What are these strange marks on FP4 120 negatives?

J8B · Jun 22, 2017

Hi All,

I have some strange marks appearing on some Ilford FP4+ 120 negatives. The film expired in 2005, but most rolls I have shot have been fine. Some rolls however have strange marks/patterns as shown in the first image below. This doesn't appear on all frames however. The second image below is from the same roll, and doesn't show any of the same marks.

Any ideas as to what this could be? These shots are from an Autocord, but I've had similar marks on a film shot with a Bronica SQ-A. Any input would be much appreciated.

Thanks,
Justin.

Ian Grant · Jun 22, 2017

Possibly slight damp and contact between the emulsion and the backing paper.

Ian

railwayman3 · Jun 22, 2017

I'd agree with Ian's suggestion; I had a similar problem on an expired "found" 120 film of unknown storage conditions which I processed for a friend.(can't recall the make).

J8B · Jun 22, 2017

Thanks Ian and railwayman3. Do you think its likely that the dampness happened a while ago and it's then stuck to the backing paper, or could it equally be recent dampness? I ask, just to ensure that I'm not mishandling it. Since I've owned it, it has been stored in the fridge, and there hasn't been any rapid temperature changes that I am aware of. I don't know how it was stored for the first 8 years though (before I purchased it).

railwayman3 · Jun 22, 2017

If the film were still in its sealed factory packing while it was in your fridge, and allowed to warm up to room temperature before you opened it for use, that would normally be fine. In which case, probably some poor storage in those first 8 years ?
I noticed very similar markings when I processed an old 127 Selochrome film, "found" in a 1960's Brownie camera, which had certainly been badly stored at some time, as there was even slight rusting on the metal spool.

J8B · Jun 22, 2017

Thanks. Yeah it's in sealed factory packaging.

Would taking the film out of the fridge, leaving it at room temp for a few days, and then putting it back in the fridge cause any potential issues? Sometimes I take a few rolls from the fridge to shoot with, then put back the one I didn't use. Some rolls may have this done several times.

karl · Jun 22, 2017

Standard Ilford backing paper to film bad interaction. Even sealed rolls in and out of the fridge can show this issue. I never freeze or put Ilford film in the fridge.

J8B · Jun 22, 2017

Thanks Karl. Sounds like time to get some fresh film I'm guessing that there is nothing that can be done to reverse this (dry it out) once it happens.

karl · Jun 22, 2017

Nope. Nothing you can do really. Had the same thing happen to me with some Pan F+ that was 10 years out of date.

Chris Livsey · Jun 23, 2017

Classic backing paper effect, this is HP5+ Expired Dec.2001
Frame variance is probably how tightly rolled the film is and remember it is not the back of the film it is the front with the emulsion with the paper on that, we tend to see it as is when unwound with the backing paper on the back not how it lies on the spool. Nothing you have done wrong just the risk of OOD film.

railwayman3 · Jun 23, 2017

karl said:
Standard Ilford backing paper to film bad interaction. Even sealed rolls in and out of the fridge can show this issue. I never freeze or put Ilford film in the fridge.

Not heard that before, but very interesting. A bit of Googling produced this thread (2003) in:
https://www.camera-info.com/threads/proper-storage-of-ilford-films.1721/
The first poster in the thread reproduces an email he received from Ilford confirming that freezing is not recommended, amd which includes the statement that "If it is frozen there is a possibility that the base may become brittle and the plasticisers leech out." Certainly something to think about ?

pentaxuser · Jun 23, 2017

karl said:
Standard Ilford backing paper to film bad interaction. Even sealed rolls in and out of the fridge can show this issue. I never freeze or put Ilford film in the fridge.

I appreciate that the OP's film was Ilford and your reply therefore refers to Ilford 120 but I take it that the same would apply to other makes such as Kodak, Fuji etc?

pentaxuser

railwayman3 · Jun 23, 2017

pentaxuser said:
I appreciate that the OP's film was Ilford and your reply therefore refers to Ilford 120 but I take it that the same would apply to other makes such as Kodak, Fuji etc?

pentaxuser

Kodak suggest that freezing is OK for longer-term storage ( https://kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5202.shtml ).

I can't spot any recommendations on the Ilford FP4+ data sheet: http://stephengrote.com/teaching/datasheets/storage/Ilford FP4 Plus.pdf

The first random Fuji data sheet which I've found refers to temparatures below 0 deg. C (32 deg F) as being OK for long-term storage:
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/pdf/velvia_50_datasheet.pdf

I'm still a bit puzzled that the Ilford recommendation seems to differ....I'll have to pull out an older Ilford 120 from the depths of my freezer and check the results after processing. My only thought is that all three makers would only guarantee any film up to its expiry date, and maybe problems arise only after frozen storage for a long time beyond that date ?

MattKing · Jun 24, 2017

The difference in recommendations may relate to 120 films and issues with (different) backing paper.

pentaxuser · Jun 24, 2017

MattKing said:
The difference in recommendations may relate to 120 films and issues with (different) backing paper.

Well it wasn't clear to me whether the Kodak pub was referring to 35mm only, nor whether the Fuji below O degrees C recommendation covered both 35mm and 120.
It just seem strange to me that out of the 3 makes of 120 film it is only Ilford backing paper that is vulnerable to below freezing temperatures.

When the problem with Kodak numbers coming through from the backing paper was discussed and the blame levelled at Kodak wasn't the riposte that all backing paper comes from the same source so Ilford and Fuji were not exempt as their backing paper was the same. If this is the case then it cannot be that only Ilford 120 films suffer if stored below freezing.

We or specifically the poster Karl may be singling out Ilford 120 as vulnerable when there is no evidence to this effect

pentaxuser

Chris Livsey · Jun 24, 2017

Current advice from Ilford is :
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.
https://www.ilfordphoto.com/faqs/
I don't think we should be relying on an e-mail from almost 15 years ago. The original post linked to does state that at the time there was no detail on freezing on theIlford web site, there is now
From a visit to Mobberley (Ilford manufacturing site UK) the master roll storage of "coffins" was at a low but not freezing temperature, 10C would seem a reasonable guess, it was said that an even temperature and controlled humidity was most important, domestically a fridge or freezer probably supplies that more reliably than any other storage area.

MattKing · Jun 24, 2017

pentaxuser said:
When the problem with Kodak numbers coming through from the backing paper was discussed and the blame levelled at Kodak wasn't the riposte that all backing paper comes from the same source

It probably comes from the same source now, but in the past there were multiple manufacturers who could make it, including Kodak itself.

J8B · Jun 25, 2017

I did freeze some of the this film, but then later moved it to fridge storage when I needed the freezer space. I don't however know exactly which rolls were frozen. I do know of some rolls that were stored in the fridge only, so I should try one of them out, and see if it is ok.

I think in the future I'll be more careful with films in and out of the fridge/freezer, as per Chris' referenced Ilford recommendation: "Avoid repeated thawing and freezing of films."

J8B · Jun 25, 2017

Chris Livsey said:
Classic backing paper effect, this is HP5+ Expired Dec.2001
Frame variance is probably how tightly rolled the film is and remember it is not the back of the film it is the front with the emulsion with the paper on that, we tend to see it as is when unwound with the backing paper on the back not how it lies on the spool. Nothing you have done wrong just the risk of OOD film.

Thanks Chris. That does look very similar to the marks on my negatives.

Pioneer · Jun 25, 2017

I have also run into backing paper transfer on some old FP4 that was bought from e-bay. I have no idea how the film was stored before I received it but there is not number transfer on it as well.

I chalked it up to the risks of buying long expired film. Sometimes it can be a great buy, other times not so much. I have used it for the odd record shots (disassembly photos, etc.) and it is fine for that.

What are these strange marks on FP4 120 negatives?

J8B

Ian Grant

railwayman3

J8B

railwayman3

J8B

karl

J8B

karl

Chris Livsey

railwayman3

pentaxuser

railwayman3

MattKing

Moderator

pentaxuser

Chris Livsey

MattKing

Moderator

J8B

J8B

Pioneer

What are these strange marks on FP4 120 negatives?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency