The Ilford 120 film issue - which films have people seen affected?

[John Wiegerink]

Oh my! I didn’t see anything like that on my couple of rolls. That looks like the problem I had with some Foma film about 6 or 7 years ago. I’m going to dig a roll of Acros II out of the fridge from the same Adorama sale. Run it through my Rolleiflex 3.5F tomorrow and see what shows up. I hope I’m not stuck with 26 rolls of test film. If I do it’s because the big guy upstairs is punishing me for getting greedy I guess. I’ll post my results. JohnW

 

[pbromaghin]

I had it on 1 roll several years ago and another one just last fall, both FP4. I don't know the age of that most recent film, though. It could have been a expired.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I have yet to have a bad roll of Ilford 120 B&W film. The lot number on the Fuji film I bought on Adorama's Fuji Acros II sale is "82AAZ1T" and the expiration date of 12-2021. Actually there should be no problems with a film this close to date unless it was stored in a cellar at 130f degrees. I don't remember ever having issues back in the 70's with roll film. I'm talking about sloppy storage in Vietnam where temperature and humidity were both unbearable. Even during the monsoon I had no problems. I was only using Kodak Tri-X at the time, but no signs of bleed-through into the emulsion. Maybe the gelatin base has been altered since then, along with different backing paper/ink??

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have yet to have a bad roll of Ilford 120 B&W film. The lot number on the Fuji film I bought on Adorama's Fuji Acros II sale is "82AAZ1T" and the expiration date of 12-2021. Actually there should be no problems with a film this close to date unless it was stored in a cellar at 130f degrees. I don't remember ever having issues back in the 70's with roll film. I'm talking about sloppy storage in Vietnam where temperature and humidity were both unbearable. Even during the monsoon I had no problems. I was only using Kodak Tri-X at the time, but no signs of bleed-through into the emulsion. Maybe the gelatin base has been altered since then, along with different backing paper/ink??

I too have been fortunate enough not to have any problems with the 120 film that I have used.

 

[Jonno85uk]

Today I remembered I had a roll of Acros 2 sitting in one of my backs. It's been in my camera bag for ~9months and I haven't shot on it for ~6months. I thought i'd finish it off with some filter test on a scene near me.

Bloody hell.

I have had a slight case of mottling in the past with Delta 3200, 400 and XP2 before. They were there but not noticeable at a casual glance. But my latest case takes the biscuit. Only 1 frame didn't have mottling. Can you guess which one?


I'm not sure but I think this might be the worst case of mottling i've seen. I can only assume repeated transitions from warm, dry house to cold, damp outside caused this.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Today I remembered I had a roll of Acros 2 sitting in one of my backs. It's been in my camera bag for ~9months and I haven't shot on it for ~6months. I thought i'd finish it off with some filter test on a scene near me.

Bloody hell.

I have had a slight case of mottling in the past with Delta 3200, 400 and XP2 before. They were there but not noticeable at a casual glance. But my latest case takes the biscuit. Only 1 frame didn't have mottling. Can you guess which one?


I'm not sure but I think this might be the worst case of mottling i've seen. I can only assume repeated transitions from warm, dry house to cold, damp outside caused this.

View attachment 306760View attachment 306759View attachment 306758View attachment 306757

It looks to me like even the last one has some mottling, noticeable in the sky...

 

[Jonno85uk]

It looks to me like even the last one has some mottling, noticeable in the sky...

Yeah, I see that too but it is by far the least mottled. The several shots after this get a lot worse. This was the frame that wasn't in contact with the paper for the long period.

 

[K-G]

I also had a few issues with mottling at the end of last year an beginning of this. The films affected were Ilford FP4+ ( almost past expiry date ) and Acros 2 ( also almost expired ). I reported what had happened to Ilford, and they responded quickly with replacement rolls and claiming that they had withtaken actions to prevent mottling. The new FP4+ rolls showed no trace of mottling when I developed them. The Acros 2 rolls were bought through Fotoimpex in Germany and they have tried to get in contact with their Fuji supplier about the issue, without success . I have also tried to get in contact with Fujifilm through e-mail but no answer so far. A few months before the case with the ruined rolls I also developed a few of my last remaining rolls of the old version of Acros ( 120 size! ). They turned out perfectly ! The Acros 2 rolls are marked "made in UK" and when I compared the backing paper from the ruined FP4+ and Acros 2 rolls , they seemed to be identical. The only difference were a few japanese signs on the Fuji paper. I have a feeling that both old FP4+ and Acros 2 share the same problem. Ilford obviously have done something to correct it, but if Fuji has, I don't know. What I do know is that both Ilford and Fotoimpex have been most helpful and allert when it comes to solving the problem. This can not be said about Fuji.

Karl-Gustaf

 

[calico]

I had mottling issues (small dark specs in negs, white specs in positive images) starting in 2020. I was in touch with Ilford in late 2020 continuing into early 2021. My contact there was extremely nice. She sent a lot of replacement film, and we discussed the issue at length.

For me, storage issues and using expired film were not the problems. Problem was on their end.

In February 2021, she said they had altered their backing paper. She said in email:

"Films that are being generated now, have a lot tighter control on how the wrappers made – and lacquer levels have been increased, so that’s why I mention the films now will be more robust."

She said I should look for batches from 94 onward. Look at the code on the box:

"94AFN1C (or 94B or 94C etc), or 95A, or 96A etc to 99AFN1C. But after 99 – batches will show 01A, 02A, 03AFN1C etc. All more robust than pre 94."

I just bought some FP4 from B&H, and the code starts with 98. So if you're buying from a supplier who sells a lot of film, I imagine you'll be getting the FP4 with the improved backing paper now.

She also said they have identified a few things with actual film formulation that could make films more robust, but working on those things are longer term projects.

 

[sterioma]

Had the problem with HP5+.

Same here.

As I was playing around with mixing D23 at the time, initially I thought it was my fault (something undissolved in the developer; or something going on with the stop bath or fixer).
It wasn't until I developed 35mm and 120 with the same chemicals side by side that I realized that something was off.

 

[relistan]

Just developed a properly stored roll today that is a couple of years old. Terrible backing paper issues over almost the whole roll. HP5+

This is the backing paper:

 

[pentaxuser]

Just developed a properly stored roll today that is a couple of years old. Terrible backing paper issues over almost the whole roll. HP5+

This is the backing paper:

View attachment 324640View attachment 324641

Does this film have the batch numbers that calico mentions may be suspect i.e. the pre94?

That's 2 posts from what we can regard as local territory( The Republic of Ireland and the U.K) with issues.

A bit worrying

pentaxuser

 

[relistan]

Does this film have the batch numbers that calico mentions may be suspect i.e. the pre94?

That's 2 posts from what we can regard as local territory( The Republic of Ireland and the U.K) with issues.

A bit worrying

pentaxuser

Yes but unfortunately I have three more rolls. These are 91xxx expired in August so just out of date. I’ve had them dry stored in the original box and packaging, in a plastic bag on a cool shelf.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Yes but unfortunately I have three more rolls. These are 91xxx expired in August so just out of date. I’ve had them dry stored in the original box and packaging, in a plastic bag on a cool shelf.

I have solved my problems with the ILFORD '120 format' film mottling by using Kodak T-Max. This thread doesn't inspire confidence in a potential return to Harman manufactured medium format film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have solved my problems with the ILFORD '120 format' film mottling by using Kodak T-Max. This thread doesn't inspire confidence in a potential return to Harman manufactured medium format film.

The problem hit all the film makers since there are very few film paper makers today. It hit Kodak as well as Ilford.

 

[MattKing]

More accurately, problems with backing paper have increased for all film makers, due to the limited selection of paper makers with the requisite abilities, as well as the characteristics of modern inks, and modern emulsions.
The requirements for backing paper are actually very complex.

 

[John Wiegerink]

This backing paper fiasco is absolutely ridiculous. Somebody better get their shit together. Sorry for being harsh, but there is no excuse anymore. It's been plenty long enough to get this problem ironed out. I would hope Harman, Kodak and the rest of the film confectioners are bundling up those junk rolls of backing paper and sending them right back where they came from. That's the only way they will solve this problem. Unfortunately, I have a feeling they aren't doing that, and we film users are the ones who pay the price for the confectioners not demanding a better product. Yes, we can notify Ilford/Kodak, and they will send you new film, but will they send you the perfect picture you missed out on? Shame on whomever has dropped the ball.

 

[MattKing]

There has been backing paper issues for more than 100 years, so I wouldn't expect them to go away.
Eastman Kodak though is very protective of the technology that went into their new, almost plastic-like version. They are unlikely to give that technology away! And they may never be willing to sell it.

 

[Peter Schrager]

I too have been fortunate enough not to have any problems with the 120 film that I have used.

Just bought this same emulsion number from Freestyle and am happy to report that the film is fine

 

[Pieter12]

This backing paper fiasco is absolutely ridiculous. Somebody better get their shit together. Sorry for being harsh, but there is no excuse anymore. It's been plenty long enough to get this problem ironed out. I would hope Harman, Kodak and the rest of the film confectioners are bundling up those junk rolls of backing paper and sending them right back where they came from. That's the only way they will solve this problem. Unfortunately, I have a feeling they aren't doing that, and we film users are the ones who pay the price for the confectioners not demanding a better product. Yes, we can notify Ilford/Kodak, and they will send you new film, but will they send you the perfect picture you missed out on? Shame on whomever has dropped the ball.

Has it occurred to you that the backing paper manufacturers are not up to sniff? It is a minuscule market for paper and only 120 film uses it. The problem happens relatively rarely. And are you willing to pay more per roll to cover the cost of better backing paper? Kodak seems to have nicer paper than Ilford (I don't use much Fuji), but Kodak films are also more expensive. They could have even locked the supply of that paper. I haven't heard of CatLabs backing paper problems, but there is a lot less of that out there. And it feels like 2 steps better than newsprint.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I have solved my problems with the ILFORD '120 format' film mottling by using Kodak T-Max. This thread doesn't inspire confidence in a potential return to Harman manufactured medium format film.

HP5+ tends to go out into the world with a 4 year date stamp, from what I've seen. So they're from 2018, with ill-defined storage since leaving the distribution chain. I've processed a lot of in-date 120 HP5+ this year (and last year) with no backing paper issues.

Has it occurred to you that the backing paper manufacturers are not up to sniff?

Not the paper - the print/ varnish seems to have been the culprit across the board. Eliminating the backprint would probably solve it entirely.

 

[AnselMortensen]

Eliminating the backprint would probably solve it entirely.

Folks using cameras with red windows, Hassy users with C-12 backs, and users of Da Yi/ Shen Hao 6x12 backs would get out their torches and pitchforks if that happened.

 

[MattKing]

Not the paper - the print/ varnish seems to have been the culprit across the board. Eliminating the backprint would probably solve it entirely.

That will solve any wrapper offset problems - such as those experienced by Kodak.
But it isn't clear that the problems with mottling have much to do with the ink(s).
It is a non-trivial thing to make a paper that is impervious to light, dimensionally stable and fairly precisely sized, of varying thickness as you move across its width, and non-reactive over long periods of time when pressed firmly against emulsions that are designed to react to almost infinitesimal amounts of light and relatively small amounts of chemicals.

 

[Moose22]

The problem hit all the film makers since there are very few film paper makers today. It hit Kodak as well as Ilford.

You're correct. I've had it happen twice this year, once on some IR shots with Rollei 400, once one some Arista EDU. Both near their expiration dates.

Arista 200 -- DOH! Luckily for me it was focus testing for a focus screen that I had to adjust the height on, and I just burned the last few shots for fun. You might be able to guess which frame this was.

I don't think Ilford makes Arista or the rollei IR films.

 

[relistan]

Not the paper - the print/ varnish seems to have been the culprit across the board. Eliminating the backprint would probably solve it entirely.

See the photos above. There is actually what looks like droplets of rust on the paper.