement of the text vary? How about your image area on the rest of the roll(s)? I notice that the image area itself in this example is angled somewhat compared to the triangles on the film frame number side. Of course if all of my Ilford film was spaced just as your single example I would be very happy!

I'm not sure what the number "4130" represents but much of my film with the worst issues also have that number imprinted on them.

randyB · Apr 16, 2014

Your problem could be the result of an accumulation of minor variences in each step that adds up to the "perfect storm" result. Perhaps your film is just a little too narrow, perhaps the tension in the winding of each back/camera is just a little subpar, perhaps the film gates on each have been filed out just a little to make a tiny bit bigger image on the film (for whatever reason), perhaps the pressure plates on each are weak and allow the film to move about in/out the film channel. All of these "perhaps" happening are very unlikley but as they say s**t happens. Have you visiually looked to see if the Ilford film slides around in the film channel of the Rollei? Have you wound a roll of both Kodak and Ilford thur the RB backs and marked them with a fine point sharpie (thur the film gate) and compared them to your processed film? My first thoughts on this were uneven winding pressure (yes, on all three) on film that is just a tiny bit too narrow for the channel causing the film to track sideways till the end of the roll. How is the pressure of the springs that hold the film tight before and after the film gate, is it weak causing the film to unspool just a little and "float" about?

Shawn Dougherty · Apr 16, 2014

Randy,
Thank you. Nothing has been filed out to increase the image area, I'm certain of that. Visually, the paper backing appears to fit correctly... but that still leaves the film inside as a variable. I wonder if the film base on Kodak film is thicker than Ilford? I will double check the pressure of plates as well as the springs before/after the film gate. If there is a difference in the thickness and/or width between the two manufacturers' film then I could see the tension problems you mentioned allowing more movement with one film than the other. Thanks again.

randyB · Apr 16, 2014

To add to my post: In my 45+ years of using 120 film I've had a bigger problem with non-consistant spools, some just right, some a little too narrow, some a hair too big causing edge fogging. Of the thousands of rolls I've shot I don't remember any having your kind of problem. I have seen some width variance from brand to brand but nothing that caused a problem shooting the film, more a problem loading onto Paterson reels.

cmacd123 · Apr 16, 2014

As far a I know the four digit number is the batch number from the packing machine. My 35mm ilford film has similar numbers which are higher on fresher rolls. I am sure if asked nicely Simon can have his staff relate that back to specific dates at Moberley.

I am afraid that that particular roll is in my to-be filed pile, and I only scanned that frame as I liked the pose. I would not be easy to check the printing on the rest of the roll. "Breeze" is a cute boy and a great Foot Warmer, as well as doing well on his agility classes.

Simon R Galley · Apr 17, 2014

Dear All,

Since this post appeared I have asked technical service to speak to QC and film finishing which they have done.

We have QC specification parameters in roll film spooling in which the optical signing systems
( Branding and batch identification ) are a 'notifiable' and 'gateway' check, ie they are measured and logged in FRO ( First Roll Off ) on each slitting that goes on the individual production records whereby production cannot proceded without management sign off ( every slitting ). It has a prescribed tolerance.

These records have been checked : we have no variation.

We have no customer complaints, and no recollection of any, ever :

At my request tech service took a sample of each of roll film products and ran them through our Rollieflex and processed, no issue.

As to film widths and backing paper widths : Prescribed, so no variation ( ever ) outside telerance and none ever reported.

For the original poster, you are most welcome to return the film(s) and we will have them checked.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

frobozz · Apr 17, 2014

OK, here's an out-in-left-field idea. Is this film on an acetate base? Is it possible it shrank enough before being used to pull the edge markings into the image area? In my experience with my high speed 16mm movie camera (up to 10,000 fps) I've seen a problem with film shrinkage. The spec for this camera is film with a .3000" perf pitch (spacing between holes), rather than the usual .2994"...and the tolerances are tight enough that it makes a difference! But even proper .3000 film will not work right if it's acetate and old. The film shrinks and the perfs get too close together to thread properly. The solution in the case of this camera is to use polyester based film, which stays dimensionally stable.

But anyway, that experience makes me wonder if that is what is going on here. I don't know exactly what causes the shrinkage, but if it affected the outer wraps of film more quickly than the inner, that might explain why the problem "fixes itself" towards the end of the roll. The OP should definitely send some film to Ilford, who could easily measure it to enough precision to make this determination.

Duncan

omaha · Apr 17, 2014

Simon, your dedication to your customers gives me joy. Perhaps the new, post-mass-market world of film will turn out to be even better than the "old days"!

pentaxuser · Apr 17, 2014

This has been education for me and no doubt also for the OP but I can't help feeling that if he had taken up Simon's offer when first made we might all know what the cause is now or at least know what it is not.

I know what I'd do now if it were me. I can't think of any other company these days where a senior executive takes this kind of interest in customers' problems.

pentaxuser

Shawn Dougherty · Apr 17, 2014

pentaxuser said:
This has been education for me and no doubt also for the OP but I can't help feeling that if he had taken up Simon's offer when first made we might all know what the cause is now or at least know what it is not.
pentaxuser

Simon asked me to scan or photograph samples. I did so as quickly as I was able to do that. No comment has been made by Simon on those sample images...

He made another offer today, of sending film to Ilford. I plan to take him up on that offer as well.

pdeeh · Apr 17, 2014

When I have a problem with a product, I ask the manufacturer to comment first, rather than take the issue to an internet forum.

In endless "I think there's a problem with my film" threads, Simon has made it clear that everyone who thinks they have an issue can return it to Mobberley for investigation.

Shawn Dougherty · Apr 17, 2014

I developed more film last night. Same issues with the Ilford HP5+, no issues with the Kodak Tmax400 all from the same 2 backs. I also spent a great deal of time looking through film last night, again. Comparing logo placement, image area placement and the consistency of both.

I have come to following conclusions. While the image area placement varies more with my Ilford film than Kodak film it would not make a difference if the the "Ilford HP5+" and "4130" (batch numbers I presume) where always imprinted right on the edge of the film. They are not, their position varies considerably. Kodak's Logo and frame numbers are always right on the edge of the film (based on checking over a decades worth of film).

Simon, I wonder if you have looked at my sample images which you requested and could speak to the acceptable variation of the Ilford Logo and frame number placement? This varies considerable on my rolls of Ilford film (as illustrated by the pictures I uploaded). Again, that variation in logo / frame number placement has been the real problem for me.

I appreciate your help and will contact you about sending samples to Ilford. In the meantime I will continue using HP5+ in the 4x5 format and of course your wonderful papers.

Shawn Dougherty · Apr 17, 2014

pdeeh said:
When I have a problem with a product, I ask the manufacturer to comment first, rather than take the issue to an internet forum.

In endless "I think there's a problem with my film" threads, Simon has made it clear that everyone who thinks they have an issue can return it to Mobberley for investigation.

I initially thought my problem was based on how I was loading the film. I was looking for advise on that from the community here, which has helped me greatly over the years. I believe that was appropriate and that I have been respectful. I WILL be sending film to Ilford, per Simon's offer.

Simon R Galley · Apr 17, 2014

Dear Shawn,

No problem,
HARMAN technology Limited
We will check it out Customer Complaint
Technical Service
Ilford Way
Mobberley
Knutsford
CHESHIRE
WA16 7JL
UNITED KINGDOM

Please make sure you put in your full contact details, any packaging from the film ( if you have it ) including the wrapper ( the backing paper ) details of how it was used Cameras etc, as it will be logged as a QC and just because I know about it tech service may not 'link' it to this, tell us where you bought the film and when and if you require the film returned to you.

You will receive a written verdict as Justified
Cause not certain
Not justified

We are sorry you have experienced a problem with an ILFORD Photo product.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Shawn Dougherty · Apr 17, 2014

Excellent! Thank you, Simon.

MF Image Area Placement - Ilford

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency