Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
Who at Ilford did you send the email to? Tech Support? Harman Lab? Thanks!
In August, I purchased a 10-roll "cube" of FP4+ in medium format. Every roll from that batch had exactly the same problem: a strange vertical line going across the entire length of a roll, shown as semi-transparent line on my scans without well-defined edges as shown below:
View attachment 318051
Upon examining the negatives, I quickly found the line on them, so it clearly was not a scanning problem. What was interesting is that it's not an emulsion defect. The line is clearly visible on the back side of the film, i.e. the side which usually is covered by the backing paper.
Closer examination with a high-powered loupe (can't share here because I can't take photos at this magnification) revealed that it's not a scratch, but a strange abnormality in the thickness of the film base. It is only visible at certain angles, I did my best to try to capture it on a cell phone here:
View attachment 318052
So I reached out to Ilford, and yes indeed - they had a manufacturing incident recently. Here's their response:
"I can confirm that the defect was unfortunately as I suspected - its a gel backing line. So huge apologies on behalf of our company - a sI apprecate its disappointing for you to have ruined images/films. Your signed number 4651 - links to carton batch 05CFN1C01-2/01-2"
They are exchanging the defective rolls.
Sharing here. Be aware.
@pentaxuser , I'll print those negs with a diffusion enlarger.
If that fails, then with Steven's permission, I could also try putting a few drops of naphtha on the base side of the neg and sandwiching it between glass, as was suggested above.
Who at Ilford did you send the email to? Tech Support? Harman Lab? Thanks!
A completely automated system, detecting the position and lenght of such scratch should have got out the respective strip at converting.
Andrew, that line doesn't look like the one in the OP. For one thing, yours looks wavy, whereas the one in the OP is dead straight.
Are those batch numbers on individual boxes of film? I had a look at a box of 120 FP4+ in my fridge and don't see any numbers that have a similar form to those in the OP's post. There's a number right above the stamped expiry date, but it doesn't look anything like the posted batch number.
I have several rolls I bought a month or so ago and just checked them. Mine does have a number of that same pattern right about the expiration date. Mine are all the same batch and are not from this one, fortunately (though that they been at least I would have found it before exposing it.)
Would you mind posting a picture of the code on your box?
I have several rolls I bought a month or so ago and just checked them. Mine does have a number of that same pattern right about the expiration date. Mine are all the same batch and are not from this one, fortunately (though that they been at least I would have found it before exposing it.)
Andrew, just as a matter of interest, at what kind of enlargement would the line be apparent on a print? That;s not to say or trying to say that replacement by Ilford isn't the correct action, it is
Thanks
pentaxuser
Here you go.
Yes I knew that.Roger, it's batch no. 05CFN1C01/02. You batch number is different.
Thanks. I guess Ilford has changed the format of their batch numbers - and their expiry dates.
I haven't made a print yet but I can clearly see the line at about a 4x enlargement, especially in smooth toned areas.
I want to thank Ilford for their wonderful honesty: as others said, at Ilford they've sure learned from this, and I'll be glad to order Ilford films, papers and chemicals again next week.
I wish more people behaved like them. Our world would be a much better place.
@pentaxuser , I'll print those negs with a diffusion enlarger.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?