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

[ooze]

New statement from Ilford: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/updated-120-roll-film-statement/

 

[AgX]

Thank you.

The most interesting thing in this statement is that by no word is hinted at the paper.


(Or we got some Ilford-internal terminology here, I found so far one hint in this direction.)

 

[miha]

Hi AgX,

I'm sorry but sometimes your writing is so cryptic that it borders unintelligible, at least to me

 

[AgX]

Is that so? I was not aware of this. I thought I am wording depending on adressees. And this here certainly is not a beginners' issue.


Well, so far we discussed paper/emulsion interference as the culprit. And there was indication to this being rightfully.
Now in this statement paper is not even mentioned...

But in my archive I found one hint at Harman using the term "wrapper" (used in this new statement) for the backing paper and not for the packaging hull of a complete rolll-film spool as usual). In case I find back the original document I shall report back.

 

[miha]

They mention the paper: And, unlike 35mm film it needs a paper backing which can ‘transact’ with the film if not properly cared for.

 

[markbau]

Just in case anyone thinks this is/was an Ilford only problem, this was from a roll of TX that was a few years out of date. This film may have been through an airport machine, I don't know if that would cause this.

 

[AgX]

They mention the paper: And, unlike 35mm film it needs a paper backing which can ‘transact’ with the film if not properly cared for.

I see, in the last but one sentence of a long statemnent.

In the part depicting what changes Harman made there is no mention of the paper.


markbau, the transfer of the backing paper print image to the photographic image is well known at Apug, and discussed in detail. But it should be differenciated from a paper/emulsion interaction, though the issue is complex.

 

[AgX]

Interesting too is that Harman admit that it is a new problem.

At Apug we have discussed if a matter that in the long past by leading manufacturers was described as only coming into existence at utmost extreme storage conditions, and not even mentined in magazines etc. now has been become a problem sheer to more awareness and communication in times of internet.

 

[radiant]

Damn. I have plenty of 120 HP5+

So I contact them and they will send me replacement?

 

[markbau]

I see, in the last but one sentence of a long statemnent.

In the part depicting what changes Harman made there is no mention of the paper.


markbau, the transfer of the backing paper print image to the photographic image is well known at Apug, and discussed in detail. But it should be differenciated from a paper/emulsion interaction, though the issue is complex.

I know it has been discussed for a while but I never took much interest in it until it happened to me. I don't understand what you mean when you say there is a difference between "the transfer of the backing paper print image to the photographic image" and "paper/emulsion interaction," Either way you end up with an unusable neg. I've been using 120 film for about 35 years and only relatively recently have I become aware of this problem. I only posted what I did as it was starting to look like a "let's bash Ilford" thread. I just binned about 10 rolls of TX, hopefully the fresh rolls of FP4 will not have this problem.

 

[markbau]

Damn. I have plenty of 120 HP5+

So I contact them and they will send me replacement?

Does your HP5 have the problem? Shoot a roll and see.

 

[AgX]

I know it has been discussed for a while but I never took much interest in it until it happened to me. I don't understand what you mean when you say there is a difference between "the transfer of the backing paper print image to the photographic image" and "paper/emulsion interaction," Either way you end up with an unusable neg.

Yes, spoiled is spoiled...
But some of us engineering guys like to banter about artefacts and their causes. And then mottling of and the transfer of figures and words into a film image may have very different causes, or different causes but triggered by same circumstances.Thus for us differenciating is of importance.

Just read over it and just keep in mind that Harman believe to have coped with their issue with the films now leaving the factory.

 

[radiant]

Does your HP5 have the problem? Shoot a roll and see.

Waste hours of time photographing roll and finding out I have that problem?

Shoot all films with test photos and find out how many have the problem and get replacement for those that do not have the problem?

Shoot one from a batch and trust that the rest do not have this problem?

 

[Pieter12]

Damn. I have plenty of 120 HP5+

So I contact them and they will send me replacement?

They state pretty clearly that they will not replace unused film because they cannot know how it was stored.

I have found the problem to occur only with my Hasselblad SWC, which gets infrequent use and often has film in it for several months before being all shot and processed. Maybe something with how the materials used by Hasselblad might promote the conditions that cause the mottling?

 

[markbau]

Waste hours of time photographing roll and finding out I have that problem?

Shoot all films with test photos and find out how many have the problem and get replacement for those that do not have the problem?

Shoot one from a batch and trust that the rest do not have this problem?

So what are you proposing? Return the film to Ilford because it "might" have a problem? If you shoot a roll with some smooth, even midtones you will see if your film has a problem. If I was Ilford and you sent me your film because you'd read on Photrio that it might have a problem I would reply "Is there a problem with the film you have?"

 

[ooze]

Waste hours of time photographing roll and finding out I have that problem?

Shoot all films with test photos and find out how many have the problem and get replacement for those that do not have the problem?

Shoot one from a batch and trust that the rest do not have this problem?

The last one.

 

[mcfitz]

Damn. I have plenty of 120 HP5+

So I contact them and they will send me replacement?

no, it is not that simplistic.
When I had a roll of Delta 100 that was spoiled, I filled out the contact form at the website, which included sending scans of the negatives, showing the problem.
If the film hasn't been used, the state of it is unknown.
Expose a roll, develop and see the results.
Film is fine, you have good negatives, repeat process using other rolls.
Any film shows mottling, head to the website and follow directions on the form answering all questions.

My Delta 100 was replaced in due time, I am happy with the quality of Ilford Harman products and customer service.

 

[Joe VanCleave]

What i find interesting in their statement is in one place they say they'll replace any film proven to be defective, while the next paragraph says they cannot replace film that has left their factory!

 

[AgX]

They differ between flms that show the artefact, thus are used, and films from the production before these changes were implemented and which are not used yet and thus may show the artefact.

They thus refrain from pulling back the older films from retail.

 

[MattKing]

I read their statement as referring as much to changes in post manufacturing handling as it does to changes in manufacturing - i.e. steps taken after the film has left the factory
And unlike the upsurge of the problem with Kodak a few years ago, the problem isn't related to particular batches.

Interesting too is that Harman admit that it is a new problem.

To the contrary:

"Mottle on film, while very rare, can happen due to factors such as heat, humidity and age. Therefore there is a risk it could present itself in expired or poorly stored film, regardless of manufacturer.
The last 24 months has seen a higher than usual level of complaints which is far from acceptable to us and you, our customers."

 

[Wallendo]

Ilford's response is somewhat similar to that of Kodak 5 years ago. Much of the issue seemed to be blamed on storage after manufacture.

What I found most interesting about this statement is that slower films were most likely to affected.

 

[MattKing]

It is always due to post-manufacture factors.
The Film plus backing paper is inherently susceptible to that.
The susceptibility to the problem can be affected by changes in the film, changes in the backing paper, changes in the ink, and changes in the packaging.

 

[radiant]

Maybe I get lost in translation but I think they say that they do not want the films back :

"Unfortunately, we cannot take unused films back once they have left our factory as we have no control over how they have been stored or treated subsequently."

I think this is a strange situation.

Ilford makes public statement that they have quality issues on their film.
They will replace films with problems AFTER you have shown them you have problem with film. This they have been doing before, nothing new in here.

It is like car manufacturers "yeah, we have brake quality issues but we will do something after you hit a wall because of the brakes" ? "It is very rare thing, but it can happen!" "Have a nice ride!"

I don't understand why they publish such statements if they won't do anything about it (towards customer side)?

 

[Craig]

It is like car manufacturers "yeah, we have brake quality issues but we will do something after you hit a wall because of the brakes" ? "It is very rare thing, but it can happen!" "Have a nice ride!"

It isn't a defective batch of film that needs to be recalled, it's some films that have not been stored in accordance with recommendations and used after or near the expiry date.

To use your car analogy, it's like a car that hasn't had the brake fluid changed every two years regardless of distance, had rotors and pads worn below the minimum thickness and then experiences a failure. The car maker might give you something then, but more likely would say that you didn't follow the maintenance schedule. You do change your brake fluid every two years don't you?

 

[railwayman3]

I appreciate that it's a subject which has been done-to-death before, but does Ilford/Harman (or, for that matter, any other manfacturer) give any current recommendations on the freezing of unexposed films ? Can this affect keeping properties or results one way or the other ?