Numbers on 120 backing paper not aligning with red window

[studiocarter]

Forget about using 400-TMY T-Max 120 film in an old folder. There are no numbers on the paper backing. The little red window cannot be used to wind the film. Grrrrrr!
Are there any other surprises?

 

[wy2l]

Never noticed... is this an attempt by Kodak to cut ink costs?

 

[John Wiegerink]

Never noticed... is this an attempt by Kodak to cut ink costs?

I've been waiting for the TMY2 bleed problem to disappear completely before I order more, but now, if the numbers have truly disappeared, I will be ordering no more TMY2. Many of my cameras have the "ruby window" and that means Delta 100 and Delta 400 are now going to totally replace Kodak for me. Not a problem since I like both of the Delta's, but still think TMY2 was the "Gold Standard" when it comes to ISO 400.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Are there really no numbers on the Kodak 120 backing papers now?

If so, that's just another example of Kodak shooting themselves in the foot. Sad.

Doremus

 

[Rudeofus]

Are there really no numbers on the Kodak 120 backing papers now?

If so, that's just another example of Kodak shooting themselves in the foot. Sad.

Well, to me it looks like Kodak has lost the market muscle they had three decades ago - big surprise. They had issues with frame numbers appearing on developed film, and instead of being able to fix this issue at once ("Dear industry executives from supplier X, either we have a suitable ink here in quantity by early next week, or we won't use your other products in the foreseeable future"), they had to go the intermediate route sans frame numbers. Yes, it's tough these days ...

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Just how far must Kodak go in accommodating people who still use folders. There can't be that many maybe a few hundred. Things change and a company's bottom line adjusts. We may not like it but it is the reality of the marketplace.

 

[darkroommike]

Do you have the lot number? Post it here. Contact Kodak product support and ask what's up. This is one way to fix the numbers printing through issue I guess.

 

[DWThomas]

Haven't bought any TMY, but the 400TX post bleed correction has numbers -- they are a lot less obvious than before, but they are there. Are you looking directly at the backing paper -- or through the red window?

 

[R.Gould]

First I've heard of this, I understood from previous postings that the numbers were there, but very much fainter and printing was reduced to just i number, good job that I prefer other films that keep faith, as far as people using folders, I think that world wide there are far more than just a few hundred, they have become more popular over recent years, I agree that kodak, if they have removed the numbers, have shot themselves in the foot, shame, thank heavens for Foma and Ilford, I used to think that Kodak was the be all and end all, wouldn't have used anything else, but recently, things have changed, shame but there it is, if I can't use their film in the majority of MF cameras that I use, mainly folders, then I am forced to say that Kodak is now completely useless to me know, great shame, and I was recently considering switching to Kodak,

 

[Lachlan Young]

QTWTWAIN

Kodak have drastically reduced the density of ink, and removed all but the centreline numbers - the ones that match 6x6 etc. The overwhelming number of red-window cameras still in use (still being made) are 6x6.

I'd rather have no numbers & no offsetting.

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

Portra 160's backing is the same way with the dimmer grey numbers in a single row.

I used to be able to cut down 120 to 828 and use the 645 numbers, but I could only see the very VERY bottom of the digits with this new backing paper.

The plus side to this however is that the limited text on the backing paper allows a nice blank canvas for my own backing papers for 127, 828 square, Univex 00 or other oddball roll film formats.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Just how far must Kodak go in accommodating people who still use folders. There can't be that many maybe a few hundred. Things change and a company's bottom line adjusts. We may not like it but it is the reality of the marketplace.

Jerry,
I think you would be greatly surprised at how many folks use older roll-film cameras and carry them along side both digital and newer film cameras. A Zeiss Ikonta or Voigtlander Bessa 66 are very easy to carry and deliver the goods as well as any camera made today. My two main medium format systems are Hasselblad and Pentax 67, but I shoot just as much, if not more, film in my Zeiss Super Ikonta's, Agfa and Voigtlander folding cameras. You are right about one thing and that is things change. And since they do, I'll be changing over to the Delta films. I personally think this is just a sloppy way of taking the easy way out of a problem that should have never existed in the first place, but that's just my opinion and my opinion usually doesn't count for much.

 

[NedL]

If this is true, it simply means that I will never buy this film in 120. Maybe there are only a few hundred of us left, so it won't matter to Kodak.

 

[DWThomas]

I find it difficult to believe Kodak would print paper for Tri-X differently from the others, but at any rate, here's a before and after from my recent experience:

I can think of two other possibilities -- 1) maybe they just ditched printing on a batch or two as a quick fix (admittedly scary) or 2) perhaps the OP's camera uses one of the non-centered number rows that has disappeared? I have no idea what cameras used those alternatives, my impression is they may be ancient. The new stuff works in my Perkeo II and Ercona II.

And yes, besides folders there are box cameras -- Brownie Hawkeyes are all over everywhere.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I find it difficult to believe Kodak would print paper for Tri-X differently from the others, but at any rate, here's a before and after from my recent experience:
View attachment 164738

I can think of two other possibilities -- 1) maybe they just ditched printing on a batch or two as a quick fix (admittedly scary) or 2) perhaps the OP's camera uses one of the non-centered number rows that has disappeared? I have no idea what cameras used those alternatives, my impression is they may be ancient. The new stuff works in my Perkeo II and Ercona II.

And yes, besides folders there are box cameras -- Brownie Hawkeyes are all over everywhere.

I really hope you're right on the "quick fix" theory. I really don't understand why Kodak Alaris would even want to lose a few hundred of us. Although I really think there are a lot more than just a few hundred. That kind of thinking never moves a company forward. They should be trying to generate more customers and not less. Yes, I respool for my Kodak Medalist cameras and my exceptionally fine picture taking Kodak Monitor 620.

 

[bdial]

I don't know if it's unique to Hasselblad, but the older non-automatic backs are wound to frame 1 using a window.

OTH "how long should X support old tech?" Is not an entirely unreasonable question, in lots of other things that timeframe is measured in months rather than decades.

Disappointing but at least alternatives exist.

 

[MattKing]

Forget about using 400-TMY T-Max 120 film in an old folder. There are no numbers on the paper backing. The little red window cannot be used to wind the film. Grrrrrr!
Are there any other surprises?

Have you looked at the backing paper?
If you do you will find that the numbering pattern is as posted in DWThomas' 2016 Tri-X backing paper example above.
There are fewer rows of numbers, not "no numbers".
I feel your pain though if the remaining numbers don't match up with the window in your old folder.

 

[MattKing]

By the way, I expect Kodak is using the same backing paper in all their black and white 120 films.

 

[studiocarter]

OP here. Sorry, not no numbers, just faint numbers that go unseen in low wattage incandescent light through the red window. I had a look at the papers from another box of the same film that I'd processed already. There ARE three rows just very faint. I will load a paper and see if they can be seen in daylight.

 

[MattKing]

OP here. Sorry, not no numbers, just faint numbers that go unseen in low wattage incandescent light through the red window. I had a look at the papers from another box of the same film that I'd processed already. There ARE three rows just very faint. I will load a paper and see if they can be seen in daylight.

From memory of Simon Galley's posts, Ilford went through the process of making their numbers more faint some considerable amount of time ago, also due to problems with "wrapper offset".
I wonder if anyone on APUG is in a position to compare the "readability" of the current Ilford backing paper numbers with the current Kodak backing paper numbers.
I'm going to ask the moderators to change your thread title to something like: "Kodak 120 backing paper numbers - fewer and fainter".

 

[studiocarter]

Something whizzed by the red window in indirect daylight, so the camera back was opened. Backing paper only had been loaded, on spools, and the top row of numbers is too high to line up with the window.
The camera is a Voigtlander Bessa, f3.5 Compur Rapid 1/400 shutter, dual format. It has two red Windows, same alignment.
Bummer.
I was on a retreat and was going to shoot 5 rolls in the woods with an orange filter to lighten fall trees. I brought a tripod and a cable release for long exposures in dim light and f22 for great depth of field.
Next year.

 

[studiocarter]

From memory of Simon Galley's posts, Ilford went through the process of making their numbers more faint some considerable amount of time ago, also due to problems with "wrapper offset".
I wonder if anyone on APUG is in a position to compare the "readability" of the current Ilford backing paper numbers with the current Kodak backing paper numbers.

I saved all of my backing papers and will search this out. Just what did I shoot in this camera?...

Ilford's HP5+400, FP4+125, no problems.

I have all the other backing papers and now will need to find a sample of every film shot so far to see if any may be used in this cameras.

Thes camera is also made to shoot 6x4.5 and would not be usable either in that way, but I don't have the mask. Just saying, in case there are shooters out there wanting to try this film. Don't.

 

[DWThomas]

OK (since a luncheon excursion was canceled )

Note the competition has the multiple rows of numbers.
Also, not obvious in this scan, but the Fuji paper is whiter and has a glossier surface, as in maybe they have a different source (their printing is darker too).

As an old coworker used to say "Ah wish ah understood all ah know about this here thang."

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Jerry,
I think you would be greatly surprised at how many folks use older roll-film cameras and carry them along side both digital and newer film cameras. A Zeiss Ikonta or Voigtlander Bessa 66 are very easy to carry and deliver the goods as well as any camera made today. My two main medium format systems are Hasselblad and Pentax 67, but I shoot just as much, if not more, film in my Zeiss Super Ikonta's, Agfa and Voigtlander folding cameras. You are right about one thing and that is things change. And since they do, I'll be changing over to the Delta films. I personally think this is just a sloppy way of taking the easy way out of a problem that should have never existed in the first place, but that's just my opinion and my opinion usually doesn't count for much.

It turns out that this problem of missing numbers is not real. But I can see the argument that a few more numbers on the backing paper is not a real problem for Kodak or other manufacturers. BTW ALL the backing paper with its printing comes from a single remaining company.

However as a general idea, if I were a manufacturer of a particular widget I would only be expected to maintain a supply of repair parts for 10 years after discontinuing the widget. I personally find this limited liability to be reasonable. You cannot expect a product manufactured more than half a century ago to be still supported. Glad that it still is since I do use my Brownie Hawkeye occasionally.

For many, many years Leica would refurbish any model Leica camera returning it to new condition. Sadly this is no longer true. The practice just became too much of a financial burden on the company.

 

[studiocarter]

400TMY-2 B&W 120 KP 125499 MA-600-1 This version has two dark number rows on the top and middle rows, left to right spooling, 16 & 12, and three rows of numbers along the bottom, 8. Ink is dark.

400TMY-2 B&W 120. KP 130206. MA-600-1. Light gray ink. One row each of all three, 16, 12, & 8. This is not usable in the camera I tried. "Damned engineers, the're always changing things; they just LOVE to tinker"

100 & 400 TX are good as is old Plus X 125PX, 100TMX is ok, too. But those were older films, nothing new there. Thanks to the above pictures TX is no good either anymore.
Ilford's 50, 100 & 400 are good. Were good.