Credit where credit’s due. I bought ten rolls of 120 HP5 a few years back but found quite a bit of mottling (see below) in many smooth toned areas such as skies. It was so bad that I used about half the rolls and put the rest away. Spending time and money driving around looking for pics only to come back with something that was largely unusable was pretty pointless. Not every frame was spoiled but most of them were.
Much later, out of desperation - I wanted to take some photographs but had run out of film - I dug out the dodgy rolls and gave them a whirl, with fingers crossed. Same results, more or less. I think, after this, I had two rolls left and they were well out of date by this time so they were relegated to camera testing duties.
 |
| I exaggerated the processing of this neg in Photoshop to show the fault more clearly |
Fast forward to last month when we were heading off for a few days and I found myself in the same position - lacking 120 roll film. I know - it’s all my own fault, but bear with me. I enrolled the remaining rolls in my Rolleiflex for a final bash. To no great surprise, nothing had changed. Many of the frames still showed mottling but I got away with a few probably because the mottling was hidden in amongst foliage.
Whilst searching for an explanation of the mottling on Google I read that Harman were looking for online feedback about what appeared to be a recognised manufacturing issue relating to some of their Ilford range so I filled in the form and sent a couple of samples of mottled images.
I got the following response:
“I’m sorry you’ve encountered problems with your roll films. Based on the info and images you’ve supplied - I can confirm your unfortunate findings on your HP5+ roll films link to an issue we raised on our website, i.e. our statement posted 02/03/20 - https://www.ilfordphoto.com/statement-120-roll-film/ Plus a recent released statement posted 14/03/22 - https://www.ilfordphoto.com/updated-120-roll-film-statement/
"I will now sort getting replacement films posted out to you - though I appreciate replacements won't take away your disappointment, or rescue the lost images. Please accept our apologies for the issue.” The company added that “many improvements” had been made to the film wrapper production line with the result that Ilford’s films are now “notably more robust”.
And this morning, true to Ilford’s word, a package of ten replacement rolls was delivered even though it must have been two or three years beyond the films’ use by date by the time I filled in the online form.
Yes, manufacturers have an obligation to replace defective materials but I can imagine some makers invoking a nefarious “statute of limitations” clause to wriggle out of their duty given my circumstances. But not Ilford who did the right thing with good grace and understanding and with a commitment to not only acknowledge the issue but with an equal determination to get on top of it.
Hi Bruce.
ReplyDeleteI had the same problem in 2020-2021. Like you, I contacted Ilford back then, sent them samples and they kindly sent replacement rolls. The loss of the photographs is huge though. I can't imagine how professionals that shot those defective films dealt with the aggravation.
Personally, for MF I switched to Kodak Tmax100 for a couple of years. Because not only HP5, but also FP4 and even the Delta's I tried were mottled. Now, I'm slowly coming back to Ilford with their Kentmere range. They seem to be fine so far.
Cheers
It seems to be an issue with the backing paper in the main from what I can gather, Omar. I’ve had it with Tmax 400 and Foma 200 as well. I’ve never tried Kentmere. How do you rate it?
ReplyDeleteI haven't used a lot of Kentmere yet. Maybe around 15 rolls. Mostly Kentmere 400. Can't complain so far. The base it different but image quality is fine. I expose and develop just like their HP5 and FP4 counterparts.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Omar. That’s interesting. I wonder if you get 650 ISO out of Kentmere 400 in Microphen the way you do with HP5. The extra speed comes in handy with handheld medium format.
ReplyDeleteI've found the Kentmere paper to be effectively the same as MGRC, just a thinner base - could be just a base change and not an emulsion one on the films too - must try some!
ReplyDeleteThere’s a FADU GUY who thinks Kentmere paper is faster and contrastier than MGIV. He did the necessary tests for his analyser pro settings. I have to say that I felt pretty much the same when I tried some 5x7 Kentmere although I didn’t do any side-by-side comparisons.
ReplyDelete