Weird Artifacts on Acros II 120 Developed in Rodinal 1+50

[Andrew O'Neill]

Freezing 120 film, in it's original, unopened wrapping is totally fine. Here's what I do when I want to shoot a roll that has been in the freezer. I take it out of the freezer before beddy-bye time, and stick it in the fridge. Come morning, I take it out of the fridge and stick it on the table. By I've taken a shower, made some brekkie, drink a good cup of coffee, and watch the news, it's good to go. That is about 1.5 hours. I've never had any issues with backing paper... knock on wood.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

A word from a curmudgeonly, nihilistic* grinch:

For many years, many decades even, I have been trying to get condensation damage on film.

As a principal, I take the film straight from the freezer, load it into the camera and immediately take pictures.

So far, nothing - nichts, nada, nihil & neits.

Film simply doesn't have enough heat capacity to cause condensation.

However, folks like performing personal rituals and it does no harm to take film out and let it gently warm. As the old 60's adage goes: "If it feels good, do it."

I haven't put naked rolls or cassettes of film in the freezer to see if I get frost damage; an experiment to look forward to.

YMMV and all that.

* Personally I find nihilism to be an overly optimistic philosophy.

 

[paddycook]

A word from a curmudgeonly, nihilistic* grinch:

For many years, many decades even, I have been trying to get condensation damage on film.

As a principal, I take the film straight from the freezer, load it into the camera and immediately take pictures.

So far, nothing - nichts, nada, nihil & neits.

Film simply doesn't have enough heat capacity to cause condensation.

However, folks like performing personal rituals and it does no harm to take film out and let it gently warm. As the old 60's adage goes: "If it feels good, do it."

I haven't put naked rolls or cassettes of film in the freezer to see if I get frost damage; an experiment to look forward to.

YMMV and all that.

* Personally I find nihilism to be an overly optimistic philosophy.

If so, then I wonder what the issue with my film was

 

[Don_ih]

If so, then I wonder what the issue with my film was

I doubt condensation on the film would do anything by itself, but in combination with backing paper.... You won't get condensation on 120 film taking it from the freezer and immediately putting it in a camera. You'd end up with a little on the outside of the spool as you load it, your hand would heat up the entire roll probably enough to keep any more from forming, and you'd definitely never get any that's in the film plane - pressed against a pressure plate that would immediately heat both paper and film to whatever temperature the camera was.

But loosely wound in the fridge....

 

[pentaxuser]

If so, then I wonder what the issue with my film was

Good question. What is clear but always has been now I look back over the years is that Photrio can always be relied on to give the widest range of answers

What seems to get the widest consensus is that 120 film in sealed foil is fine in a freezer or fridge and can be successfully thawed out

Exposed film for the same reason may attract problems if placed back in either fridge or freezer

What about the situation where there is nowhere in the house that is cool except the fridge/freezer and you cannot develop the film for several weeks or longer?

Do you risk leaving it is the coolest non sunny area in the house such as a cupboard or might it make sense to place exposed 35mm film into a 35mm film container and then into a fridge on the basis that that will stop condensation and with 120 replacing the carefully unwrapped silver foil around it or wrapping kitchen foil around it and sealing it with tape?

However if Nicholas is right and film doesn't have enough heat capacity to cause condensation then none of the
above is necessary. Then the logic of that is that you can store 120 film that has been taken out of its foil or 35mm left in its canister in a fridge or freezer both before and after exposure without worry or so it would seem

pentaxuser

 

[K-G]

This problem has been described here before ( se the link ) . It has affected Ilford and Fuji and possibly others. Ilford have been very alert when it comes to handle the problem, but Fuji has been dead quiet .
I have also experienced it on early versions of Fuji Neopan Acros II .-

Karl-Gustaf

problem-with-120-acros.203129

 

[MattKing]

Recalling posts from PE a long time ago, the cannisters that 35mm film comes in are not guaranteed to keep out moisture.
And while film has very little heat capacity, backing paper has a fair amount of moisture retention capacity.

 

[paddycook]

Good question. What is clear but always has been now I look back over the years is that Photrio can always be relied on to give the widest range of answers

What seems to get the widest consensus is that 120 film in sealed foil is fine in a freezer or fridge and can be successfully thawed out

Exposed film for the same reason may attract problems if placed back in either fridge or freezer

What about the situation where there is nowhere in the house that is cool except the fridge/freezer and you cannot develop the film for several weeks or longer?

Do you risk leaving it is the coolest non sunny area in the house such as a cupboard or might it make sense to place exposed 35mm film into a 35mm film container and then into a fridge on the basis that that will stop condensation and with 120 replacing the carefully unwrapped silver foil around it or wrapping kitchen foil around it and sealing it with tape?

However if Nicholas is right and film doesn't have enough heat capacity to cause condensation then none of the
above is necessary. Then the logic of that is that you can store 120 film that has been taken out of its foil or 35mm left in its canister in a fridge or freezer both before and after exposure without worry or so it would seem

pentaxuser

I think I'll stick to freezing and refrigerating my unexposed film but take everyone's advice here not to put exposed film back in cold storage. My film may well have had a backing paper issue too as several contributors have suggested.

 

[paddycook]

This problem has been described here before ( se the link ) . It has affected Ilford and Fuji and possibly others. Ilford have been very alert when it comes to handle the problem, but Fuji has been dead quiet .
I have also experienced it on early versions of Fuji Neopan Acros II .-

Karl-Gustaf

problem-with-120-acros.203129

Interesting. Thank you!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Heck, I've gotten condensation marks just from pulling a darkslide too soon on an especially cold humid day. Admittedly, that happened only once; but it taught me a lesson. And if I pull the camera out of a well-padded spot in my pack on a cold morning (I like to use my down jacket as padding), and don't let it acclimate outside of it, well, then, the lens and ground glass are going to be all fogged up from condensation anyway. Why would film be exempt?

The bigger risk with unsealed film of cyclic warming and cooling film in a humid environment is mold.

Those of you who like to gamble and then brag about it, well, it's your time and money, not mine! All the fllm manufacturers firmly stipulate allowing the film to gradually warm up (typically 3 hrs) before unsealing and loading the roll. There must be a valid reason.

 

[retina_restoration]

This problem has been described here before ( se the link ) . It has affected Ilford and Fuji and possibly others. Ilford have been very alert when it comes to handle the problem, but Fuji has been dead quiet .
I have also experienced it on early versions of Fuji Neopan Acros II .-

Karl-Gustaf

problem-with-120-acros.203129

Acros II is manufactured at Mobberly by Harman/Ilford.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Was there ever anything other than a first round of Acros II ? Only now are there rumors of a planned second batch. The problem was that a lot of people still had on hand a reserve of the original Acros, and were reluctant to spend 6 times as much. The newer product sold slower; and some of it is still on the shelves unsold, despite already being past date. But I haven't personally had any problems with it in the 120 size.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Was there ever anything other than a first round of Acros II ? Only now are there rumors of a planned second batch. The problem was that a lot of people still had on hand a reserve of the original Acros, and were reluctant to spend 6 times as much. The newer product sold slower; and some of it is still on the shelves unsold, despite already being past date. But I haven't personally had any problems with it in the 120 size.

They should lower the price, as simple as that.

 

[paddycook]

They should lower the price, as simple as that.

Well I won't be buying any more whatever the price.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

All the fllm manufacturers firmly stipulate allowing the film to gradually warm up (typically 3 hrs) before unsealing and loading the roll. There must be a valid reason.

Maybe the same reason that spawned the admonition about not going in the water for three hours after eating.

In the world there are more old wives' tales than truths. Teasing the two apart has always been an issue.

But none of it matters if it does little to no harm.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There are reasons Acros costs a lot more now. Fuji probably didn't want to reinvest in new coating infrastructure, and was already sidelining most of their film selection, but also wanted to respond to requests to keep Acros still alive due to its uniqueness. So they farmed out much of the process to Harman. That means Harman now gets their own piece of the pie in terms of profit; otherwise, they wouldn't do it. That also changes the distribution arrangement. Each extra step carries its own added expense and profit expectation.

Then you've got an additional variable, in that other prized films have gone up substantially too. Materials and ingredients now cost more, and people, like or not, either pay more or don't get what they want. All kinds of things have gone up in price dramatically. And Acros II is a premium film. No doubt about it. Too bad it isn't available in sheets anymore.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nicholas - I was always told it was half an hour before swimming, at least if more than a snack was involved, and the rule was enforced at school. Now, at my age (75), I need to completely digest any big meal as long as possible before hard exercise, preferably 2 hrs. But having fallen through ice more than once, and having a raft sunk under me in a half-frozen lake one time, I can certainly understand the risk of cramping. I knew people who drowned due to cramping. There were still some of the old stream gaugers alive when I was growing up, who in their own relatively young years were paid to wade out chest-deep in winter streams with a depth stick, to measure the rate of snowmelt. And they were off by themselves way back in the high country, many miles from any kind of help.

For the same reason, experienced people only eat easily digested food when they go into the high country, until they acclimate. Too much blood gets diverted from your stomach trying to deliver sufficient oxygen elsewhere the first few days. I've had more than one vacation ruined by needing to help someone back down to low altitude after getting sick. All it takes is the purchase of a roast beef sandwich, and them eating it for lunch atop some high pass on the first day out, and then trying to charge ahead. I don't see any old wive's fables in any of this - perhaps a bit of exaggeration at times. It all depends on the circumstances.

My one bad experience with film condensation involved me testing a Hoffman metal 8X10 holder, instead or my regular plastic Lisco and Fidelity ones.
Even the darkslide is aluminum. I never used it outdoors again, and converted it into a nice vacuum holder for lab use only.

 

[retina_restoration]

Many, including me, have enjoyed the original Neopan Acros and were disappointed when Fuji discontinued it. I suspect a lot of people have refused to pay $12 for Acros II (It hasn't sold well), when the original cost only $6 per roll. I won’t buy Acros II because there’s no compelling reason to. I don’t want to become fluent in a film that will likely be discontinued again by a company known for killing off beloved products.

 

[MattKing]

Well I won't be buying any more whatever the price.

The Kodak 120 films are using a very different type of backing paper.
But I wouldn't guarantee that any current 120 films are immune from encountering some issues with backing paper in some circumstances.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

There are reasons Acros costs a lot more now. Fuji probably didn't want to reinvest in new coating infrastructure, and was already sidelining most of their film selection, but also wanted to respond to requests to keep Acros still alive due to its uniqueness. So they farmed out much of the process to Harman. That means Harman now gets their own piece of the pie in terms of profit; otherwise, they wouldn't do it. That also changes the distribution arrangement. Each extra step carries its own added expense and profit expectation.

Then you've got an additional variable, in that other prized films have gone up substantially too. Materials and ingredients now cost more, and people, like or not, either pay more or don't get what they want. All kinds of things have gone up in price dramatically. And Acros II is a premium film. No doubt about it. Too bad it isn't available in sheets anymore.

Harman sells their chemistry at an outrageous price. For example their fixer is 22$ while the Kodak counterpart is 15$. No reason for this big of a difference.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I shot my last roll of original Acros a month ago; I last paid $2.50 per roll for it, when it was being discontinued and liquidated in volume. I only bought enough of the II version for comparison purposes, at $13 per roll. That's more than TMax, my versatile go-to 120 film. The strong point of Acros is its near absence of reciprocity failure at long exposures. It is also exceptionally fine-grained for a med speed film, along with excellent edge acutance, and its natural-looking orthopan spectral sensitivity.

I particularly liked its availability in 4x5 Quickload sleeves for backpacking purposes. But that system is gone now too. The sleeve quality control was getting dicey near the end, and Fuji wasn't making enough on it to justify retooling the line. That's analogous to the demise of needed 120 backing papers, I guess - a niche industry. I'm glad Kodak at least seems to have figured it out again.

 

[mshchem]

The Kodak 120 films are using a very different type of backing paper.
But I wouldn't guarantee that any current 120 films are immune from encountering some issues with backing paper in some circumstances.

The new backing paper Kodak is using looks to be bulletproof from an ink transfer standpoint. I carry a rubber band to make sure that the roll stays wound up. The new top coat Kodak uses is resistant to the paper tape used to seal the roll after exposure.
I absolutely love Kodak T-Max films. No trouble now for many years.

 

[250swb]

The problem in the OP's photo is the same as the now solved (fingers crossed) Ilford backing paper mottling.

Jump back in time to when Acros was re-released around 2019, a little bit after Ilford's own roll film started to get the mottling problem and which was nothing to do with condensation or storage but with the manufacture of the paper itself. The new Acros was apparently labelled as being 'Made in the UK' and it would have been by Ilford. No not re-badged Ilford film which the conspiracy theorists may jump upon, but simply a Fuji formula emulsion which isn't difficult for a company that makes photographic emulsion. The backing paper will be the same as Ilford buy in for their own films. As said it isn't about condensation but the length of time the paper is in contact with the film, so it didn't start to be obvious until much later, like the last couple of years, as older stock was gradually being used up out of people fridges. As this could not be reported to the paper manufacturer until problems arose this accounts for the delay.

So
a/ not condensation
b/ it is a Fuji formula emulsion manufactured by Ilford
c/ spots are caused by the backing paper
d/ it is now hopefully solved

 

[K-G]

Acros II is manufactured at Mobberly by Harman/Ilford.

Yes , I have thought so all since I saw the little mark "Made in UK" on the first cartons. I also noted that the backing papers of the FP4+ films that were affected , were identical to those on the Acros II films, except for a few added Japanese signs on the Fuji papers. I mentioned this when I was in contact with Ilford/Harman but they answered that they could only handle problems with the Ilford films. Acros II was entirely a Fuji problem. I tried several times to get in contact with some kind of customer service at Fuji, also with the help of Fotoimpex in Berlin, but it all failed. From Ilford I got replacement films that worked perfectly. I enclose a link to the statement that Ilford/Harman made about the problems.

Karl-Gustaf

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

 

[Film-Niko]

More likely:
2. Condensation from putting it back in the fridge with the roll not being tightly wound on the spool

Thank you for everyone who has provided ideas on the thread. Really appreciate the help!

That is indeed most probably the cause for the problem. It can easily be avoided in the future.
There is no reason to stop using Acros II.
It is an outstanding and unique film. Finest grain in the ISO 100/21° BW film group, record performance concerning reciprocity failure, wonderful tonality with orthopanchromatic spectral sensitivity.
And at least here in Europe it is even cheaper than TMX.