This thread on photrio discusses a similar/identical issue:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/thread...fected.188878/
with this post showng a good example:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/thread...8/post-2531481
Statements by Ilford:
https://www.ilfordphoto.com/statement-120-roll-film/
https://www.ilfordphoto.com/updated-...ilm-statement/
I sent the pictures to Ilford and their response was nearly instaneous! They confirmed the mottling problem and apologized for lost pictures. Fresh films will be sent to my adress.
The bad batch (nr.4602) was manufactured before those statements mentioned in links above.
Thanks to all for help!
Photographed on Rollei RPX100 film (probably closely related to Kentmere 100) using my Kodak Six-20 Special (made between 1`937 and 1939) with the Anastigmat Special lens, bought a couple years ago for $25. (See: <a href="https://flic.kr/p/2mHW4G3" rel="noreferrer nofollow">flic.kr/p/2mHW4G3</a>)
Exposure was 15 seconds at f22. This old Kodak lens is an excellent performer, really.
Rollei RPX developed in PMK (Pyro), 1:2:100 for 10 minutes. Excellent negatives.
Regarding the Ilford mottling, I experienced the same problem. It was so frustrating, I just about gave up using FP4. I'm glad Ilford is aware of the issue and will give it another chance. FP4 is such a great film.
At a Baseball Game, Hillsboro, Oregon by Austin Granger, on Flickr
I've only had the mottling issue on films that were either past their expiry date, or been stored in a warm location for months before being exposed and developed. Now, I use film up before its expiration date and keep it in the fridge until I need it.
I like the "glowing" tonality in the rocks. And am curious how you obtained it. Is it the orange filter (seems strange as there is no sky or colored objects in the picture)? Or is it the combination of diffused lighting plus higher-than-normal contrast in negative development and/or enlargement or scanning?
Bookmarks