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

[DREW WILEY]

Yep, back when a few batches of Kodak 120 with backing paper issues got sold before that problem was known, everyone was screaming they'd never buy anything from Kodak again. Now it's Ilford's turn apparently. And Fuji barely makes b&w film at all anyone. Might sound out of tune with the rest of the orchestra, but I've never gotten a bad roll of 120 from any of them. I did have issues with the last batch of Ekfe R25, before they closed for good due to maintenance issues, but not prior to that.

So, other than a little Fuji 120 Acros still available, and a few other options offering private-label Harman made film, you've got exactly two significant parties to choose between, both blindfolded in front of the firing squad. Shoot one first, or both at the same time? Might as put a bullet hole through you're own Hasselblad or whatever; it's useless without film.

 

[Craig]

Might sound out of tune with the rest of the orchestra, but I've never gotten a bad roll of 120 from any of them.

Me too, I have never had a bad roll from Ilford or Fuji ( I haven't used Kodak in 120 in a long time), either from in date or expired film.

 

[removedacct1]

The only mottling and/or number transfer issues I've had with 120 rolls in the past five years have been on film that I'd allowed to age past its "best before" date. I'm talking about Kodak TMY, Ilford Delta 100 and 400, and Bergger Pancro 400. But in the past five years I have not observed these issues on film that was exposed and developed before its expiry date. Make of this what you will.

 

[relistan]

Yep, back when a few batches of Kodak 120 with backing paper issues got sold before that problem was known, everyone was screaming they'd never buy anything from Kodak again. Now it's Ilford's turn apparently. And Fuji barely makes b&w film at all anyone. Might sound out of tune with the rest of the orchestra, but I've never gotten a bad roll of 120 from any of them. I did have issues with the last batch of Ekfe R25, before they closed for good due to maintenance issues, but not prior to that.

So, other than a little Fuji 120 Acros still available, and a few other options offering private-label Harman made film, you've got exactly two significant parties to choose between, both blindfolded in front of the firing squad. Shoot one first, or both at the same time? Might as put a bullet hole through you're own Hasselblad or whatever; it's useless without film.

You've just been lucky. I've had bad rolls from both. But I'm not screaming about it. Kodak actually replaced my bad roll with a 5-pack, so while I lost some really good photos, I can't complain about their response. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that Ilford makes the Fuji Acros II as well.

Issue I had with Kodak: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/what-caused-this-failure.178801/#post-2332762
Issue with Ilford: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ople-seen-affected.188878/page-5#post-2624277

We need to cut them all some slack and get on with it as you say.

 

[haliderollei]

People, I've developed some Agfa film that I shot over 30 years ago that was laying in a drawer, 120 film, it came out with 0 flaws (yes base fog, ofcourse). Please let's not be fooled with the stupidity that's happening now. In the same drawer I've developed mottled 120 Ilford film, that was only a few months old. I've escalated the situation to Pemberstone group by personally emailing their CEO. This has to stop; too many good shots have been ruined!

 

[John Wiegerink]

People, I've developed some Agfa film that I shot over 30 years ago that was laying in a drawer, 120 film, it came out with 0 flaws (yes base fog, ofcourse). Please let's not be fooled with the stupidity that's happening now. In the same drawer I've developed mottled 120 Ilford film, that was only a few months old. I've escalated the situation to Pemberstone group by personally emailing their CEO. This has to stop; too many good shots have been ruined!

This is what I have been harping about all along. We never had this problem years back, and if we did, I certainly never heard about it. There were thousands of rolls more shot back then per week compared to now, so I'm sure I would have heard something.
This is to Drew, I don't want to put anybody in front of a firing squad, but Harman, Kodak and the rest are the only ones that can put pressure on the backing papermaker to straighten this out. I'm sure you wouldn't say a word if you started seeing big half moon circles in the middle of each one of your precious negatives after you develop them.

 

[Pieter12]

This is what I have been harping about all along. We never had this problem years back, and if we did, I certainly never heard about it. There were thousands of rolls more shot back then per week compared to now, so I'm sure I would have heard something.
This is to Drew, I don't want to put anybody in front of a firing squad, but Harman, Kodak and the rest are the only ones that can put pressure on the backing papermaker to straighten this out. I'm sure you wouldn't say a word if you started seeing big half moon circles in the middle of each one of your precious negatives after you develop them.

Were any of the films now affected even being produced years ago? Were the backing papers identical? The problem may be a combinations of factors. We don’t have all the facts and the manufacturers certainly would love to solve this problem as much as the consumers would like to have it disappear.

 

[removedacct1]

People, I've developed some Agfa film that I shot over 30 years ago that was laying in a drawer, 120 film, it came out with 0 flaws (yes base fog, ofcourse). Please let's not be fooled with the stupidity that's happening now. In the same drawer I've developed mottled 120 Ilford film, that was only a few months old. I've escalated the situation to Pemberstone group by personally emailing their CEO. This has to stop; too many good shots have been ruined!

Gotta love it when people think its reasonable to make such comparisons! "It worked 40 years ago so why can't it work NOW?!" Yes, that's right; nothing changes, and nothing ever will. Supply chains and materials availability will ALWAYS stay the same! Add some entitlement FTW!

If working with 120 fomat film is so damn painful for you, then why not switch to 4x5 or 35mm?? Surely all of this pain can't be good for your creativity.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Gotta love it when people think its reasonable to make such comparisons! "It worked 40 years ago so why can't it work NOW?!" Yes, that's right; nothing changes, and nothing ever will. Supply chains and materials availability will ALWAYS stay the same! Add some entitlement FTW!

If working with 120 fomat film is so damn painful for you, then why not switch to 4x5 or 35mm?? Surely all of this pain can't be good for your creativity.

30+ years was haliderollei's comment and not mine. HP5+ was produced prior to the big wave into digital, which is fairly recent and I never had a problem with mottling back then. Likewise, my time spent in Southeast Asia in the late 60's using Kodak films showed no mottling then either. It wasn't until it looked like film was going the way of the dinosaur that the real bleeding/mottling started. My guess was that the bean counters at then Kodak/Ilford or the backing paper company thought it would be smart/cheaper to find a different paper/ink. All I'm saying is if you're having issues with something new, then go back to what was working before. Also, folks wouldn't be so upset if these companies were “straight forward” with folks as to what the issue is or possibly could be. If these manufactures would at least say something like, "we suspect that the problem area is" people would at least have an idea that they were seriously looking into it. Instead, it makes them look like a bunch of dumb bunnies stumbling around in the dark. Or worse yet, that they don't really care.

​

 

[DREW WILEY]

If they're such dumb incompetent bunnies, why not just go into the film business yourself and prove how easy all this is? Supply chains are a very serious issue to any manufacturer, are especially crippled right now with respect to all kinds of industries, and film isn't exactly at a top priority except for a niche market and its own few suppliers. I'm sure every venture capitalist out there will be rushing to your front door offering you a billion dollars to start up your own idea of a flawless infallible film business which has smoothed over every conceivable chuckhole in the road in advance.

Go back?????? So now you've invented a time machine too? If so, maybe stopping a World War or two would be effort better spent than reviving some discontinued old film.

 

[removedacct1]

Also, folks wouldn't be so upset if these companies were “straight forward” with folks as to what the issue is or possibly could be. If these manufactures would at least say something like, "we suspect that the problem area is" people would at least have an idea that they were seriously looking into it. Instead, it makes them look like a bunch of dumb bunnies stumbling around in the dark. Or worse yet, that they don't really care.

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.

 

[Craig]

All I'm saying is if you're having issues with something new, then go back to what was working before.

Part of the problem Kodak had was the old style solvent based printing inks were banned due to the various toxic substances they contained, so "going back" isn't an option.

 

[AnselMortensen]

The printing industry took a steep nosedive when desktop publishing became to new normal.
Soy-based inks were brought in to replace high VOC inks.
Fallout from the 'digital revolution' and environmental protection.
And so it goes.

 

[Pieter12]

The printing industry took a steep nosedive when desktop publishing became to new normal.
Soy-based inks were brought in to replace high VOC inks.
Fallout from the 'digital revolution' and environmental protection.
And so it goes.

Desktop publishing pretty much killed small, instant-print shops and typesetting houses. Larger printers cut back more because of the internet. Catalogs, brochures (like for cars, not the local upholstery shop), annual reports--so much went online. Printers turned to digital presses for smaller quantity runs and on-demand printing.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Craig, people are having a terrible time right now simply acquiring the right kinds of plywood necessary to build and repair homes, getting necessary auto parts, etc. You can't just "go back" to massive uncut domestic forests and instant manned giant lumber mills and processing plants using formaldehyde glues now banned in this country. Industries involve complex scales of efficiency and specific supply trains.

 

[Henning Serger]

I haven't heard of CatLabs backing paper problems, but there is a lot less of that out there.

CatLabs 320 Pro 120 is confectioned / converted by Harman technologies. With their same backing paper.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

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

The Arista line is rebranded Foma.
And the Rollei IR 120 is confectioned / converted by Harman technologies. With their same backing paper.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Pieter12]

CatLabs 320 Pro 120 is confectioned / converted by Harman technologies. With their same backing paper.

Best regards,
Henning

I have only used CatLabs 80 120. The backing paper seemed to come out of the trash bin. And the taping was a bit sloppy, too. Film seems fine, I didn't like the base (polyester, maybe?). Its flexibility made it a bit hard to handle while loading the reel, kind of wanting to droop down instead of staying put coiled in my hand.

 

[Henning Serger]

Since there's probably now only one manufacturer of backing paper.......

That has been posted here on photrio again and again by several members.
At all: Please stop it!!
Because it is not true!
It has not been true in the past, and it is not true today either.

Just look at the backing paper of Ilford, Kodak, Fujifilm (color, as Acros II is converted by Harman) and Foma: All very different with different solutions.

I don't know who has created that myth. Maybe it came up some years ago when one major supplier for the European 120 film manufacturers (a German company) exit the market (was around the time of the market bottom).
But the technology and know-how of that company was not lost, but sold to former customers = film manufacturers.

Fingers crossed, I've never had any problems in that regard so far. Not with Ilford, Fujifilm, Kodak, Foma or ADOX.
Also not recently with Ilford rollfilm.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

I have only used CatLabs 80 120. The backing paper seemed to come out of the trash bin.

That was probably converted by Shanghai, at least that was the test result I've heard from trustworthy users. I've so far not used CatLabs 80, but the 320 Pro.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Pieter12]

But the technology and know-how of that company was not lost, but sold to former customers = film manufacturers.

Are you saying the film manufacturers are making their own backing paper or have they passed/licensed the technology to their suppliers?

 

[Henning Serger]

Are you saying the film manufacturers are making their own backing paper or have they passed/licensed the technology to their suppliers?

I cannot go into detail because of NDA.
With backing paper you have the paper base, the ink and printing, and the tape.
The paper base is generally made by special paper manufacturers (due to personal connections I have a bit of an insight to that).
But that was not made by the mentioned closed company itself, they got it by a supplier (paper manufacturer).
The knowledge is mainly in the specifications for the materials, and especially the ink (very critical).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[rcphoto]

Yep, back when a few batches of Kodak 120 with backing paper issues got sold before that problem was known, everyone was screaming they'd never buy anything from Kodak again. Now it's Ilford's turn apparently. And Fuji barely makes b&w film at all anyone. Might sound out of tune with the rest of the orchestra, but I've never gotten a bad roll of 120 from any of them. I did have issues with the last batch of Ekfe R25, before they closed for good due to maintenance issues, but not prior to that.

This was my thought. I've bought an unknown amount of ilford and kodak 120 films and probably sold double that without this issue.

 

[MattKing]

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.
Yes, it was Eastman Kodak who was the source for the "single supplier" information. I might surmise that may also be related to the fact that they needed it for more types of film than others, as well as their particular access to suppliers, in contrast to the access that their competitors enjoy. Ilford/Harman also essentially confirmed the "single source" information here on APUG.
The problem isn't with the backing paper. It isn't with the ink. It isn't with the film. It isn't with the environmental factors. It isn't with the changes in retail and distribution.
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.
And as for the comment above about HP5+ being available back before the problems increased, that doesn't reflect the reality that all films have changed regularly and frequently over the years - because the availability of ingredients and components has changed, the equipment and techniques to manufacture them have changed and things like spools and backing paper and packaging has changed. The changes are/were usually small and incremental, and the manufacturers are/were usually capable of designing and engineering around them in order to continue to produce product that performs consistently for photographers.
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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

...
The problem isn't with the backing paper. It isn't with the ink. It isn't with the film. It isn't with the environmental factors. It isn't with the changes in retail and distribution.
...

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