Paper Imprint on Developed 120 Film

[sanking]

I developed a few rolls of Ilford FP4+ film today and experienced something I have never seen before. There is a faint imprint of the numbers on the back side of the paper backing on the developed film. It is fairly faint, but at the same time there is a kind of paper texture over all of the film, but most visible in the areas of low density.

Has anyone ever seen anything like this? How could it happen? The paper backing must be light tight so I don't see how the imprint could be caused by fogging, and there was none in any event because except for the imprint the negatives appear to be very well exposed and developed, with a very low B+F.

Sandy

 

[jim appleyard]

Sandy, there's a similar question on photo.net. You may want to check it out.

 

[glbeas]

From my experience in the printing industry I would guess the paper backing may have been rushed through its production and the imprint is caused by "ghosting" or a vapor imprint from the solvents in the inks used to cover the paper. It may well be that excess solvent also had an effect on the film itself too, penetrating into the film and changing its permeability to water.

 

[sergio caetano]

It happened with me some years ago (FP4 also) . Ilford answered it was some problem with back paper used. I've seen some others complaining about that during recent years. It means, unfortunately, that Ilford was not able to solve this until now ( poor quality control ). It will be good, at least, to email Ilford about that.

 

[sanking]

Sandy, there's a similar question on photo.net. You may want to check it out.

Jim,

I looked but could not find the question. Can you give me the URL?

Sandy

 

[oriecat]

I've had it happen to me! Both rolls of Fuji I shot in San Francisco back in August didn't roll tight, one totally didn't even come out and the other had tons of paper imprinted all over it. I figured it happened because of the improper rolling allowing light to expose through somehow.

Examples:

 

[rjr]

Sandy,

it is a known problem with many film brands. According to Matthias Schneege, a german Ilford rep it usually happens with outdated -read: long stored- film and it is a reaction of the emulsion with the ink used in printing.

Odd enough, Ilford uses only a very faint printing on their backing papers, impossible to use with old "red window" folders... :-(

 

[jim appleyard]

Sandy, try: www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AKh8.

I don't think this gentleman has the same problem as you, but it might be worth a look-see.

 

[jim appleyard]

If that URL doesn't work, the question was posted by Larry Yungk, Dec. 5, '04 and was titled, "Numbers Burned Into Efke Film". I found it under the catagory of "beginner questions".

 

[jandc]

I developed a few rolls of Ilford FP4+ film today and experienced something I have never seen before. There is a faint imprint of the numbers on the back side of the paper backing on the developed film. It is fairly faint, but at the same time there is a kind of paper texture over all of the film, but most visible in the areas of low density.

Has anyone ever seen anything like this? How could it happen? The paper backing must be light tight so I don't see how the imprint could be caused by fogging, and there was none in any event because except for the imprint the negatives appear to be very well exposed and developed, with a very low B+F.

Sandy

There are two ways this happens. One is light burn through when the opaque paper backing is weak. Of course this only happens if you have an old camera with a red window. The other possibility, which is more common, is bleed through. This is a chemical reaction as indicated above. Usually the manufacturers pick up on the flaw and do not ship out these films. However we've heard of this several times in the last year with several brands including Ilford.

The Efke problem on the Photo.net post was light leak through on a red window camera due to a weak backing.

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

I once heard some speculation that this could also be caused by x-ray fogging from airports. I was wondering if this is possibly another avenue for the printing to be marking the film?

My thinking is that it is not the case, because unless the ink has properties that are reflective or absorptive to x-rays, the ink areas would look exactly the same as the paper areas on the film. While I suppose it is possible that the ink has a distinctive X-ray characteristic, I would think that the manufacturers would avoid this if at all possible...

Anyone know if there is any truth to x-ray fogging of this manner?


---Michael

 

[oriecat]

I had all of my film hand checked, so it wouldn't apply in my case.

 

[ThomHarrop]

<There is a faint imprint of the numbers on the back side of the paper backing on the developed film.
Has anyone ever seen anything like this? How could it happen?>

My students and I do a LOT of Holga work. It is not uncommon to see it with Holga. I usually just means the camera has a light leak. You might think about having your camera seals checked.

 

[sanking]

<There is a faint imprint of the numbers on the back side of the paper backing on the developed film.
Has anyone ever seen anything like this? How could it happen?>

My students and I do a LOT of Holga work. It is not uncommon to see it with Holga. I usually just means the camera has a light leak. You might think about having your camera seals checked.

A light leak is the first thought that crossed my mind but for various reasons I have pretty much eliminated this possibility. For one thing the camera is a late model Fuji GS690III that I have used for several years with never a hint of any kind of fogging. And, of some fifteen rolls of film that I developed taken with this camera durung this particular session only two rolls had the problem, and both were Ilford FP4+. Thirteen other rolls, including nine rolls of the faster HP5+, showed no signs at all of a light leak.

Sandy

 

[sergio caetano]

I've just e-mailed Ilford in UK referencing this thread. If they answer I'll let you know.

 

[mfobrien]

I have had this problem with old Pan-F from Ilford.