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

[DREW WILEY]

A Hassie would be nice in lieu of a 645 camera because it doesn't need to be clumsily reoriented for horizontal shots, but just post-cropped; or a 6x6 RF in the same mode for greater portability. But that would meet my expectations for only up to 11X14 enlargements. And since I routinely print 16X20 in b&w, and 20X24 in color, it's simply too small a format. 6X7 barely does it for me, and 6X9 somewhat better, in terms of prints which don't stand out like a sore thumb mixed in with large format 4X6 and 8X10 film versions.

I dunno about the 220 film talk, however. Seems like they're hoping for a lot of new sightings of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker.

 

[K-G]

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.

That may be true. The rolls that had the mottling problem were all Acros II , but I also developed an old roll of the original Acros at the same time, and it was perfect.
The sad thing is that Fuji doesn't make any comments what so ever on this issue.

Karl-Gustaf

 

[Sirius Glass]

A Hassie would be nice in lieu of a 645 camera because it doesn't need to be clumsily reoriented for horizontal shots, but just post-cropped; or a 6x6 RF in the same mode for greater portability. But that would meet my expectations for only up to 11X14 enlargements. And since I routinely print 16X20 in b&w, and 20X24 in color, it's simply too small a format. 6X7 barely does it for me, and 6X9 somewhat better, in terms of prints which don't stand out like a sore thumb mixed in with large format 4X6 and 8X10 film versions.

I dunno about the 220 film talk, however. Seems like they're hoping for a lot of new sightings of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker.

No 35mm or 6x6 negative will beat a 8"x10" negative, but the Zeiss optics will make a 16"x16" or 20"x20" that you would find acceptable with your standards.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Still too little real estate. I have a friend with Zeiss optics for his 6X6, and they truly are remarkable for his proclivity to wide-angle shots. I'm more a long perspective guy, and the P67 excels in that arena, but has excellent normals and WA's too, at the fraction of the price Hassie demands. But more and more, my go-to gear for quickie work is the Fuji 6X9 RF, which will certain factor more and more into any backpacking plans going forward, since my methodology nickname is no longer Jerry Rigg, but Jerry Atric.

 

[takilmaboxer]

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.

Now that's what I need - actual data from an experienced user. I don't shoot as much as a lot of you, but it's all 120, bought in small batches of maybe 10 rolls and carefully stored in a dark cool room at 7000 feet in New Mexico. Never had a problem.
As for the future it depends on the era. A Roman in 276 AD, for example, might not be so sure that the future's betterness.

 

[Pieter12]

A Hassie would be nice in lieu of a 645 camera because it doesn't need to be clumsily reoriented for horizontal shots, but just post-cropped; or a 6x6 RF in the same mode for greater portability. But that would meet my expectations for only up to 11X14 enlargements. And since I routinely print 16X20 in b&w, and 20X24 in color, it's simply too small a format. 6X7 barely does it for me, and 6X9 somewhat better, in terms of prints which don't stand out like a sore thumb mixed in with large format 4X6 and 8X10 film versions.

I dunno about the 220 film talk, however. Seems like they're hoping for a lot of new sightings of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker.

To each his own. I have seen some marvelous 34x40 prints made from 35mm negatives, high speed film at that. The enormous grain enhanced the feeling of spontaneity and powerful action of the images. Something else to factor in is that most LF is shot on a tripod, MF not as much. MF really can look much better when shot on a tripod with a great lens. It can rival LF, especially if the LF lens is not up to snuff.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

If you know this, shouldn't Ilford? Why wouldn't they recommend these simple measures to avoid backing paper issues? I think the problem is more complicated than that.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

Have you experienced this problem with Ilford film? I have only seen mottling, something I would never imagine as "a bunch of UFOs in the sky."

 

[MattKing]

If you know this, shouldn't Ilford? Why wouldn't they recommend these simple measures to avoid backing paper issues? I think the problem is more complicated than that.

Harman actually does know this, and recommends this sort of handling of film.
Unfortunately, in the real world, most people aren't able to always keep and handle film this way. And of course, the distribution system for film is no longer temperature controlled.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Depends where you live, and who you shop from. Many shipments are now by air and fast. Even the local camera store kept color film refrigerated until that unit finally broke down, and they couldn't afford to replace it during strained finances of these pandemic years. But this is a very temperate coastal climate anyway, with few hot days. And they can no longer afford to buy large batches of film at a time, so I simply check the expiration date when buying film locally.

It's not like my childhood years, when I ran a mile barefoot on summer days routinely over 105F, seeking to relieve my burning feet in the shade of a few trees. Then I picked up some film for my mom's box Brownie at the tiny country store, along with an ice cream bar for myself, which had to be eaten fast before it entirely melted. That old Kodak Gold film was cleverly engineered to look just as miserable fresh as when sold off a shelf in that hot climate where it had already sat for the past two years. Pro color films like my brother used were sold elsewhere, in big cities, and were always refrigerated. Kodachrome, remarkably, didn't seem to shift much at all.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Have you experienced this problem with Ilford film? I have only seen mottling, something I would never imagine as "a bunch of UFOs in the sky."

Yes, I've had some HP5+ that had Mottling. One roll, which was slightly older, had a bad case of it. These were bought from a store and not online, which I prefer. I'm sure Ilford will get this figured out .

 

[Pieter12]

Harman actually does know this, and recommends this sort of handling of film.
Unfortunately, in the real world, most people aren't able to always keep and handle film this way. And of course, the distribution system for film is no longer temperature controlled.

Here is what the PAN F (one of the films most affected by the backing paper mottling issue) technical sheet says:

STORAGE
Store PAN F Plus in a cool (10–20°C/50-68°F), dry place in its original packaging.
Exposed film
Once exposed, process PAN F Plus as soon as practical – ideally within 3 months. Exposed films should always be stored in cool, dry conditions - as recommended above.

Nothing about freezing (actually the temperature range is well above freezing), nothing about humidity--except a "dry" place, a 3-month window to process, not necessarily immediately.

 

[pentaxuser]

It's not like my childhood years, when I ran a mile barefoot on summer days routinely over 105F, seeking to relieve my burning feet in the shade of a few trees. Then I picked up some film for my mom's box Brownie at the tiny country store, along with an ice cream bar for myself, which had to be eaten fast before it entirely melted.

So you have you seen the 4 Yorkshire men sketch from Monty Python, Drew?

 

[DREW WILEY]

No. Matter of fact, I grew up without TV, and the only working phone around was in that tiny store - a little mahogany box on the wall with a crank handle, which reached a switchboard operator in an entirely different county, with a huge uninhabited canyon in between.

 

[MattKing]

Here is what the PAN F (one of the films most affected by the backing paper mottling issue) technical sheet says:

STORAGE
Store PAN F Plus in a cool (10–20°C/50-68°F), dry place in its original packaging.
Exposed film
Once exposed, process PAN F Plus as soon as practical – ideally within 3 months. Exposed films should always be stored in cool, dry conditions - as recommended above.

Nothing about freezing (actually the temperature range is well above freezing), nothing about humidity--except a "dry" place, a 3-month window to process, not necessarily immediately.

Also from the Harman/Ilford website FAQs:
"WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS CAN YOU GIVE FOR PAPER/FILM /CHEMISTRY STORAGE - INCLUDING FREEZING & DEFROSTING?
Avoid keeping our products stored in warm, humid conditions. We expect paper to last for up to three years after purchasing depending on storage conditions and liquid chemistry for around two years.

It is possible to extend product life by keeping them cool and dry. Never freeze liquid chemicals, there are ingredients that will come out of solution and some may never re-dissolve.

Paper and film may either be refrigerated or frozen but should first be sealed in plastic bags for protection. Products should be allowed to return to room temperature before opening otherwise condensation will cause damage. Avoid repeated thawing and freezing of films."

 

[Sirius Glass]

Still too little real estate. I have a friend with Zeiss optics for his 6X6, and they truly are remarkable for his proclivity to wide-angle shots. I'm more a long perspective guy, and the P67 excels in that arena, but has excellent normals and WA's too, at the fraction of the price Hassie demands. But more and more, my go-to gear for quickie work is the Fuji 6X9 RF, which will certain factor more and more into any backpacking plans going forward, since my methodology nickname is no longer Jerry Rigg, but Jerry Atric.

We are all becoming friends with Jerry Atric.

 

[Pieter12]

Depends where you live, and who you shop from. Many shipments are now by air and fast. Even the local camera store kept color film refrigerated until that unit finally broke down, and they couldn't afford to replace it during strained finances of these pandemic years. But this is a very temperate coastal climate anyway, with few hot days. And they can no longer afford to buy large batches of film at a time, so I simply check the expiration date when buying film locally.

It's not like my childhood years, when I ran a mile barefoot on summer days routinely over 105F, seeking to relieve my burning feet in the shade of a few trees. Then I picked up some film for my mom's box Brownie at the tiny country store, along with an ice cream bar for myself, which had to be eaten fast before it entirely melted. That old Kodak Gold film was cleverly engineered to look just as miserable fresh as when sold off a shelf in that hot climate where it had already sat for the past two years. Pro color films like my brother used were sold elsewhere, in big cities, and were always refrigerated. Kodachrome, remarkably, didn't seem to shift much at all.

All the camera stores I have ever been to kept color and black and white film in the equivalent of a floral refrigerator. Nothing frozen, nothing even remotely cold--just cool.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Floral coolers? - better than nothing. I'm not very worried about 120 film, since it gets used relatively quickly. It's more the expensive sheet stuff, especially 8x10 color film, which I have found necessary to buy in volume when the price is right, and keep religiously frozen prior to use. Slower speed black and white films seem to do just fine 20 years or more post-date on the shelf, at least in my own storage conditions here, with its moderate cool weather most of the year. But unopened boxes of b&w I store in the freezer just like unopened color film. And I certainly don't ever keep film or paper in the same damp sink room where the processing is done! That would just be looking for trouble, even though it's a very common bad habit.

 

[redbandit]

To each his own. I have seen some marvelous 34x40 prints made from 35mm negatives, high speed film at that. The enormous grain enhanced the feeling of spontaneity and powerful action of the images. Something else to factor in is that most LF is shot on a tripod, MF not as much. MF really can look much better when shot on a tripod with a great lens. It can rival LF, especially if the LF lens is not up to snuff.

If you utilize the proper viewing distance, it works GREAT.... just like the 120 format shots that make your typical highway bill board signs. 1/4 mile away, pure joy. 20 feet away, you think you have cataracts.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Floral coolers? - better than nothing. I'm not very worried about 120 film, since it gets used relatively quickly. It's more the expensive sheet stuff, especially 8x10 color film, which I have found necessary to buy in volume when the price is right, and keep religiously frozen prior to use. Slower speed black and white films seem to do just fine 20 years or more post-date on the shelf, at least in my own storage conditions here, with its moderate cool weather most of the year. But unopened boxes of b&w I store in the freezer just like unopened color film. And I certainly don't ever keep film or paper in the same damp sink room where the processing is done! That would just be looking for trouble, even though it's a very common bad habit.

+1 I have been using the freezer for all films since 2007 and never had a problem.

 

[Pieter12]

Floral coolers? - better than nothing. I'm not very worried about 120 film, since it gets used relatively quickly. It's more the expensive sheet stuff, especially 8x10 color film, which I have found necessary to buy in volume when the price is right, and keep religiously frozen prior to use. Slower speed black and white films seem to do just fine 20 years or more post-date on the shelf, at least in my own storage conditions here, with its moderate cool weather most of the year. But unopened boxes of b&w I store in the freezer just like unopened color film. And I certainly don't ever keep film or paper in the same damp sink room where the processing is done! That would just be looking for trouble, even though it's a very common bad habit.

These were all camera stores catering to pros who bought quite a lot of film. Even today, when I go to a camera store to buy film, it comes out of the “cooler” and it is not cold to the touch, just cool. I cannot think of a store that keeps film very cold, much less frozen.

 

[John Wiegerink]

These were all camera stores catering to pros who bought quite a lot of film. Even today, when I go to a camera store to buy film, it comes out of the “cooler” and it is not cold to the touch, just cool. I cannot think of a store that keeps film very cold, much less frozen.

I live near the 2nd largest city in the state of Michigan, and we only have two camera stores that I would call professional photo stores. The largest has no cooler at all, and the film just sits on a shelf. The other store has a cooler, but never has a good stock of films. Pretty sad to say the least. That's why I usually buy online from Freestyle, B&H or Adorama. Hopefully they handle it better and sell more for a faster turnover, but who knows for sure.

 

[RJ-]

Thank you for your kind thoughts Momus.

Back then it was exasperating - roll after mottled negative roll from a complete batch of Ilford emulsion.

At the time, Ilford had restructured after their initial collapse before becoming a smaller Ilford Harmon outfit. The higher quality control and consistent Fuji Acros (the original) remained dependable. Ilford could have released a limited edition Lomography mottled special batch of the Pan F+

 

[John Wiegerink]

6 years ago I had the experience of Ilford mottling across a batch of 20 films (in the Ilford Pan F+). Perhaps it's a little disappointing to hear this problem with the emulsion backing paper adhesion and humidity transfer still not ironed out.

This kind of parasitic infection of the image turns film photography on its head. Why not make use of the mottling?

Imaged on mottled Pan F+, printed and selenium toned in Oriental Seagull FB paper, this is a photograph of French Elm under parasitic invasion.

I agree with momus that your image is really nice, but it's not a look that I'm after in much of my photography. Of course, it is a way to salvage one's hard work.

 

[KGH]

Tanks for pointing out this problem and the explanations given. I had the same problem with several FP4 films in 2017 when shooting in Monument Valley (https://kghinzen.de/gallery/monument-valley/). I had suspected that it was due x-raying at the airport. Now I know better...