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 this mostly affected HP5?
See the photos above. There is actually what looks like droplets of rust on the paper.
Not according to Ilford:
"The issue of spots / mottle on 120 film negatives is still rare and has primarily, but not exclusively, been seen in our slower speed films such as PAN F and FP4. The degree of the issue varies significantly and is also not linked to specific batches of film."
(source: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/updated-120-roll-film-statement/)
FWIW I've been shooting quite a bit of Ilford FP4+ in 120 recently and haven't had any backing paper issues. And some of the shot film sat for several months before I got around to developing it.
Has this mostly affected HP5?
Thanks, I think I'd read that before but it seems like several recent reports of mottling have mentioned HP5, so I thought that film might be affected more often than expected.
I have noticed that my recently purchased rolls of FP4+ have a strong chemical smell that I hadn't noticed in the past. I wonder if that's related to a change in the backing paper made to eliminate these problems.
To me, that distinct chemical smell smells like candy canes.
Hmm, you may need to see an ENT guy
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.
Have you inspected the pressure plate in the camera that was used? It would not take much contamination with damp fingers (that had possibly been in contact with an oxidising agent) to potentially cause all sorts of problems.
We need to stop allowing Harman getting away with this nonsense, quit the rubbish carbon based backing paper and reformulate it already. I'll pay 25 cents as long as you fix it.
We need to stop allowing Harman getting away with this nonsense, quit the rubbish carbon based backing paper and reformulate it already. I'll pay 25 cents as long as you fix it.
Yes, the old saying, "squeaky wheel gets the oil" should apply here. I really don't care who's fault it is, just fix it. Maybe they could add a small amount of anti-fungicide to the paper backing? Sure seems long enough time has passed where the problem should have been corrected by now. Of course, it took Kodak/Alaris a long time to correct their offset/bleed problem, but at least they got a handle on it. It's really upsetting to shoot a roll of film and then see that the sky looks to be full of pimples.
So, I see its ongoing.
I hate to say this, but I am slowly (when I pick up the camera) transitioning away from Harman based films. While its still only a hobby for me, I hate having to deal with these defects
I wouldn't give up on Harman completely, since they are very good about "caring" and should have this straighten out shortly.
I wouldn't give up on Harman completely, since they are very good about "caring" and should have this straighten out shortly.
Sure. Shortly...
Actually, I mis-quoted myself. I won't use any Harman 120 product. I will still actively use them in 35mm and 4x5, where I don't have the problem. FP4+ is a hard drug to completely go cold turkey on
And yes, if there is an actual fix on the paper based films, I will gladly go back.
I don't know how much of this issue is within Harman's control, especially if the problem is originating with the paper (that I assume they don't make) and not the conditions in the factory or warehouse. Finding and testing a new source for backing paper could take a while and be expensive. And if its thickness or other physical properties are different enough from the current backing paper it could introduce new challenges on he line.
And how will you know if it has been fixed? Ilford/Harman barely acknowledges the issue unless you complain directly to them. I don't remember any recalls of batches, mainly because I don't know if they have been able to pinpoint the origin of the problem to begin with.
I litreally never tyre of these comparisons.Put it this way, I say tyre instead of tire and litre instead of liter.
It's all within Harman's control. I'm sure if they really want this taken care of, they can put an awful lot of pressure on the backing papermaker. That's how it's done. Harman tells them to fix it or else. That should get something stirring.I don't know how much of this issue is within Harman's control, especially if the problem is originating with the paper (that I assume they don't make) and not the conditions in the factory or warehouse. Finding and testing a new source for backing paper could take a while and be expensive. And if its thickness or other physical properties are different enough from the current backing paper it could introduce new challenges on he line.
And how will you know if it has been fixed? Ilford/Harman barely acknowledges the issue unless you complain directly to them. I don't remember any recalls of batches, mainly because I don't know if they have been able to pinpoint the origin of the problem to begin with.
I've had backing-paper issues with Kodak and Fomapan as well. While not an excuse, this issue seems to be an industry issue rather than specific to any given enterprise.We need to stop allowing Harman getting away with this nonsense, quit the rubbish carbon based backing paper and reformulate it already. I'll pay 25 cents as long as you fix it.
It's all within Harman's control. I'm sure if they really want this taken care of, they can put an awful lot of pressure on the backing papermaker. That's how it's done. Harman tells them to fix it or else. That should get something stirring.
It's all within Harman's control. I'm sure if they really want this taken care of, they can put an awful lot of pressure on the backing papermaker. That's how it's done. Harman tells them to fix it or else. That should get something stirring.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?