New type of manufacturing defect of FP4+ in 120: line on the back of a roll

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

Who at Ilford did you send the email to? Tech Support? Harman Lab? Thanks!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

The line was really hard to find. I'm tempted to print it larger in my darkroom tonight... I mean, it's really hard to see it without the aid of a strong loupe. So, maybe quite large prints it'll be more noticeable (dark gray line)...

 

[koraks]

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.

 

[MattKing]

It has been pointed out that that line is probably a longitudinal line rather than a lateral line.
In order to avoid possible arguments about word choice, I've taken the cautious route - the thread title now refers merely to a "line" .

 

[pentaxuser]

@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.

Thanks I was only trying to establish if the defect in the neg was, in a normal darkroom print, undetectable. If it takes naptha that will be useful to know but if that is what it takes then printers such as myself would not and should not have to take such measures

It looks as if Ilford will cure the problem and it should but anyone else such as Andrew O'Neill might be OK with his batch of FP4+ if the present batch of FP4 + is OK in a darkroom print

pentaxuser

 

[Steven Lee]

Who at Ilford did you send the email to? Tech Support? Harman Lab? Thanks!

This page:

Contact Form

The home of black & white film photography

www.ilfordphoto.com

 

[Lachlan Young]

A completely automated system, detecting the position and lenght of such scratch should have got out the respective strip at converting.

I think it's more a systems integration problem - you can have an incredibly accurate and fast scanner (possibly built specific to the job), but if it outputs as a dot-matrix print-out & that has to be manually entered into the system to produce the barcode for slitting to get the instruction to reject a specific slit, then you can see the potential problem. As a matter of fact, there was a recent video visit to Harman that briefly discussed this issue in regard to their coating defect scanner system, which is en route to getting upgraded for effectively this reason.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

Maybe it doesn't look like the OP's line, but there is a line that runs the entire length of the film.
I scanned in one of the images at very high rez. I can only see the line in an even toned area and on when I zoom in. Otherwise, I don't see it.

 

[Roger Cole]

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.)

 

[logan2z]

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?

 

[Roger Cole]

Would you mind posting a picture of the code on your box?

Here you go.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.)

Roger, it's batch no. 05CFN1C01/02. You batch number is different.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

The line through my negatives isn't as visible as the OP's. Like I said, I can only see it if I zoom in. At any rate, there is a line there so I would like the film's replaced. I've already heard back from Ilford, and they would like me to send a photo showing the defect.

 

[pentaxuser]

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

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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

I haven't made a print yet but I can clearly see the line at about a 4x enlargement, especially in smooth toned areas.

 

[logan2z]

Here you go.

Thanks. I guess Ilford has changed the format of their batch numbers - and their expiry dates.

 

[Roger Cole]

Roger, it's batch no. 05CFN1C01/02. You batch number is different.

Yes I knew that.

logan2z said his number wasn't in that number pattern/format. I said mine was, but didn't match the bad batch. He asked for a photo because his batch number is in a different format.

 

[Roger Cole]

Thanks. I guess Ilford has changed the format of their batch numbers - and their expiry dates.

I just checked some HP5+ I bought at the same time from the same place (B&H) and it has the same format as your FP4, with an expiration date of 4/24. Assuming all of a batch has the same expiry date (I can't imagine how it wouldn't) the bad batch expires Sep 23, four months after the batch I got which expires May 23. I got this stuff in August (just checked) a bit farther back than I was thinking. I think film expiring in nine months is bordering on short dated but I guess it wasn't, quite. I keep all my film cold stored anyway. It should be good for several years past date, I'm sure.

 

[pentaxuser]

I haven't made a print yet but I can clearly see the line at about a 4x enlargement, especially in smooth toned areas.

Thanks that makes even a 5x7 on 35mm a "no-no" and suggests a 6x8 might be the max on a 645 so anything except the smallest enlargement on even a 645 is not acceptable

pentaxuser

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

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.

 

[qqphot]

It's really impressive and refreshing for them to explain without any marketing-speak what actually went wrong and why, you can't really ask for much more than that if there is a problem with the product.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

Me as well! I got a prompt reply from Sue in the technical service dept, and also handles customer quality issues/complaints. I sent her a scan of the negs.

 

[albada]

@pentaxuser , I'll print those negs with a diffusion enlarger.

Diffusion failed. Here's the result.

The negatives arrived in the mail today. I set-up my enlarger to make an 8x10 print, and then I exposed a 5-inch long test strip. The stray line is clearly visible from top to bottom. Diffusion did not hide it.

I tried rubbing acetone on the back-side (between frames) to see whether that would remove superfluous gel. It had no effect.
Upon examining the flaw closely, I see that the line is rather wide, considerably wider than a scratch one might get from a microscopic piece of grit in the camera. Naphtha might or might not hide it.
At this point, I suggest that Steven try naphtha if he has a glass carrier. Or re-shoot the scenes.

 

[Steven Lee]

Interesting effect from a diffusion enlarger.. the line looks more faint but significantly wider on your print than in my scans. Thank you @albada

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I got a very thorough explanation of the issue from Ilford today. They will be sending me 10 replacement rolls. The defective rolls will be clearly marked and only used to test developers, etc. Gotta love Ilford!