Any ideas whats caused this problem

martin henson

Admin
Staff member
Registered User
Pyrocat HD 1-1-100 20c N+1 time, never seen this before, anyone here can shed light on what might be going onscan.jpg
 

Alan9940

Active Member
Registered User
I've seen discussions on this issue on various forums and the theories/solutions run the gamut, but the most common guesses I've seen is hard water and/or a precipitate that has formed in one of the solutions. Many years ago, I saw something similar to this when I had "stuff" floating around in my A solution, but didn't notice anything amiss before developing my film. I tossed it, mixed fresh A and B, and all was good. Assuming you haven't changed your water supply, have you looked closely at the Pyrocat?
 

martin henson

Admin
Staff member
Registered User
Thanks Alan
I was thinking it might be the developer, so as you suggested, I had a good look and there seemed to be a thicker solution floating in it, gave it a good sake and its gone, so will do a test develop to see if that has solved the problem

Regards
Martin
 

mpirie

Member
Registered User
Is this sheet film or roll film Martin?

I've seen similar artefacts from Pan-F roll film which were put down to poor storage.

Mike
 

Ian Grant

Well-Known Member
Registered User
There's a lot of posts showing similar problems on other Forums, as Mike says poor storage of roll film, but also defectibe backing paper helped contribute. Foma, Kodak and Ilford have had issues, it appears there's only one manufactuerer of backing paper and they made slight changes,

It's unlikely to be a developer issue.

Ian
 

Tommy

New Member
Registered User
I remember asking the same question a few months back. I discovered blotches on Ilford FP4 negatives developed in HC110. Just a month ago I developed another roll of FP4 from the same batch and the same blotches were even more evident. I have attached a cropped area so hopefully is can be seen. I have only one roll left but will not be using it.
img202.jpg
 

martin henson

Admin
Staff member
Registered User
Is this sheet film or roll film Martin?

I've seen similar artefacts from Pan-F roll film which were put down to poor storage.

Mike
Roll film, the film has been stored in a fridge, so, looking at Tommy's neg, mines the same, looks like a film issue, never had it before.
 

Ian Grant

Well-Known Member
Registered User
There was a similar post on Photrio yesterday. On an Ilford factory tour we were told that frozen and refridgerated films were one of the main QC issues they saw. Ilford don't recommend freezing however know it's done, frozen film needs to warm slowly so go from the freezer to fridge, then after a day or so to a cool place.

It appears the issue has become worse as there's now only one supplier of backing paper for Ilford, Foma, Kodak etc, The first issues were with Fomapan 200, then Kodak a bit later, and a few cases now with Ilford films. It is a difficult one for the film manufacturers, slight changes in the paper affect the moisture content and inks used on the backing paper are outside their control.

Ian
 

Tommy

New Member
Registered User
Interesting that Martin's film had been stored in a fridge and mine just stored in room temperature.
Which film type were you using Martin? I was using FP4.
Martin was using Pyrocat and I was using HC110. Looks like a manufacturing fault.
 

mpirie

Member
Registered User
The problem with providing a definitive explanation for these artefacts is that they take a specific set of circumstances to occur, otherwise every user of roll film from Kodak, Ilford and Foma would be complaining.

The markings on my film could have been down to the way the film was stored (in my case in a cool dark place in a bedroom) or whether it was out dated and if so, by how much.

I'm not convinced about it being a backing paper issue in my case. If it was, I'd expect to see a transfer of the printing ink (or a shadow of) transferring to the image.

The first time i saw this issue, i thought it looked like a mould growth in the emulsion, but without a microscope and lab facilities, it's hard to be sure.

Mike
 

Ian Grant

Well-Known Member
Registered User
Mike, the only company with Printing Ink issues is Kodak. Pan F has its own quite different problem which can initially look similar to Tommy's example,

I realised I'd made a big mistake about 2 years ago, I'd put a roll of Pan F through my Microcord and used most of another about 18months before planning to process them together. When I processed the films they were toast, I'd expected as much because Pan F has extremely poor latent image stability, Ilford do warn of this "Important Note: Once exposed, process PAN F Plus as soon as practical – we recommend within 3 months". It's very unusual for me to leave films unprocessed long, usually developed the day shot/finished or if away within a couple of weeks, as it happened these negative were unimportant more about testing the camera/film.

Agfa used a chemical additive to overcome this with AP/APX25 when the chemical went out of use in a different industry it went out of large scale production, it was too costly to reformulate the film as sales were very low compared to APX100and the investment needed was too high.

Ian
 

Keith Haithwaite

Active Member
Registered User
I have found the same issue ...
Mottling.jpg

Ilford FP4+ ID11 11 minutes at 20°C
Batch No. 59DFN1C02-1 Expiry date: Nov 2021

POST UPDATED TO REFLECT CORRECT BATCH NUMBER - SEE POST #14
 
Last edited:

martin henson

Admin
Staff member
Registered User
Interesting that Martin's film had been stored in a fridge and mine just stored in room temperature.
Which film type were you using Martin? I was using FP4.
Martin was using Pyrocat and I was using HC110. Looks like a manufacturing fault.
120 FP4+ Tommy
 

Keith Haithwaite

Active Member
Registered User
UPDATE

I completed Ilfords online form at the weekend to report this defect and I received a reply today in which they assured me that replacement films were being posted to me, however there has been some confustion regarding the batch number.

Ilford were able to identify the batch number from the film edge code I supplied, unfortunately this did not match the batch code that I gave them. A further intensive trawl through the rubbish bags revealed another discarded film box with the matching suspect batch number - Batch No. 59DFN1C02-1 Expiry date: Nov 2021 - conundrum solved, I had used more than one film!

I have to compliment Ilford on the speed in which they responded to my defect report.
 
Top