Uh oh!!! another 120 film with possible backing paper issues and its not kodak

[Trask]

I've had a similar problem with Rollei Superpan 200 -- perhaps the same manufacturer (confectioned by Rollei)? 120 in a Rolleiflex; the film was purchased in the plastic film tube and IIRC the film was in foil inside. Nonetheless, the film/backing paper interacted in some manner to cause the short of trash you see in the sample photo. Trash did not appear on all 12 frames, but of course just once is disheartening. When I hold the backing paper properly to reflect light off the black side, I can see matching spots on the paper, so clearly something was going on. In my case, the defects come up white, not black, and I'm willing to believe that moisture somehow caused this. One question: are films packed in a nitrogen atmosphere or something similar, or is the air inside the sealed film packet the same air that the workers in the plant are breathing, humidity and all?

 

[Photo Engineer]

The OP problem is black circular defects but those above are fuzzy white defects. The latter are classic paper adhesion problems due to moisture or defective paper. The jury on the first post is still out IMHO.

PE

 

[Klaus_H]

IMHO this issue is typical for R80S, R400S, SP200 in the 120 format. In 135 format it is rare. The R400S, the SP200 and the Infrared 400 are converted from the same masterrolls, produced by AGFA as Aviphot 200. The R400S and the SP200 (and R80S) are converted by an east european company and Infrared 400 by a brtish company. I never had the black dots on IR 400, but I had them on the other films. The 135 format of R80S, R400S and SP200 is of a much better quality. But the 135 IR400 is of a superior quality.

Klaus

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

What do you mean by 'converted'? Those companies somehow modify the emulsion of a film that's already coated??

 

[Klaus_H]

With converting I mean cutting from the masterroll to 120 or 135 format and packing the film on spools and cannisters.

 

[railwayman3]

What do you mean by 'converted'? Those companies somehow modify the emulsion of a film that's already coated??

It's a term from the paper industry (and probably other industries) for taking the "raw" product (in this case the basic paper) and making it into another finished product, such as cut sheets, rolls, and even books, e.g. http://www.brdisolutions.com/what-is-the-paper-converting-industry.

"Confectioning" is a similar term sometimes used in this Forum for the whole process of cutting and packing the master rolls into finished films ready for use.

 

[destroya]

IMHO this issue is typical for R80S, R400S, SP200 in the 120 format. In 135 format it is rare. The R400S, the SP200 and the Infrared 400 are converted from the same masterrolls, produced by AGFA as Aviphot 200. The R400S and the SP200 (and R80S) are converted by an east european company and Infrared 400 by a brtish company. I never had the black dots on IR 400, but I had them on the other films. The 135 format of R80S, R400S and SP200 is of a much better quality. But the 135 IR400 is of a superior quality.

Klaus

im not so sure. Ive shot hundreds of rolls of the 200/400 and 80 rolls both in 35mm and 120 and never had any of these issues. hopefully its a one off event and going forward its not an issue. funny, maco refunded and replaced every other person so far who had the issue but told me sorry, your out of luck. sucks to be first to report a problem. -(

 

[Photo Engineer]

European film and paper manufacturers often call slitting, chopping and packaging, "confectioning".

PE

 

[Klaus_H]

im not so sure. Ive shot hundreds of rolls of the 200/400 and 80 rolls both in 35mm and 120 and never had any of these issues. hopefully its a one off event and going forward its not an issue. funny, maco refunded and replaced every other person so far who had the issue but told me sorry, your out of luck. sucks to be first to report a problem. -(

I shot some hundreds of SP200, R400S and abot 100 of R80S in 135 too without "real" issues. But in 120 format I did have a lot of trubles (maco refunded and recommended IR400 to avoid the issues). For the IR400 is more expensive than the other films I buy 5 rolls of R400S every 6 month an do some test. The results show the IR400 is of a superior quality. I still hope the quality of R400S, SP200 unsd R80 in 120 format will increase.

Klaus

 

[Ashfaque]

I've been using Retro 80S (35mm) with Rodinal for a while. Really liked the results. But then I saw John's RR80S work with Beutler (at full speed), which is way better than most I've seen. I hope this problem (largely) with RR80S 120 film, will be sorted very soon because I'd love to order some in July/August. The price in DE is just too good to avoid. Please keep us posted, John.

Bests,
Ashfaque

 

[Trask]

I shot some hundreds of SP200, R400S and abot 100 of R80S in 135 too without "real" issues. But in 120 format I did have a lot of trubles (maco refunded and recommended IR400 to avoid the issues). For the IR400 is more expensive than the other films I buy 5 rolls of R400S every 6 month an do some test. The results show the IR400 is of a superior quality. I still hope the quality of R400S, SP200 unsd R80 in 120 format will increase.

Klaus

So would I understand correctly that SP200, R400S and IR400 are in fact the same emulsion? If so, I wouldn't mind paying a bit extra for IR400 if I can avoid these issues.

 

[Klaus_H]

The films are cut from the same masterrolls. In 120 format I buy the more expensive IR400 for I can trust this film like the films made by Fuji, Ilford and Kodak.
Liftetime is too short to work with inferior material.

 

[kingbuzzie]

Superpan 200, is this moisture damage or an emulsion problem?

 

[Photo Engineer]

It could be either. Generally, moisture damage this bad will also appear as spots on the paper itself, and can cause the paper to stick to the film.

PE

 

[kingbuzzie]

No spots on the paper, and there was no problem loading it on the reel. I think the last problem I had with 120 film was superpan from this same batch. I've got 4 rolls left, what a waste. It expired at the beginning of the year, so returning it isn't an option I guess.

 

[Ces1um]

Could it be some form of reticulation in the negative?

 

[kingbuzzie]

Maybe? I used room temp distilled water and room temp fix, but I did stop and wash with faucet water.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I agree with PE. It looks (to me) like damp film against paper/ink texture.

 

[SalveSlog]

I've had the same spots on Superpan 200 in 120 format. It was not stored differently from my other films which have never been like this. My storage is cool and dry. Wrote to macodirect. No answer. I'm byuing no more of this film.

 

[kingbuzzie]

I've had the same spots on Superpan 200 in 120 format. It was not stored differently from my other films which have never been like this. My storage is cool and dry. Wrote to macodirect. No answer. I'm byuing no more of this film.

After sending three emails to maco, they finally responded asking for development times / dilutions. I used two very different developers with the same result and I've only had a problem with this film (well some shanghai 100 had done this). I am interested to see what they have to say.

*edit*
They are replacing the rolls. It still ruined important family shots, but at least no wasted money.

 

[europanorama]

I had this issue a few weeks ago with brand new Rollie retro 80S film. this is the new batch in the cardboard boxes, not the older plastic cigar style holders (which I really like). I sent this scan off to someone who knows the rollei films very well and asked his opinion. He replied "this does not look good, it looks like a backing paper issues" I trust his opinion and sent off an email to maco. I got the typical response fomr them, that it is my process that is at fault and im wrong. I even developed three different rolls of film at the same time with the RR80s, two of acros and now one tmax 100 and none of them had issues. also then did 3 more rolls, three different developers all with brand new one shot fixer and the entire process with distilled water. same issues. I had bought a bulk roll of RR80s in 35mm at the same time i bought the 120 rolls. So I rolled up a few rolls of the 35mm and had no issues at all with them. I wanted to keep this quiet until I knew it was something that i did or didn't do as I didn't want to point a findger at someone who did nothing. After getting blown off by maco I posted the shot in the flickr RR80s group and within a week got 4 others who had the exact same issue. anyway here is what I posted on flickr......

not sure whats going on here. the grey sky has black dots all over. it is on every frame of the three rolls I shot. used the same camera for many other rolls and none had the issues. I then developed the last roll along with a roll of acros to see if its the developer but the acros was great and RR80 had the dots all over clear grey sections, like skies. and YES it is on the negatives as I used a high power loop to view and they are there, along with using a macro lens to to take a digital shot and zoomed in a lot. this is on the brand new batch i bough about a month ago, exp date 9/18. i have more rolls along with bulk rolls and im afraid the use them. sent an email to maco, but based on their past behavior, I really dont expect them to answer.

And here was Maco's reply to my email

"
Hello John,

Thanks for your inquiry.

I have discussed it with our specialist in the lab and from our point of view we are thinking that it is not a converting issue.
We can see these kinds of micro-grains, white on the negative, especially in the more middle homogeneous shades of grey.
It seems that there happened a creation of air bubbles or air pockets which were not shaked of the emulsion after filling the tank.
We have the "problem" that PET films with some developers provokes a kind of sparkling effect (similar to a fizzy tablet). A pre-washing could help as well as a strict pitching of the tank on the table (perfect before every tilting).

We have neither changed the film emulsion nor the converter. Ilford is converting for us the Retro 80S 35mm, not site 120. The only changing were the backing paper from a black one to a white/green one.
And now we are using triplex foil and a carton instead of our plastic rollfilm container. We are still selling this batch."

So if Im not the only one with this issue, and there is only one company left, if I remember reading correctly that makes the backing paper, and Kodak has an issue are we in trouble? I was particularly interested in the quote that we changed the backing paper, in a similar way to kodak changing theirs. dont want to cause concern but Im feeling like there is a reason to worry. I re scanned the neg, same issue. Used 3 different loops, same issue. printed the photo with 3 different enlargers, same issue.

Anyway thoughts?

john

Contamination.shouldnt be difficult finding out.

 

[europanorama]

Where are the people having the problem, living?
Would be interesting to see if films from the bad batch could be used by people on other continent. I am in europe-switzerland nearby Germany/France. We have old nuclear plant at 40km which must be shut down soon.
I have a lot of very old film(25 years old over expery-date) in freezer also undevelopped ones(colornegatives, some with some without paper(70mm).would be very interesting to see if numbers are burnt-in.

 

[europanorama]

IMHO this issue is typical for R80S, R400S, SP200 in the 120 format. In 135 format it is rare. The R400S, the SP200 and the Infrared 400 are converted from the same masterrolls, produced by AGFA as Aviphot 200. The R400S and the SP200 (and R80S) are converted by an east european company and Infrared 400 by a brtish company. I never had the black dots on IR 400, but I had them on the other films. The 135 format of R80S, R400S and SP200 is of a much better quality. But the 135 IR400 is of a superior quality.

Klaus

I still have aviphot Pan 200 and 200S but 70mm. I also have a PEO, very thin 0. 06mm.very old. at least 20 years. Directly from Mortsel fabrication. if you could send me some of the involved paper i could cut down to 61.5m and testing/developping. but i will only reactivate my lab in 2019. i will get a pinhole-cam with 70mm back which has 120-option. Mamiya RB67/70 vaccum-back converted by vermeer(cameras). i could then expose the very same batch in the same cam with and without paper. i could also expose 61.5mm film with no paper or with 120 or 220lenght or whatever lenght in Roundshot. there will be a solution to mount longroll 61.5mm film in 70mm Kodak cartridges as a start. Linof may follow. not for all 70mm backs.

 

[AgX]

Superpan 200, is this moisture damage or an emulsion problem?

Concerning the emulsion we should not forget that all films mentioned here were not only coated by a manufacturer of highest rank but also designed and produced for non-consumer use. All of them were used for military reconnaissance.

Furthermore the reports only refer to the type 120 conversion, the artefact was not seen on 35mm conversions.



(When selling true masterrolls, the control of the manufacturer is reduced to non-destructive testing of the film and start- and end-pieces, maybe edge-pieces too.)

 

[europanorama]

would be interesting to know fabrication date. and travelling history.