Photo-flo, bad advice, and working through issues.

Backing paper? I've never heard of this problem. I developed the film in a rental darkroom and will go back today to see if the trashcan has not been emptied so I can look at the paper. Thanks for the suggestion.

John, it's fairly common and if you search here on the forum you'll find several threads reporting on it with examples that are identical to yours. Was this Ilford film by any chance? We've seen reports of very similar imprint patterns specifically from Ilford film. Partly they could be explained by expired film and/or poor storage conditions, but in part they are due to material issues with the paper itself. If the film was fresh and stored under the recommended conditions, you could consider contacting the manufacturer.

Floating dust particles cause pinholes when they are on the film before exposure. Edwal won’t solve that. You can minimize this by vacuuming the interior of your camera and film holders. For example bellows of a folding camera or 4x5 Grafmatics.

Cholentpot said:

This zombie thread came back alive. Guess I should update.

I use an eye dropper and put a few drops of flo into the tank. Let sit for about a minute and the see-saw the strip through the tank. I then squeegee with my fingers and hang to dry. No more spotting issues for a while. It was a major problem at first but I adjusted my technique until I found something that works.

Click to expand...

Highly endorse see-saw method. You got that right.

And you don’t have to change the rest of your habits if you don’t feel like it.

But I used to do the two fingers and got scratches regularly.

Encourage you to increase wetting agent until you visually confirm sheeting. Then don’t touch. See-saw and hang.

mshchem said:

Uh . Me.

Click to expand...

Last Saturday I went to the month TRW Swap Meet in Redondo Beach [part of the greater Los Angeles] which has been operating for over fifty years. I noticed all the men have white hair, beards and mustaches. I felt so left out! My hair is still dark brown.

Bill Burk said:

Floating dust particles cause pinholes when they are on the film before exposure. Edwal won’t solve that. You can minimize this by vacuuming the interior of your camera and film holders. For example bellows of a folding camera or 4x5 Grafmatics.


Highly endorse see-saw method. You got that right.

And you don’t have to change the rest of your habits if you don’t feel like it.

But I used to do the two fingers and got scratches regularly.

Encourage you to increase wetting agent until you visually confirm sheeting. Then don’t touch. See-saw and hang.

Click to expand...

My main issue was with 16mm/110 stills. Drying marks are a much bigger problem on such a small negative.

I make sure that my fingers are nice and wet before I squeege. I have found that some films are very very sensitive. Svemna does not like to be looked at wrong or it scratches. Case by case for what it's worth.

John O said:

Backing paper? I've never heard of this problem. I developed the film in a rental darkroom and will go back today to see if the trashcan has not been emptied so I can look at the paper. Thanks for the suggestion.

Click to expand...

You won't be able to tell by looking at the paper. The problems, referred to generically as wrapper offset, occur because of interaction between the very sensitive emulsion and the front of the backing paper + ink + any humidity that might have migrated into the sandwich that the emulsion side of the film is pressed against.
The mottling is one way that the problem manifests itself, and has recently seemed to be affecting Ilford films a very slight bit more than usual (still very infrequently though). Kodak had different problems with backing paper a few years ago - wrapper offset that resulted in the numbers and words imprinted on the backing paper showing up as increased density areas in the negatives - and it came close to ending all Kodak production of 120 film.
Wrapper offset has always been an issue with backing paper - since even before 120 film was introduced more than 100 years ago. It seems to have become more common since the films became more modern, and the paper sources have mostly disappeared. Backing paper itself is actually quite complex.
A few years ago one of the Harman/Ilford directors shared here that the cost for them to purchase the backing paper for one roll of 120 film was greater than it cost them to make the film for one roll of 120 film.

Backing paper? Thanks for your explanation. It was Rollei film, not Ilford, but maybe it can happen there too. That roll of film was first used on a rainy day and then went on a road trip where there was lots of heavy rain. Humidity could have been a factor as you suggest.
I guess I'll consider this interruption of the zombie photo-flo thread finished.

John O said:

It was Rollei film

Click to expand...

In case it was the notorious Rollei Retro (is this still being made?), then I can only echo your experiences. I had the some problem with it when I tried it, quite a few years ago. This was with Retro 80s. Never used it since.