cool ilford video

[frame-it]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

[tom.w.bn]

Seems like someone reupluded the original Ilford video on youtube. 

 

 

[stray cat]

Fantastic - thanks frame-it.

[frame-it]

17 minutes ago, tom.w.bn said:

Seems like someone reupluded the original Ilford video on youtube.

 

probably "A film by Exploredinary"

[Wayne]

14 hours ago, frame-it said:

 

Following on Phil's lead, I watched this as well. Being one who constantly dabbles in expired and obscure films, i.e. one who has become an expert in the art of self-aggravation, it caused me to reflect deeply on how grateful I am to Ilford.......for giving me a constant and reliable respite from my normal mode. I cannot remember an instance wherein Ilford products did not perform perfectly. Thanks for the link. I enjoyed it.

Best,

Wayne 

[frame-it]

this kodak one is nice as well

 

[Wayne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, frame-it said:

this kodak one is nice as well

 

Thanks again. One of the "mysteries" that I have run into a coupe of times, with both Kodak and Foma films, is the appearance of the printing on 120 backing paper in the finished photograph. I think I have seen a couple other comments concerning the same phenomenon. I wonder which aspect of quality control failed, to allow this sort of thing to happen. 

Best,

Wayne

[frame-it]

7 hours ago, Wayne said:

Thanks again. One of the "mysteries" that I have run into a coupe of times, with both Kodak and Foma films, is the appearance of the printing on 120 backing paper in the finished photograph. I think I have seen a couple other comments concerning the same phenomenon. I wonder which aspect of quality control failed, to allow this sort of thing to happen. 

Best,

Wayne

yes ive read about that, apparently occurred only with some batches of 120 film

from another forum >>

"This is due either to a dirty, dusty environment leaving particulate matter in the melted emulsion, badly prepared support, or bad or inadequate surfactant and anti-foaming agents."

"Re. to your last experience with our b/w film FOMAPAN 100 120, the em. No.
09256.
After the checking we would like to inform you that our Quality
Control-Checking Department use appoitments test methods usually used for
this reason for discovery defects on materials.
This system didn´t show us defect you remarked, because of very low
frequency of this kind of defects. This defect is very sporadic and local,
so in standard appointed control system was not found.
We thicked our control as prevention - we will make a more checking, which
could find similar defects."

 

[adan]

On 1/21/2021 at 9:11 AM, Wayne said:

Thanks again. One of the "mysteries" that I have run into a coupe of times, with both Kodak and Foma films, is the appearance of the printing on 120 backing paper in the finished photograph. I think I have seen a couple other comments concerning the same phenomenon. I wonder which aspect of quality control failed, to allow this sort of thing to happen.

Kodak never revealed exactly what happened. They originally made some comments about improper temperature control during shipping, but the fix they came up (see below) shows that there was something else going on as well.

It was the case that the batches of affected 120 film coincided with a revision to the printing on the back of the paper backing (frame numbers, arrows and lead-in symbols). Possibly new black-ink solvents (chemical fogging or desensitizing), and definitely coinciding in time with a change of the overall printed background from all-yellow to mostly-white (saving on yellow-ink costs).

I don't think anyone ever found evidence of actual ink transfer from backing paper to emulsion, though.

It is the case that the problem came from the emulsion of one part of the film being in close contact with the printing on the back of another part of the film (as the film and backing form tight concentric layers when wrapped around the 120 spool). The markings from, say, frame 10 would imprint on the emulsion and image of frame 7 or 8).

It is the case that 120 TMax100 was completely unavailable (none being shipped) for about 18-20 months during the crisis (I forget the exact years: 2015-2016 or therabouts). While Kodak was struggling to solve the problem with experiments and tests. Other emulsions were a bit less affected.

It is the case that the fix Kodak eventually came up with was a transparent glossy overcoating (something like a very thin laminate) on the back of the backing paper, which sealed in the printed numbers and markings. First with TMax 100, and later with 120 TMax 400 and Tri-X. Oddly (at least in the case of TMax100) smelling of Thai lemongrass when one opened a fresh roll. .

Edited January 23, 2021 by adan