120 back paper visible in negatives after processing

[harry_hoag]

<p>Hi,<br>

This is my first post here. I've been developing my own negatives for a few months now. All my 35mm attempts have been quite successful mostly Agfa APX 100.<br>

I've now developed 3 rolles of 120mm B&W film two of which were more or less ruined by some mistakes I made. Although I was thinking they were looking much worse than they should. With this third roll I developed yesterday I've discovered that you can actually see the back paper that wraps around the film visible in the negatives...<br>

The film is own brand Lomography which was the easiest available 120 film I could get at the time. I know it's cheap rubbish, but I'm worried this will happen with future attempts with better film... With negatives this bad there is no point shooting on medium format!!<br>

Have a look at this image, does anyone know why the paper grain and printed pattern would be so clearly visible?<br>

Shot on recently refurbished Mamiya c330 f4<br>

<img src="http://i760.photobucket.com/albums/xx243/i84cookie/lomo100_008.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="1008" /></p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>Most films have an antihalation coating on them to prevent light from reflecting off the pressure plate or film backing paper from giving secondary exposure. Such a secondary exposure will cause blooming around bright highlights only. The circles I see in the upper shadows can be caused by shooting 120 film with the pressure plate set to 220 resulting in pressure exposure. <br>

Take a empty roll backing paper and point it toward a bright light source while looking at the black side, can you see through it?, if no then the spots are not caused by secondary exposure through the backing paper.</p>

<p>I think the spots are out of focus points of light that are so under exposed that they are significantly under developed and thus barely visible in the scan/print.</p>

<p>Are all frames the same?</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>The Lomo 120 is a bad batch of Chinese Shanghai and it is a known defect that the paper is poorly made and leaches chemicals into the film.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>If you prefer standard results, stick with fresh Ilford-labeled film: Pan F+, FP4+, HP5+, Delta 100 and 400 (or 3200 if you really need the speed).</p>

<p>Almost everything else on the market now is a gamble. Even with the best efforts by other makers you'll need to test every lot for consistency. Emulsion coating and sensitizing is a complex process, one which only Kodak, Ilford and Agfa had really mastered consistently during the past couple of decades. Now it's just Ilford. And don't rely on the stuff marketed under other marques that's claimed to be "made by Ilford". It might be, it might not be, and anything claimed this week may be out of date next month.</p>

<p>Save the Lomo stuff, and all of the retro-chic stuff being marketed on the backs of familiar Euro names, for artsty stuff where the unpredictability is part of the appeal. I'm planning to use my outdated and short-dated Foma and other stuff strictly for pinhole cameras, my Agfa folder and other stuff.</p>

[harry_hoag]

<p>thanks guys, yes probably the cheapness of the film is the main factor. The pressure plate was set to 120, so it's worrying if that kind of thing can have an effect like this... I'll get back to you after I've tried some real film!</p>

[nbg90455]

<p>Life is too short for cheap film !</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I wouldn't discourage folks from using cheap or outdated film as long as they're aware of the risks and potential outcome. In some cases these films can deliver interesting results. Some cinematographers have deliberately "aged" or otherwise pre-treated movie film stocks to get a specific look. A notable example was <em>McCabe and Mrs. Miller</em>, for which Vilmos Zsigmond pre-flashed/pre-fogged the movie stock and used filters to create a lower contrast, color shifted "aged" look which could not be reversed or undone in post production. It's a great looking movie, but most movies that seek that sort of look shoot the film normally and doing the aging in post.</p>

<p>I'm looking forward to trying various outdated films in pinhole and older cameras just for the sake of the unpredictable outcome. I used to bake ISO 400-800 color negative films in my pickup truck glove box just to get a foggy, grainy, color shifted look. It was hit or miss but some results were very pleasing - this was way before the digital retro editing trend.</p>

<p>But in this case Harry seemed to prefer more consistent, repeatable results, so sticking with fresh film from a known, reliable manufacturer seems like the better option.</p>

[Fotohuis RoVo]

<p>Good 120 roll films you can find by Agfa Gevaert (Rollei Brand), Foma, Fuji, Kodak and Ilford. Although in the past Foma had some Q.C. issues, the new Fomapan 120 roll films are pretty good. But Ok not on a Fuji Acros 100 120 roll film level and assembly. Technically spoken they have the best B&W 120 roll film in most specs.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Thanks, Robert. I'm actually a little disappointed to hear that Foma quality control has improved. I have several bulk packs of recently outdated Foma 120. I was hoping for some unpredictable results. </p>

<p>Same thing happened when I repaired my Agfa Isolette 6x6 folder several years ago, including removing the lens coating with Flitz polish. I hoped for softer photos with more flare, but the simple Agnar lens was just too good - it wasn't going to mimic a Holga or Diana.</p>

<p>Maybe I'll try some of that Chinese made film that reportedly has little or no anti-halation coating/dyes.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

With a Mamiya C330 I'd use nothing less than Kodak or Ilford or Fuji Acros. Even outdated film from these three can still

be quite good.

[nbg90455]

<p>Let me restate my earlier comment -- there is nothing wrong with creative experiments, outdated film etc., but if you are trying to learn the process, are trying to get consistent and predictable results and are trying to learn to "pre-visualize" the final outcome you need good, reliable film and chemicals. Just like in a science experiment, you want to work on one variable at a time, not have an additional 10 random variables thrown into the mix.</p>

[simon_hall1]

If you contact lomography's customer

services you may be able to get your

money back, I did.

 

Either that or you could take it back to

the store where you bought it.

 

The Lady Grey film is actually T-Max

400 film but it isn't finished by Kodak

and they use very poor quality backing

paper.

[harry_hoag]

<p>Thanks for all your replies, very helpful. I've been using Preceptol to develop these rolls. I guess there is a bit more unpredictability with that developer as I made the powder mix myself and it has very long developing times. It doesn't help that this film is not listed but I made a best guess for timing.</p>

<p>I bought powdered developer stupidly thinking I could just made some when I need it so it won't expire quickly. Not realising its recommended to make the whole mix in one go. I tend to develop a couple of rolls, then not do much for a couple of months, then do some more. I'll just get liquid developer from now on, much simpler and quicker. Particularly for someone who is just a hobbyist developing very small amounts. I've bought some airtight glass jars and marbles to fill up the airspace, so will be using that from now on.</p>

[witold_grabiec]

<blockquote>

<p>Robert Vonk said<br>

But Ok not on a Fuji Acros 100 120 roll film level and assembly. Technically spoken they have the best B&W 120 roll film in most specs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How does quality control (or what you call "assembly" of Fuji differ from Kodak or Ilford? This kind of baseless "advice" is nothing but disservice, especially if pointed at a relative novice. You can have an opinion about the results you get, but suggesting inferior production with ANY of the long time film manufacturers questions the quality of your advice in general.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"You can have an opinion about the results you get, but suggesting inferior production with ANY of the long time film manufacturers questions the quality of your advice in general."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, it doesn't. The conclusion of that logical fallacy is that, if you are incorrect about Robert's advice in general being questionable merely because he might be incorrect about one thing (which you haven't proven, but merely disputed), then it follows that your own opinions and assertions are flawed in general. I'm sure you can see the problem inherent to that sort of logical fallacy when mischaracterizing another person's veracity.</p>

<p>You seem to be misinterpreting Robert's statement. In comparing quality control with Fuji, he referred to Foma, not to Kodak or Ilford. Robert wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Although in the past Foma had some Q.C. issues, the new Fomapan 120 roll films are pretty good. But Ok not on a Fuji Acros 100 120 roll film level and assembly."</p>

</blockquote>

 

[glen_h]

<p>When the film is rolled up, the emulsion is in contact with the back of another part of the paper.<br>

As far as I understand it, that is mostly a problem when it gets damp. Refrigerated film not in the original sealed package, and not with dessicant, can easily get too damp. <br>

I now have a roll of Shanghai Pan 120 in a Holga. Of course with the Holga, one expects less than perfect images. </p>

[lyle_bell]

<p>Sort of wish I had seen this thread before buying a bunch of colour Lomo 120. They still have piss-poor QC and the paper leeches onto the film far worse than the B&W...<br>

guh... lesson learned..<br>

<img src="http://i61.tinypic.com/2vtumug.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

[larrydressler]

<p>They sell it that way it is their gimmick.</p>