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

[MattKing]

Then the problem is the backing paper, ink, film, environmental factors and retail & distribution and how they interact.

The problem is with all the above, and in particular with how they interact with each other, which itself isn't all that well understood.

My word, we seem to agree!

 

[removedacct1]

Lets not forget that companies like Kodak are producing film at something like 5% (or less) of what their volume used to be in their peak days.

Eastman Kodak manufactured their own backing paper until the steep decline of film sales. They used old techniques, old machinery, old inks.
When that decline happened they stopped making backing paper, and were left with several years of supply.
So they got rid of their production capacity.
In the meantime, the paper manufacturing and printing industry went through sea changes in technology and availability.
When Eastman Kodak finally ran out of backing paper that they had manufactured, they sought new stuff from the available manufacturers and printers.
And it turned out that the availability was really poor, and the single source that was able to supply something which met their expected requirements, ended up supplying product that met those requirements, but turned out to fail over time, on an unpredictable and never fully understood way.

But sometimes, unexpected things happen to components like backing paper, which always has been the source of a small amount of problems, and the incidence of those problems increases.

And bear in mind that determining the nature of the problem isn't simple when it can take months or YEARS for the issues to appear. Just imagine how difficult it is to nail down which materials misbehave and in which ways, when time and environmental factors all play a role. I wouldn't want to be in charge of resolving THAT problem.
So go easy on Ilford (and Kodak, and...) because they're doing their best to deliver the same quality of materials under very difficult circumstances. You'll be b*tching a lot louder if they opt to stop producing these 120 roll films altogether due to insurmountable manufacturing problems, believe me.

 

[Henning Serger]

Yes, it was Eastman Kodak who was the source for the "single supplier" information.

Hello Matt,

and it is very doubtful that Kodak knew really all other sources at that time. Especially concerning Fujifilm (who due to my sources always had their own source; and their 120 converting quality has been by far the best in the industry with the Easy-End-Seal, Easy-Loading and Barcode system).
And the (very different) backing paper of Chinese film at that time was certainly also from a different source.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[DREW WILEY]

As far as reviving past films goes, there's apparently just as much art as science to making film. Just because someone has a recipe in a cookbook by a famous chef, it doesn't mean their food will taste the same. And in this case, not only has the supply train of many past ingredients been severed due to loss of scale or changing enviro rules, and the machinery itself worn out and too costly to replace, but the human element also has to be considered. There is a certain amount of knowledge of technique which needs to be passed along almost apprentice style, involving long term training and semi-secret techniques which are now probably already lost.

Gosh, look at how much hell the auto industry is going through right now, being unable to deliver product due to a chip shortage. And they've got mountains of money and customer demand. A big wake-up call about relying on long supply chains. But there's only so much that can realistically be done in-house.

Oh well, yesterday's 6X9 TMax shoreline shots I developed an hour ago all look great. That was the only break in the rain in the entire week's forecast. Raining all day today, and much stronger storm due tonite.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I have read numerous statements taken from private correspondences with Ilford and Kodak in which the companies were very forthcoming about the backing paper issue and their desire to eliminate the problem. People on this forum have quoted or paraphrased such communications and posted them in context of threads similar to this one. So I don't think its accurate to say that neither Ilford nor Kodak "doesn't care" about this problem; evidence suggests the opposite.

If you read what I said, you would see I didn't say that they don't care about the problem. I said that by not communicating with the consumers who buy their goods and have a problem with their purchase gives the appearance of "not caring". Just replacing a bad roll of film is "NOT" communicating. It's called pacifying.

 

[removedacct1]

If you read what I said, you would see I didn't say that they don't care about the problem. I said that by not communicating with the consumers who buy their goods and have a problem with their purchase gives the appearance of "not caring". Just replacing a bad roll of film is "NOT" communicating. It's called pacifying.

I did read what you said, and it insinuated that these companies don't care enough to meet your minimum requirements. So be it. I can assure you that my personal experience in corresponding with Kodak technicians has demonstrated that they very much do care about their product.

 

[Pieter12]

If the film market (well, the 120 film market) were really experiencing a resurgence as many are saying, Kodak and Ilford would invest in developing a backing material that would be immune to the current, sporadic problems. It would take a while and probably a lot of money. I don't think the 120 market could support that today.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I did read what you said, and it insinuated that these companies don't care enough to meet your minimum requirements. So be it. I can assure you that my personal experience in corresponding with Kodak technicians has demonstrated that they very much do care about their product.

Sorry, let me make this very clear to you. I never insinuated anything. I said it gives the impression of not caring when you don't communicate. I'm certainly not picking a fight with you and really couldn't care less, but if you let these companies slide then they will think you don't really care and if you don't really care then why should they care. I'm glad you had a very good personal experience with Kodak and hope you many more of the same.
All of these companies, big and small, have PR people and some of them get paid big bucks to be go-betweens for the company. How come we hear nothing from them when a batch of film has mottling. I'm sure they know it in a very short time??? At least we used to have Simon here from time to time, and now we supposedly have somebody from Shanghai Film China, but that's never been really confirmed as far as I know. Many of the people that are the livelihood for these companies hang out on these photo talk forums. Still, you hear nothing from those companies here. Or very little, anyway. Yes, you did hear from Kodak when they were close to solving the problem, but almost nothing before that. To me that's very bad PR, and it's exactly how companies end up going down the tubes, so to say. At least they could have a PR person type out a course of action and give us an update from time to time. That's called good business practice. If I keep getting bad Ilford stock, I'll switch to Kodak until it's resolved.

 

[JParker]

If the film market (well, the 120 film market) were really experiencing a resurgence as many are saying, Kodak and Ilford would invest in developing a backing material that would be immune to the current, sporadic problems.

Kodak has done exactly that recently: Developed a new backing paper. Fujifilm did not need it, as their backing paper has not been affected.
And Ilford is certainly also working on improvements.
But I think the problem with Ilford is overrated. Probably only 0.01% of the films are affected. But when it happens, the users report and it is going viral online........

 

[John Wiegerink]

Kodak has done exactly that recently: Developed a new backing paper. Fujifilm did not need it, as their backing paper has not been affected.
And Ilford is certainly also working on improvements.
But I think the problem with Ilford is overrated. Probably only 0.01% of the films are affected. But when it happens, the users report and it is going viral online........

Yes, it's only a small percentage, but when it happens to you, it becomes a big percentage. That's probably why people go ape shit when it happens to them. I'm not overly concerned since I'm out of the business now and just shoot for my pleasure. If every roll from every maker had this problem, I'd just go completely digital and live happily ever after.

 

[DREW WILEY]

And digital devices and their software never have problems? As my mother used to say, you're jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. The company where I worked had to spend a couple million dollars a year on average trying to keep the hardware and software up to date. Problems were constant, and I retired just a few weeks before they had to spend months replacing the entire system. I was there for forty years, and the era before computerization was a lot less complicated. During those same four decades, I had exactly two instances of flawed film, and my same cameras are still going strong. So what horse do you think I'd bet on?

 

[John Wiegerink]

And digital devices and their software never have problems? As my mother used to say, you're jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. The company where I worked had to spend a couple million dollars a year on average trying to keep the hardware and software up to date. Problems were constant, and I retired just a few weeks before they had to spend months replacing the entire system. I was there for forty years, and the era before computerization was a lot less complicated. During those same four decades, I had exactly two instances of flawed film, and my same cameras are still going strong. So what horse do you think I'd bet on?

I won't argue with you Drew and I find some things completely over my head with software. Some of the editing software takes for longer to learn than I have to live.
I took my first photo with my very own camera in 1959 and slightly before that with my father's Kodak Target 616. Now you know where my passion dwells. Film! Still, I can get great results with my Sony A7RII and some simple software. Would I rather use film? Of course, but if it disappeared, I could get by fine. Also, if that said A7RII kept spitting out unacceptable shots, it would be gone also. I guess I'd go to painting landscapes then. Actually, about the only thing I can paint is my bedroom walls.

 

[Pieter12]

I won't argue with you Drew and I find some things completely over my head with software. Some of the editing software takes for longer to learn than I have to live.
I took my first photo with my very own camera in 1959 and slightly before that with my father's Kodak Target 616. Now you know where my passion dwells. Film! Still, I can get great results with my Sony A7RII and some simple software. Would I rather use film? Of course, but if it disappeared, I could get by fine. Also, if that said A7RII kept spitting out unacceptable shots, it would be gone also. I guess I'd go to painting landscapes then. Actually, about the only thing I can paint is my bedroom walls.

Once a digital file has been processed, just like film, it can be read and printed by a myriad of programs--there is no need to update anything. I use digital cameras made 10 years ago regularly, and still work with files from 2002 with no issues. Most analog photographers don't retouch their photos. Why should a digital photographer think they need to edit their photos? I never printed analog color and never intend to, there are people with the skills I can depend on to do that. Same for digital, if it is critical.

Only paid professionals need to have the latest equipment and software.

 

[Pieter12]

At least they could have a PR person type out a course of action and give us an update from time to time. That's called good business practice. If I keep getting bad Ilford stock, I'll switch to Kodak until it's resolved.

How do you know this is not the course they have decided would be best for them? If they came to your house and held your hand while you were sobbing over your ruined film, would that be a better solution? Maybe if you are a major customer. But there really aren't any major film customers any more. Film can get damaged by lab faults. Strobes fail to fire, cameras jam, dirt gets on the lens, negatives get scratched. And so it goes. On every box of film it states that the manufacturer's liability is for the roll of film, not the image. Part of shooting film is a little game of Russian roulette, after all.

 

[K-G]

Kodak has done exactly that recently: Developed a new backing paper. Fujifilm did not need it, as their backing paper has not been affected.
And Ilford is certainly also working on improvements.
But I think the problem with Ilford is overrated. Probably only 0.01% of the films are affected. But when it happens, the users report and it is going viral online........

Yes, Fujifilm does need it. About a year ago I experienced these mottling problems on both Ilford FP4+ and Fuji Neopan Acros. The backing papers on both types looked identical to me, only with a few extra Japanese signs on the Fuji paper. The big difference was that Ilford responded rapidly and positive on my complaints but from Fuji there was only silence.

Karl-Gustaf

 

[Agulliver]

Hello Matt,

and it is very doubtful that Kodak knew really all other sources at that time. Especially concerning Fujifilm (who due to my sources always had their own source; and their 120 converting quality has been by far the best in the industry with the Easy-End-Seal, Easy-Loading and Barcode system).
And the (very different) backing paper of Chinese film at that time was certainly also from a different source.

Best regards,
Henning

I have wondered about this....if Kodak really knew all available sources. Perhaps this was code for "all sources available to Kodak". Fuji always seem to have had good backing paper, and I doubt they're still running on some stash they manufactured 15 years ago. Does anyone know who makes it? Is it a FujiFIlm in-house product, and perhaps they're not willing to supply it to anyone else?

Who makes backing paper for Foma? I don't recall reading about many problems with their 120 film either and the ink on their backing papers is still actually dark enough that it can be read through a ruby window on a folding camera.

I'm also not going to knock Kodak. I am sure they care. I am equally sure that photo film is a small part of Eastman Kodak's business these days and while they were determined to solve the problems, it won't necessarily have been something they could plough millions of dollars into or dedicate lots of staff.

 

[Klaus_H]

From my experience, there are several factors influencing the backing paper issue.
1. the backing paper itself.
2. high temperature during transportation in summertime (carriers rarely use air-conditioned trucks except for food).
3. too high temperatures during storage time.
4. too high humidity between exposure and development of the film.

Films that I have purchased during the wintertime and then stored at -21°C until use have not had any problem with the backing paper. Films from the same shipment that I had stored at +18°C to +21°C had isolated problems. A PAN F showed absolutely unusable after 3 months of storage.
Films that were stored after exposure at humidities above 50% for more than 4 weeks until development also showed problems.

My solution:
Purchase the films in the cool season.
Deep freeze storage.
Develop immediately after exposure.

Yes, in former times the backing paper was better, also the future was better.

 

[JParker]

Yes, Fujifilm does need it. About a year ago I experienced these mottling problems on both Ilford FP4+ and Fuji Neopan Acros. The backing papers on both types looked identical to me, only with a few extra Japanese signs on the Fuji paper.

That's because Ilford is involved in current Acros II production (therefore the "Made in UK" on the Acros II boxes), and Acros II is definitely converted and finished by Ilford. I remember well reading the discussions about that here on photrio after Acros II being introduced.
I stand with my original statement, but make it more precise: Fujifilm's own, original 120 converting (for their color films, done at their own factory) is perfect and don't need a change.

 

[John Wiegerink]

That's because Ilford is involved in current Acros II production (therefore the "Made in UK" on the Acros II boxes), and Acros II is definitely converted and finished by Ilford. I remember well reading the discussions about that here on photrio after Acros II being introduced.
I stand with my original statement, but make it more precise: Fujifilm's own, original 120 converting (for their color films, done at their own factory) is perfect and don't need a change.

I wasn't going to say anything about Fuji Acros II for fear of being pounced upon. All of my Fuji Acros II is cold stored at present. I did find one of my Hasselblad backs with a partial roll of Fuji Acros II in it at my cottage. It had sat in that back for probably at least four months on a shelf at the cottage. I decided to finish it off and develop it to free-up the back. Yup, mottling in the sky. My previous rolls from the same brick didn't have it, but that film was shot and processed much faster.

 

[John Wiegerink]

How do you know this is not the course they have decided would be best for them? If they came to your house and held your hand while you were sobbing over your ruined film, would that be a better solution? Maybe if you are a major customer. But there really aren't any major film customers any more. Film can get damaged by lab faults. Strobes fail to fire, cameras jam, dirt gets on the lens, negatives get scratched. And so it goes. On every box of film it states that the manufacturer's liability is for the roll of film, not the image. Part of shooting film is a little game of Russian roulette, after all.

I really don't need anyone holding my hand. I'm a big boy and can take it. I was just suggesting a little better PR from these companies would be greatly appreciated and stop a lot of this speculation and rumors about what's going on. As for me and my type of photography? I can switch films at the drop of a hat, so it's not that big of a deal for me. If I were using these products to make my living, then it would really piss me off to get rolls back from a lab to see a bunch of UFO's in the sky. As for now, I'll just find an alternative film (Kodak) maybe.

 

[flavio81]

But sometimes, unexpected things happen to components like backing paper, which always has been the source of a small amount of problems, and the incidence of those problems increases.

That's why I always think 220 films should not be overlooked.

With 220, the paper is only used at the leading and trailing end, reducing the problems that you get when every bit of film is touched by backing paper.

 

[AnselMortensen]

That's why I always think 220 films should not be overlooked.

With 220, the paper is only used at the leading and trailing end, reducing the problems that you get when every bit of film is touched by backing paper.

Agreed!
And you don't have to reload fiddly film backs as often.

 

[John Wiegerink]

That's why I always think 220 films should not be overlooked.

With 220, the paper is only used at the leading and trailing end, reducing the problems that you get when every bit of film is touched by backing paper.

Yes, that's one big advantage and would solve the problem. I'll order some from Ilford immediately. Whoops, can't do that! Maybe Shanghai GP3 is smarter than the other companies????

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh my. All of this is so terrifying. So why do I keep shooting 120 film when I have other format gear too, especially with respect to sheet film? Because it's fun, convenient, relatively quite affordable, and I keep getting clean frames without any problems. Maybe that's because I obtained all my roll film from reputable dealers who promptly removed and returned any suspect batch numbers from their shelves once a problem was identified. Perhaps it's because I hold my film reserves in a freezer until time of use. Perhaps when I order light sensitive materials for shipping, it's never during the hot season inland, or else it promptly arrives air shipment. I dunno. Luck maybe. But something has been consistently working for me.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Oh my. All of this is so terrifying. So why do I keep shooting 120 film when I have other format gear too, especially with respect to sheet film? Because it's fun, convenient, relatively quite affordable, and I keep getting clean frames without any problems. Maybe that's because I obtained all my roll film from reputable dealers who promptly removed and returned any suspect batch numbers from their shelves once a problem was identified. Perhaps it's because I hold my film reserves in a freezer until time of use. Perhaps when I order light sensitive materials for shipping, it's never during the hot season inland, or else it promptly arrives air shipment. I dunno. Luck maybe. But something has been consistently working for me.

I use 120 film because I enjoy the performance, handling and use of the Hasselblad camera and lenses.