quality control with the various (worldwide) B&W films

David Lyga · Jul 17, 2013

Are there any issues with quality control to be wary of from the multitude of manufacturers worldwide, including rebadged items? I am talking of either single roll or long rolls (35mm). - David Lyga

Richard S. (rich815) · Jul 17, 2013

Yes. Fuji, Ilford and Kodak rarely any QC issues. Others sometimes, some
more than others.

Ian Grant · Jul 17, 2013

Foma and Fotoimpex (Adox) are excellent as well.

Ian

Richard S. (rich815) · Jul 17, 2013

Ian Grant said:
Foma and Fotoimpex (Adox) are excellent as well.

Ian

Disagree. I've had a number of Adox 120 rolls with pinholes and such.

pentaxuser · Jul 17, 2013

David Lyga said:
I am talking of either single roll or long rolls (35mm). - David Lyga

I am assuming that your long rolls(35mm) are bulk loading 100ft rolls and single rolls are 36 frame cassettes? Am I right? If so then the bulk loading 100 foot rolls made and offered by certainly Ilford and Kodak are the same film rolls as used in the 36 frame cassettes so on that basis any quality issues should be the same for each unless there is evidence that putting film into 36 frame cassettes creates extra problems for some makers but not others

pentaxuser

Ian Grant · Jul 18, 2013

rich815 said:
Disagree. I've had a number of Adox 120 rolls with pinholes and such.

Fotoimpex didn't make EFKE films. Most of the reports of bad batches of EFKE films were at the time Agfa had just closed their consumer division and J&C were distributing EFKE films in the US and taking even defective product, J&C no longer exist - their trading standards were not high. They tried to sell Calbe RO9 repackaged as Rodinal and had to take back a lot of Chinese LF film cut to paper sizes not film sizes (the film sizes are a touch smaller).

I'm referring to the new films made in Germany by Fotoimpex under the Adox brand name

Ian

summerbee · Jul 18, 2013

rich815 said:
Disagree. I've had a number of Adox 120 rolls with pinholes and such.

OP asked about 35mm. Where I seldom remember to have read about heavy complains, in the last few years.

120 is another kind of a beast and "the chinese fornitures" locate themselves at lower end in this rooster...

R.Gould · Jul 18, 2013

I have never used the newer Adox films, the ones made in Germany, but I have used a large amount of Foma film, and agree wit Ian Grant, Fomapan QC is pretty good I have yet to have any Foma film,120 or 35mm, with QC problems.
Richard

Poisson Du Jour · Jul 18, 2013

Some isolated cases of pinholes in ACROS 100 in 120 format have been reported but I think this is more to do with inappropriate storage/humidity than a fault with the emulsion itself. I had pinholes in two rolls of ACROS 100 bought on-spec in the shop a few years ago (2009).

Ian Grant · Jul 18, 2013

summerbee said:
OP asked about 35mm. Where I seldom remember to have read about heavy complains, in the last few years.

120 is another kind of a beast and "the chinese fornitures" locate themselves at lower end in this rooster...

I used quite a lot of EFKE (Adox) film over the years from the 70's until the last batches of LF and I never had a quality issue, part of the problem was poor hardening in the earlier days but this had improved slightly by the late 80's. They just needed careful handling. Pinholes were usually down to poor processing.

Those of us who began processing in the 1960's (or earlier) all remember the softer emulsions from all the manufacturers, the improvements in hardening came about with the introduction of FP4 and HP4, and simiilar upgrades of Kodak & Agfa films. We learnt that all films needed careful processing to get the best results.

Some modern films are exceptionally well hardened, a few aren't like EFKE's, and one or two from Kodak and Fuji suffer softening in certain dvelopers (usually containing Sodium Hydroxide). Many complaints about poor coatings are related to processing issues and not the films themselves.

Ian

ozphoto · Jul 18, 2013

In the late 80s/early 90s (IIRC) Kodak had a QC issue with Kodak Gold 100 - no yellow layer. Meant you had to make sure you CC'd correctly when printing the film. You could definitely see it when you looked at the negs, which was how I picked it up originally, and reported to Kodak. (Another staff member was lucky enough to land the first roll we got through - they were rather confused at the results, and quite concerned they had done something wrong!)

Kodak confirmed the problem and where in the process of identifying the batch number - their rep arrived about a week later, identified every single roll, and we ended up with over 500 rolls being replaced.

The average customer wouldn't have any inkling of the problem, if the lab was printing it correctly, just meant you had to be extra observant when selecting the channel to print by.

David Lyga · Jul 18, 2013

rich815, your comment on pinholes with Adox stopped me in my tracks. Way back in the late 1970s I had bought some of the original Adox from Freestyle and was amazed to see several negatives with pinholes after processing. I had 'convinced' myself that it must have been something that I had done wrong but I could not imagine what (too strong Stop, abrasions?). I read somewhere that Adox was then manufactured using manual hanging procedures like in the very old days which could have compromised quality control).

Ian Grant, although I had often suspected this, your confirmation thereof asks me to ask anyone 'WHY'? Yes, why are film sizes slightly smaller than paper sizes? - David Lyga

Ghostman · Jul 18, 2013

I've had some weird issues with Rollei films, Superpan in particular. Scratched base and film rolled backwards and attached to the wrong end of the paper.

Ian Grant · Jul 18, 2013

David Lyga said:
Ian Grant, although I had often suspected this, your confirmation thereof asks me to ask anyone 'WHY'? Yes, why are film sizes slightly smaller than paper sizes? - David Lyga

I hadn't realised for years. It's because plate sizes and paper sizes were the same but in the early days plate holders took adapters to use film as a consequence films needed to be slightly smaller to fit inside the adapters.

A sheet of 10x8 paper is a fraction too wide for a mordern 10x8 DDS film holder. J&C had Chinese LF film cut to paper sizes

Ian

Klainmeister · Jul 18, 2013

I experienced a bit of what appeared to be cracking/line issues with Foma 200 a few years back, but after those rolls (which were replaced by Freestyle free of charge), no issues with any other film.

snederhiser · Jul 18, 2013

Hello;
Several years ago I bought some J & C film in 4 X 5 and 120 and turned out to be Shanghai film. I had to trim 1/32" on the long side to fit in my bag mag sheaths and standard film holders. In case anyone still is using this film, rated the 4 X 5 @ 50asa and the 120 @ 100asa. Steven.

cmacd123 · Jul 18, 2013

Only film issues I have had lately was some numbers printing through on EFKE made film. By comparing the film to the backing paper I confirmed that the transfer must have occurred when the film was in storage as the locations corresponded to where the paper and film were touching before it was first unrolled.

I have also found a problem with some Lucky SHD 100 in 120 size. The film was attached to the backing paper with a sticker which can come free. I have a couple of rolls of this left, and I will have to repair them by replacement of the sticker with masking tape in the dark.

quality control with the various (worldwide) B&W films

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency