FP4 sucks big time!

HuubL

hunter-gatherer
Local time
11:00 AM
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Messages
2,405
Location
Netherlands
About three years ago I got this unopened box with 30 meters of FP4. I put it in a drawer where it lay hidden between my other old junk until two weeks ago I ran out of Fomapan. I spooled two rolls into Leica cassettes using a Watson film loader. Shot the rolls in my "new" Leica II with 11 o'clock Elmar. Developed them in 1:50 Rodinal. On initial inspection most of the negs were well exposed: proof that the Leica II still functioned as it should be. But disappointment came after scanning.

All the negs had scratches, most ran along the entire filmstrips. However, there was a repeated pattern of scratches at the same place in each of the negs. See the pics:

1930-Elmar_1.jpg


1930-Elmar_2.jpg


I checked:
1. The camera. No sharp hooks in the pressure plate, no film snippets in the film gate or anything obvious to cause scratches this deep.
2. The cassettes. Opened and closed without problem, no sharp hooks.
3. The developer tank and spools. Film spooled easily onto the reels. Can't see any problem there.
3. The film loader. The gate through which the film is pulled with spooling has rather sharp edges. Initially I thought perhaps a softer lining, velvet or similar, might be missing, but I've used the loader for ages and never had this problem.
4. Today I checked the film itself. Took the roll out of the loader in my darkroom and cut a 1m piece off. Lo and behold, the undeveloped film has scratches in the emulsion with a repeat of approximately one film frame!

So it's Ilford themselves. I got the roll from the photo lab at work when they cleaned out for moving. It's a roll with a 1983 due date (!!). Never frozen. Stored at room temp as long as the lab existed. Remarkable that a 30 year old film still performs so well upon developing.

The box says: "This product will be replaced if defective". Do you think they would exchange it if I send the remainder of the roll back to them? 🙂
 
Last edited:
easy to check: just develop a small piece of the roll lke it comes from the roll, unexposed.
this should make clear if the roll is defective.

it is a bit harsh to say that a roll from 1983(!) sucks though....
 
easy to check: just develop a small piece of the roll lke it comes from the roll, unexposed.
this should make clear if the roll is defective.

it is a bit harsh to say that a roll from 1983(!) sucks though....

Thank you Roger! I know it's the roll itself. I wrote my post tongue in cheek!

Nevertheless, I wonder if the scratches were already there in 1983 or that they became apparent as the result of the loooong storage.
 
Hi HubbL, What's odd about these scratches is that they are wavy, if it were the camera or cassette causing them, the scratches would most likely be arrow straight through the frame. The scratches are also mirrors of each other frame to frame, the contours of the waves appear to be exactly the same in both frames. Maybe try overlaying them, I think they would match up almost perfectly. This means that perhaps the roll was damaged somehow, either by a slow heating and cooling over the years or some kind of localized pressure to the roll in storage. If that were the case, would they then be hairline cracks in the emulsion, and not scratches?
 
Someone uses 30 year old film and wonders why there's problems..?

Yeah. Sounds like a good reason to publically slander an upstanding company like Ilford, certainly. Good luck getting film from the Reagan era replaced for free.
 
Someone uses 30 year old film and wonders why there's problems..?

Yeah. Sounds like a good reason to publically slander an upstanding company like Ilford, certainly. Good luck getting film from the Reagan era replaced for free.

😉😉😉😉😉😉😉

Smileys don't work here apparently...
Boy oh Boy, you really have to be careful with what you say on the web when the tone on how you say it can not be heard.

😉😉😉😉😉😉😉
 
FWIW, I just finished a box of 4x5 FP4 (not FP4 Plus) that was given to me with a Grafmatic holder I bought. I'm not sure when it expired. Most of it worked really well when shot around ASA 50-64, but there were several sheets where the emulsion came off the base in thin lines, almost like scratches but not caused by scratching. I kept finding these rubbery "hairs" on the negatives after they came out of the wash.
 
Nevertheless, I wonder if the scratches were already there in 1983 or that they became apparent as the result of the loooong storage.

Sure these are scratches? It looks more like emulsion fissures or maybe even static discharge to me. I have no reference explicitly stating that old film causes either, but plain reason says it might well do...
 
Sure these are scratches? It looks more like emulsion fissures or maybe even static discharge to me. I have no reference explicitly stating that old film causes either, but plain reason says it might well do...

That's what I meant indeed, emulsion fissures. And they are recurring with a frame-wide period. I guess it could have to do with the age of the film, perhaps they weren't obvious when the film was still 'young', but the periodicity suggests there is an underlying (mechanical?) reason that they've become apparent with aging. Pity, because the film still develops rather nicely after all these years of storage.
 
Back
Top Bottom