Mottling on 2020 expired Ektar 120?

Agulliver · Apr 3, 2022

I recently shot a 120 roll of Ektar which expired in 2020. It's been stored in it's protective package since I bought it new probably in 2018. Room conditions, that is East of England....so likely never extremes of heat or cold.

The roll came out with mottling and some frames have numbers visible from the backing paper. I was surprised as it's not exactly old...though is expired. Would a batch made with a mid 2020 expiry date have been made when Kodak was experiencing problems?

Tom Kershaw · Apr 3, 2022

Agulliver said:
Would a batch made with a mid 2020 expiry date have been made when Kodak was experiencing problems?

Does the film roll have the newer style of "gloss" backing paper? I think this is when the problems resolved.

Agulliver · Apr 3, 2022

Tom Kershaw said:
Does the film roll have the newer style of "gloss" backing paper? I think this is when the problems resolved.

I didn't take note. The printing for the numbers was very faint, that I certainly noticed. I use a lab for C41 so I don't have the backing paper to hand, I do have three more rolls but I won't open one unless I use it.

What I can say is that I bought three packs of 5 in 2018, and have used them much slower than intended due to the plague. I started this box in September 2021 shooting a roll successfully, and this one came out mottled. I'm a but concerned the remaining three will.

Tom Kershaw · Apr 3, 2022

Agulliver said:
What I can say is that I bought three packs of 5 in 2018, and have used them much slower than intended due to the plague. I started this box in September 2021 shooting a roll successfully, and this one came out mottled. I'm a but concerned the remaining three will.

I don't have a reference to hand but I may have seen somewhere online a list of batch codes / expiry dates and when the film moved over to the newer backing paper.

Agulliver · Apr 6, 2022

Looking at one of the unopened packets, the expiry date is 06/2020 and there is another number which could be the batch number 1291012

Not that I'd complain to Kodak about what is now expired film. It's just a shame.

pentaxuser · Apr 6, 2022

I am sure that a batch number was mentioned in the very long thread about backing paper. What I am less sure about is whether that batch number was in reference to TMAX 400 only. macfred certainly has frame number problems with Kodak colour film but his I think was Portra and his problems seemed to be frame numbers only and not mottling

My search ability is very poor but it might be worth a look if you can find it again

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill · Apr 6, 2022

Yup. Looks like backing paper issue.

MattKing · Apr 6, 2022

I'd reach out to Kodak Alaris anyways: Profilm@Kodakalaris.com

Agulliver · Apr 7, 2022

MattKing said:
I'd reach out to Kodak Alaris anyways: Profilm@Kodakalaris.com

I sent them an email this afternoon and received a reply from Andrew Church, who will phone me tomorrow to discuss it They clearly care, even though this is expired film. I did make it clear that I'm not after any compensation, but I'd like to have an idea whether it's likely to affect the remaining films from that box

Agulliver · Apr 8, 2022

OK So I've had a wonderful conversation with Andy at K-A.

To summarise, what most here probably know....the company Kodak had been using for decades to make 120 backing paper went out of business circa 2015 and Kodak quickly arranged for an alternative supply...which turned out to have problems. Kodak and the supplier worked to fix the issues and after lots of testing they believed they had....but there were still some circumstances where the mottling in particular could happen. The second set of improvements was made in 2017, which by the batch number on my film appears to be a few weeks after mine was made. So I did have defective film. Andy felt that if I'd used it within the expiry date or soon after it would have been OK, but nevertheless offered a replacement pro pack. This is incredibly generous, seeing as I am reporting an issue with expired film. He did advise me that the remaining rolls from my pack would probably have the same problems, so not to use them for anything at all important. He talked about the complexity of manufacturing photographic film, with that being the prime reason it's no longer cheap and why so few companies are doing it now. He did say the only possible way the price might come down is sales increasing....so my personal view is get out there, buy film and shoot!

We went on to have a brief chat about Gold 200 in 120, which he's really thrilled to see come to market. He says they have been able to release a lot of it into the market so hopefully there's enough to go around. He did say that when it's sent for processing, to ensure the person doing scans (assuming scans are being made) is aware it's Gold and not Portra as the profile is very different. The intention is that it is offered at 25% less than the pro colour films.

All in all *very* good customer service. K-A were under no obligation legal or moral to replace my expired film. I don't know if Andy watches these forums, he did mention seeing some users posting 120 Gold pictures on social media and enjoying shooting it. But we're a funny bunch here. Regardless of whether he reads this, I will say that he has delivered fantastic customer service. Not that I've ever had anything against Kodak but this is "above and beyond" and I'm really impressed.

AgX · Apr 8, 2022

Great to hear that at such still big company someone is still interested in a talk with a critical consumer, and even calls him back!

albireo · Apr 8, 2022

Agulliver said:
OK So I've had a wonderful conversation with Andy at K-A.

To summarise, what most here probably know....the company Kodak had been using for decades to make 120 backing paper went out of business circa 2015 and Kodak quickly arranged for an alternative supply...which turned out to have problems. Kodak and the supplier worked to fix the issues and after lots of testing they believed they had....but there were still some circumstances where the mottling in particular could happen. The second set of improvements was made in 2017, which by the batch number on my film appears to be a few weeks after mine was made. So I did have defective film. Andy felt that if I'd used it within the expiry date or soon after it would have been OK, but nevertheless offered a replacement pro pack. This is incredibly generous, seeing as I am reporting an issue with expired film. He did advise me that the remaining rolls from my pack would probably have the same problems, so not to use them for anything at all important. He talked about the complexity of manufacturing photographic film, with that being the prime reason it's no longer cheap and why so few companies are doing it now. He did say the only possible way the price might come down is sales increasing....so my personal view is get out there, buy film and shoot!

We went on to have a brief chat about Gold 200 in 120, which he's really thrilled to see come to market. He says they have been able to release a lot of it into the market so hopefully there's enough to go around. He did say that when it's sent for processing, to ensure the person doing scans (assuming scans are being made) is aware it's Gold and not Portra as the profile is very different. The intention is that it is offered at 25% less than the pro colour films.

All in all *very* good customer service. K-A were under no obligation legal or moral to replace my expired film. I don't know if Andy watches these forums, he did mention seeing some users posting 120 Gold pictures on social media and enjoying shooting it. But we're a funny bunch here. Regardless of whether he reads this, I will say that he has delivered fantastic customer service. Not that I've ever had anything against Kodak but this is "above and beyond" and I'm really impressed.

Fantastic insight, thanks for sharing!

Agulliver · Apr 8, 2022

I was honestly just hoping for confirmation that my films were from a dodgy batch and an apology in an email. The fact that Andy took time to personally phone me to explain what happened, and then offer to replace my film was just fantastic.

ChrisGalway · Sep 18, 2025

I'm re-opening this thread to ask if Ektar 100, 120 size, batch 13110113 expiry 5/2021 might have the same mottling problem?

I have two rolls which I'm about to use for a project (unless I'm advised otherwise) and assume that I should expose at ISO 100 ... it's only 4 years after the expiry date and was always stored in the fridge since purchase in circa 2019/2020.

brbo · Sep 18, 2025

Kodak "Pro" films usually have exp. date 2 years after finishing. If Kodak said in 2022 that the second (final?) adjustments for their backing paper were done in 2017, film finished in 2019 is likely to be as good as it gets for Kodak film*.

* Of course, that doesn't mean that it will definitely not have a problem

loccdor · Sep 18, 2025

@ChrisGalway It can happen occasionally even with fresh 120 film. I experienced it with some fresh Ilford HP5+ in 2013. Also from some Fomapan 400 in 2024.

Unfortunately extra exposure only helps with loss of film speed, not mottling from backing paper.

Kodak films like Ektar and Portra don't expire well in general, it's possible to see degradation in less than 5 years. If its an important project, better to shoot fresh film or expired film from a batch you've tested and vetted recently.

retina_restoration · Sep 18, 2025

ChrisGalway said:
I'm re-opening this thread to ask if Ektar 100, 120 size, batch 13110113 expiry 5/2021 might have the same mottling problem?

I have two rolls which I'm about to use for a project (unless I'm advised otherwise) and assume that I should expose at ISO 100 ... it's only 4 years after the expiry date and was always stored in the fridge since purchase in circa 2019/2020.

120 films are subject to this problem once they reach their expiration date, regardless of storage conditions. Best policy is to use up film before that date, or you risk mottling problems.
I no longer cache 120 films beyond the point when they are likely to reach their expiration date.

ChrisGalway · Sep 18, 2025

Thanks for the advice folks.

I usually shoot colour transparency film, and always use it "in date", although having said that it's Fujifilm Provia and I understand they have a backing paper less prone to inducing mottling. I rarely shoot colour negative ... so for this project I'll buy some new film (probably Portra 160, I think it's a little more forging than Ektar) than risk using old film.

DREW WILEY · Sep 18, 2025

It's not the film itself which is the issue. Perhaps the backing paper with 120 film only, and quite possibly only from a brief period prior to the current glossy Kodak backing paper. Time will tell. I have no worries about my frozen stash of Ektar sheet film, or any other sheet films. But on the side of caution, I buy only enough fresh 120 film as I need for an upcoming year.

FredK · Sep 26, 2025

With older film, the best thing to do to minimize an issue is to pre-soak the film prior to placing it into the developer, which the standard C-41 process does not have. The water will swell the emulsion and overcoat and minimize the height differences imparted by the intimate contact of the paper to the emulsion's surface. This, in part, will reduce the height difference that developer will have going in and out of the emulsion and minimize developing differences, which is one of the reasons there are density differences when the process is complete. It is not a perfect solution (no pun intended), nor is it the only mechanism which may be causing the density differences (pressurization to the T-grains the other), but it is the best chance option at reducing what some call off-set on older films.

Kino · Sep 26, 2025

FredK said:
With older film, the best thing to do to minimize an issue is to pre-soak the film prior to placing it into the developer, which the standard C-41 process does not have. The water will swell the emulsion and overcoat and minimize the height differences imparted by the intimate contact of the paper to the emulsion's surface. This, in part, will reduce the height difference that developer will have going in and out of the emulsion and minimize developing differences, which is one of the reasons there are density differences when the process is complete. It is not a perfect solution (no pun intended), nor is it the only mechanism which may be causing the density differences (pressurization to the T-grains the other), but it is the best chance option at reducing what some call off-set on older films.

Yes, I have taken to giving all frozen, expired 120 B&W film a 5 minute (minimum) presoak for the very reason listed above. Appears to be very helpful to avoid mottle.

blee1996 · Sep 26, 2025

FredK said:
With older film, the best thing to do to minimize an issue is to pre-soak the film prior to placing it into the developer, which the standard C-41 process does not have. The water will swell the emulsion and overcoat and minimize the height differences imparted by the intimate contact of the paper to the emulsion's surface. This, in part, will reduce the height difference that developer will have going in and out of the emulsion and minimize developing differences, which is one of the reasons there are density differences when the process is complete. It is not a perfect solution (no pun intended), nor is it the only mechanism which may be causing the density differences (pressurization to the T-grains the other), but it is the best chance option at reducing what some call off-set on older films.

That's very interesting point, never thought of that. I'm having various degrees of mottling in some old 120 infrared film. I will try to extend the pre-soak time to see if that reduce the mottling.

koraks · Sep 26, 2025

FredK said:
This, in part, will reduce the height difference that developer will have going in and out of the emulsion and minimize developing differences, which is one of the reasons there are density differences when the process is complete.

Is this something we know, or something you suspect/hypothesize?

I wonder if other effects play a role as well:
* Oily constituents of the backing paper adhering locally to the emulsion, reducing permeability of the developer
* Sensitization or desensitization of the silver halide particles due to interaction with constituents of the backing paper or printing ink
* Constituents from the paper or ink diffusing into the film emulsion and hampering or accelerating development

Some of these factors might be affected by a presoak, but not all.

To the best of my knowledge, there's no reliable set of factors or mechanisms is published so far that describes how these 'backing paper offset' problems really affect a photographic emulsion. I'm sure there must be something mentioned somewhere in the extant literature, but it's still the question to what extent it applies to specific instances of these defects we see.

Of course, a presoak generally doesn't really hurt, so by all means give it a try. But given how much we (I at least) know about the mechanisms underlying these mottling issues, I wouldn't count on it to be effective.

FredK · Oct 2, 2025

koraks said:
Is this something we know, or something you suspect/hypothesize?

I wonder if other effects play a role as well:
* Oily constituents of the backing paper adhering locally to the emulsion, reducing permeability of the developer
* Sensitization or desensitization of the silver halide particles due to interaction with constituents of the backing paper or printing ink
* Constituents from the paper or ink diffusing into the film emulsion and hampering or accelerating development

Some of these factors might be affected by a presoak, but not all.

To the best of my knowledge, there's no reliable set of factors or mechanisms is published so far that describes how these 'backing paper offset' problems really affect a photographic emulsion. I'm sure there must be something mentioned somewhere in the extant literature, but it's still the question to what extent it applies to specific instances of these defects we see.

Of course, a presoak generally doesn't really hurt, so by all means give it a try. But given how much we (I at least) know about the mechanisms underlying these mottling issues, I wouldn't count on it to be effective.

The method of pre-soaking can assist in reducing some issues and especially those with the films are not all T-grains. All of the mechanisms you mention are or were in play and all of the color and black and white films behaved differently. For those that were desensitized or sensitized, nothing can be done to reduce that, but having a swollen emulsion before adding developer will not increase an issue with sensitized grains by adding more development to them.

koraks · Oct 2, 2025

Thanks for that @FredK, understood! So the pre-soak can ameliorate the problems in some cases, or perhaps even solve it entirely provided that uneven swelling is an important or even the sole mechanism underlying the mottling. Thanks also for confirming that the other mechanisms I hypothesized can play a role. It makes good sense that what specific interaction occurs is highly dependent on the film as well as the backing paper and whatever printing inks on it.

Mottling on 2020 expired Ektar 120?

Agulliver

Attachments

Tom Kershaw

Agulliver

Tom Kershaw

Agulliver

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

MattKing

Moderator

Agulliver

Agulliver

AgX

albireo

Agulliver

ChrisGalway

brbo

loccdor

retina_restoration

ChrisGalway

DREW WILEY

FredK

Kino

blee1996

koraks

Moderator

FredK

koraks

Moderator

Mottling on 2020 expired Ektar 120?

Attachments

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency