Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,509   Posts: 1,543,562   Online: 1044
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36
  1. #21
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,011
    Images
    65
    Allesandro;

    Any defect you can feel is serious indicating either a coating defect, or a rupture of the emulsion during processing. Either is a serious problem.

    Another "feelable" defect is due to adhesion of some foreign particles to the surface of the film. This is less serious in that it can be removed sometimes by a rewet. Most often, this damage too is permanent as the particles embed themselves into the coating.

    The quote you use from my post is indeed true, but there is more to it than that. Ilford, Kodak and Fuji, to name 3, add special agents to the film to protect against freezer damage. This includes things such as sorbitol and carbowax, which are humectants. In any case, the biggest harm to long term freezing is moisture damage and there the film emulsion sticks to the base side when rolled up. Again the big 3 take steps to avoid this.

    And thanks, yes, now I see the spots. Very unusual.

    PE

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    884
    Here David Wood, ceo of Dr5, on post nr. 46 claim the very same defect I've encountered...
    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/9...0-cause-5.html

  3. #23
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,011
    Images
    65
    Well, I read Simon Galley's post there and he reiterated some of what I said. As for Dr5's post, I could not see it clearly in the pictures. In a transparency, this would be a white spot, not a black spot.

    My only thought is to use a prewet.

    PE

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Well, I read Simon Galley's post there and he reiterated some of what I said. As for Dr5's post, I could not see it clearly in the pictures. In a transparency, this would be a white spot, not a black spot.

    My only thought is to use a prewet.

    PE
    Infact in Dr5 images there are tiny white spots in the sky areas.
    It seems this is (or better was) a relatively common problem with PanF+ in recent years, admitted by Ilford itself.
    The OP on that thread (Michael W) said that finally Ilford acknowledge it was a film problem but didn't managed to find out why. They sent Michael some new PanF+ rolls (exp date 2014) that he developed with no problem.
    I'm waiting to get in touch with Simon at Ilford to send them the negatives.

    One thing is sure: I cannot afford to pay 5,6€ for a roll that is hit-or-miss. I wouldn't want this to be the right time to switch to digital and never look back...

  5. #25
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,011
    Images
    65
    Alessandro;

    What you see are not pinholes in the classic sense. Pinholes are tinier than what I see. Air bubbles are just slightly larger than pinholes (2 effects technically but often confused as they look the same). Yours are larger.

    As for seeing them in Dr5's pics, it is hard to tell due to the clouds. I'm sorry that I was not clear. With all of the clouds, I just cannot say with certainty that the problem is there in the sky or how bad the problem is. In any event, what I saw did not look like your problem entirely. But, I rely on his judgment.

    PE

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,838
    Dear Alessandro,

    You need to examine the films to see what the true issue is, usually under an electron microscope:

    If you return it to me at teh Mobberley address I will ensure it goes under our normal QC procedure.

    I have already explained that this produces 1 of three verdicts :

    1) Justified : A problem with the manufacturing of the film exists.
    2) Cause Not Certain : We cannot find what the issue is ( rare ).
    3) Not justified : The film is not at fault.

    As I always say, never say never, but a justified film QC is an incredibly rare event.
    We have no problem with PAN F+ whatseover and it is in full production as it always has been and has zero QC's outstanding against any batch as of 10.15 UK time today.

    I have seen various reports of 'black spots' if we did have an issue we would withdraw the film from sale, we have no such issue.

    I have also seen pre-wetting put forward as an issue. We have never recommended pre-wetting as neccesary on modern emulsions, in saying that 'normal' pre-wetting would not affect the performance of any of our films and is a perfectly acceptable photo procedure done by many.

    I have also seen 'freezing' put forward as in issue. We have seen issues with frozen film, but not that would affect the emulsion in this manner, its usually condensation as film is used before it is properly thawed out.

    Emulsion defects are vary,vary rare due to our QC procedures, each coated parent roll* has many samples taken from coating to finishing each are exposed and processed, the last test ( apart from random out of sequence audits ) being the first, middle and last film from every final slitting finished into film. Our in line infra red would find virtually any emulsion issue....

    * Every single parent roll of film or paper does have some coating faults, or base induced faults, and that goes for any coater, these are identified by the QC procedures including IR and are marked on something called the roll ticket ( a computerised map of the mill reel from start to finish ) and then cut out of the parent roll during finishing, this cut QC waste is then sent for silver recovery.

    Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology LImited :

  7. #27
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,267
    Images
    148
    The last time I saw issues similar to these it was not a manufacturing defect but caused by excessive moisture. In my case it was after my backpack was drencheds (at an APUG Cornwall meet) in excessively heavy rain, a car was washed of a bridge a mile away in the torrent and two rowned. The film holders didn't get wet but the extremely high level of moisture caused the emulsion to swell and stick in my case in the darkslide.

    It looks so similar that I'd wonder how slowly you allowed the films to warm up from -18ºC and in what conditions.

    Ian

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by Simon R Galley View Post
    Dear Alessandro,

    You need to examine the films to see what the true issue is, usually under an electron microscope:

    If you return it to me at teh Mobberley address I will ensure it goes under our normal QC procedure.

    I have already explained that this produces 1 of three verdicts :

    1) Justified : A problem with the manufacturing of the film exists.
    2) Cause Not Certain : We cannot find what the issue is ( rare ).
    3) Not justified : The film is not at fault.

    As I always say, never say never, but a justified film QC is an incredibly rare event.
    We have no problem with PAN F+ whatseover and it is in full production as it always has been and has zero QC's outstanding against any batch as of 10.15 UK time today.

    I have seen various reports of 'black spots' if we did have an issue we would withdraw the film from sale, we have no such issue.

    I have also seen pre-wetting put forward as an issue. We have never recommended pre-wetting as neccesary on modern emulsions, in saying that 'normal' pre-wetting would not affect the performance of any of our films and is a perfectly acceptable photo procedure done by many.

    I have also seen 'freezing' put forward as in issue. We have seen issues with frozen film, but not that would affect the emulsion in this manner, its usually condensation as film is used before it is properly thawed out.

    Emulsion defects are vary,vary rare due to our QC procedures, each coated parent roll* has many samples taken from coating to finishing each are exposed and processed, the last test ( apart from random out of sequence audits ) being the first, middle and last film from every final slitting finished into film. Our in line infra red would find virtually any emulsion issue....

    * Every single parent roll of film or paper does have some coating faults, or base induced faults, and that goes for any coater, these are identified by the QC procedures including IR and are marked on something called the roll ticket ( a computerised map of the mill reel from start to finish ) and then cut out of the parent roll during finishing, this cut QC waste is then sent for silver recovery.

    Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology LImited :
    Is this the adress?
    Harman Technology Ltd.
    Ilford Way
    Mobberley
    Cheshire
    WA16 7JL
    UK

    I will mark the envelope to the attention of Mr. Simon R Galley.
    Ok?
    Thanks again.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,838
    Dear Alessandro,

    Yes thats the correct address but please mark it for the attention of:

    Sue Evans
    Technical Service


    As I will be in PHOTOKINA next week when I presume it will arrive.

    Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology LImited :

  10. #30

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,962
    Quote Originally Posted by NB23 View Post
    Kodak hypo clear does that.
    Only Kodak hypo clear or other makes as well? All the time or at what frequency? If not all the time then under what circumstances?

    By itself this is a pretty devastating "throw away" line. Taken at face value we should all stop using Kodak hypo clear immediately and examine all our films that have been treated with Kodak hypo clear.

    I think that some amplification on your statement needs to be given otherwise the adjective "alarmist" might be applied to the statement.

    I am sure this was not your intention

    pentaxuser

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin