120 backing paper and spools ... Fujifilm distinction, Ilford/Harman fail!

[ChrisGalway]

The angular resolution of a perfect lens ("diffraction-limited", no aberrations) is lambda/D radians, where lambda is the mean wavelength and D is the diameter of the lens. So for a D=3mm pupil of the eye, and say lambda = 550nm, the angular resolution is about 1.80 x 10^(-4) radians, or 36mm at 200m. So with these parameters, I think it's unlikely that even Steve Austin could read the number plate, although remember that the sequence of numbers and letters follows a pattern (different for each country).

But at 100m, I think it's achievable, just. But you need "perfect" vision!

 

[Agulliver]

The DVLA test is being able to read a number plate at 20m Do you really claim to be able to do this at 10x the distance? This is 70m more than the maxímum length of a football(soccer) field

That's Steve Austin standard, isn't it and he cost 6 million dollars back in 1970s money to re-build

pentaxuser

Definitely more than 100m. I wasn't joking when I mentioned the optician saying my distance vision was "super human" when I had my first eye test. Even in my fifties with diabetes beginning to do a little damage to my eyes, I always read the bottom line of the eye test with ease....genuine question, is it actually supposed to be difficult to read the bottom line?

I also begin to wonder if this is part of the reason why I've never really understood the purpose of auto focus. I was today years old when I wondered if "average" eyesight does make manual focus a little difficult for most people?

We all have different skills and abilities. I can't tie knots to save my life. Can't even tie shoelaces.

 

[Wolfram Malukker]

Unfortunately for me, my nearsightedness seems to be ruining my ability to use a rangefinder style camera. I can't see the focus patch with my glasses on, and if I take them off I can see the focus patch, but not the subject!

It's nearly as bad with my new OM-D M1-II's electronic viewfinder, but at least when I take my glasses off I can see the viewfinder OK.

Back to the backing paper, I am trying to build a machine to cut the bulk rolls of backing paper that I have, and while it slits the paper pretty well so far, I think I will make a die to cut the heads and tails. I'll definitely be adding the Fuji hole punch to the papers.

 

[pentaxuser]

Definitely more than 100m. I wasn't joking when I mentioned the optician saying my distance vision was "super human" when I had my first eye test.

I'll be honest and say that after I had asked the question it occurred to me that when you mentioned 200m you may have meant 20m and the extra 0 was a typo but even 100m must meet the "super human" definition

pentaxuser

 

[250swb]

There are pro's and con's for high or low contrast numbers, but so what, it's no reason to choose one film over another. If you prefer films with low contrast numbers hang a key fob torch on your camera strap, if it's too bright paint a few coats of Tamiya Clear Red over the bulb.

 

[ChrisGalway]

There are pro's and con's for high or low contrast numbers, but so what, it's no reason to choose one film over another. If you prefer films with low contrast numbers hang a key fob torch on your camera strap, if it's too bright paint a few coats of Tamiya Clear Red over the bulb.

From a USER perspective, I do not think there are any pros for low contrast numbers, or bad layout design, or lack of attention to detail in the spool, or poor adhesive for sealing the roll.

Of course we can overcome the poor contrast problem as you describe, or just let sunlight fall on the red window. Personally I steer clear of Ilford roll films because of their poor attention to detail on the packaging. I'll continue to use 35mm Delta 100 though, it's a nice film.

 

[Agulliver]

Even in sunlight, the Ilford numbers are difficult for me to read. I shot a roll of Phoenix in 120 last week and I know I missed frame 8. Remember that different people see colours differently - which may also be why I don't like Kodak Gold because to me the reds look like mud.

This is precisely why I use more Foma B&W film in 120 and Lomography colour. I genuinely find the modern backing papers difficult on Kodak and Harman products - even if they are objectively better in most cases.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Koraks shows us in post #2 the difference in contrast between the two paper backings. Ilford (on the left) has a muddy white backing paper an extremely light numbers. Since the issue of bleeding/dye transfer seems to be an ink transfer problem(ink touching the film emulsion) then it seems to me Ilford could at least buy or have printed the same ink that Foma or Fuji buys, printed on their paper. I really like almost all of Ilford B&W films, but I really wonder if Ilford really likes or care about folks with cameras that use the good old ruby window. I believe there is and attitude in manufacturing and retail that says, "Those folks are living in the past and the sooner they upgrade to the new and supposedly better (camera), the better off they'll be". It's like being told you are insignificant and really don't matter much. That's a nice feeling to have isn't it? I think if all the folks that, even occasionally, use cameras with a ruby window were to boycott Ilford and use other B&W films for a spell, it would show that we're not that insignificant. Please give us worthless souls some Foma or Fuji nice dark ink. Please! Yes, I know it ain't gonna happen, but if the wheel doesn't squeak it won't get oiled.

 

[pentaxuser]

John, it appears to me based on several answers my original post that I received, it is not that Ilford doesn't care but it can do nothing about it except what it has done already which has resulted in the printing being faint

My analysis in my original post was somewhat simplistic and Ilford and all the other film makers for that matter are always doing their best for their customers

It's a bit like my wife's description of me which is I am far from perfect but do try my best and most importantly she is stuck with me warts and all

pentaxuser

 

[BrianShaw]

John, it appears to me based on several answers my original post that I received, it is not that Ilford doesn't care but it can do nothing about it except what it has done already which has resulted in the printing being faint

My analysis in my original post was somewhat simplistic and Ilford and all the other film makers for that matter are always doing their best for their customers

It's a bit like my wife's description of me which is I am far from perfect but do try my best and most importantly she is stuck with me warts and all

pentaxuser

Thank you for this; I could not have written anything quite that polite. “Don’t care” doesn’t seem to be in the Harman/Ilford vocabulary. It is possible that they overcompensated on countermeasures against future transfer issues. In my mind, that’s caring a lot.

 

[retina_restoration]

Thank you for this; I could not have written anything quite that polite. “Don’t care” doesn’t seem to be in the Harman/Ilford vocabulary. It is possible that they overcompensated on countermeasures against future transfer issues. In my mind, that’s caring a lot.

I agree. I cannot imagine Ilford intentionally abandoning ANY of their customers, for any reason whatsoever. Ilford isn't Apple: they're not going to make decisions that are designed to force their "red window users" to give up their quaint tools in favor of more modern equipment. That seems antithetical to Ilford's entire reason for being.

 

[MattKing]

it seems to me Ilford could at least buy or have printed the same ink that Foma or Fuji buys, printed on their paper

To get the same result, they will also need to change their film emulsion to be the same that FOMA or FUJI use.
Film emulsion is designed to be incredibly sensitive to all sorts of things.
And of course, it cannot be forgotten that both Harman and Kodak lack the capability to make and print their own backing paper - so they are at the mercy of what the specialized printing market can offer. The realities in that market, including an almost complete move away from the traditional inks to more modern soy based inks, combined with the significant changes in the emulsions to create the modern situation.
I don't know whether Foma or Fuji make or print their own backing paper.

 

[Agulliver]

Absolutely, Ilford/Harman demonstrate they care about their customers (traditional and new) more than any of the other major film manufacturers. My bet is that they cannot simply buy in the backing paper used by Fuji or Foma because it would cause problems for Ilford films. They've done the best they can, at considerable cost, to solve the problems they had a few years ago. If they could increase the contrast, they surely would. It's not that they don't care.

It might be a worthwhile experiment to re-roll some Ilford films with Fuji or Foma or even Lomography and see if there's any problems.

 

[ChrisGalway]

.......

It might be a worthwhile experiment to re-roll some Ilford films with Fuji or Foma or even Lomography and see if there's any problems.

I've just bought 4 rolls 65mm Vision 3 (250D) rolled into Fujifilm backing paper and 120 spools, from ThisIsHowIRollFilm and probably won't start using them for 3-6 months. So I'll report back if I get any problems.

 

[ChrisGalway]

Absolutely, Ilford/Harman demonstrate they care about their customers (traditional and new) more than any of the other major film manufacturers. My bet is that they cannot simply buy in the backing paper used by Fuji or Foma because it would cause problems for Ilford films. They've done the best they can, at considerable cost, to solve the problems they had a few years ago. If they could increase the contrast, they surely would. It's not that they don't care.

.....

As I remarked in Post #16:

The Ilford "design" seems to be done by an intern in the marketing department on a Friday afternoon.

It's not just the faintness of the ink. It's the fact that no thought at all has been given to the design. Look again at the photos in Post #2 ... are those dotted circles, going from small to large, best most visible pre-marker to the numbers? I can't believe it's the best signalling/alert for the numbers. Did they do any experiments on this?

No printing at the beginning of the roll (photo 2)? No hole in the leader? Crummy spool. Licking gum to seal at the end?

I think people are making excuses for Ilford's packaging of roll film. I can't believe it's rocket science. Yes, their emulsions are excellent, and that's important, but Ilford have spoilt the experience of using their films.

 

[250swb]

From a USER perspective, I do not think there are any pros for low contrast numbers, or bad layout design, or lack of attention to detail in the spool, or poor adhesive for sealing the roll.

Of course we can overcome the poor contrast problem as you describe, or just let sunlight fall on the red window. Personally I steer clear of Ilford roll films because of their poor attention to detail on the packaging. I'll continue to use 35mm Delta 100 though, it's a nice film.

From a USER perspective I USE Ilford 120 film because it's the best for the job I want to do, but I don't whine and cringe and surrender over irrelevances, your view clearly differs.

 

[BrianShaw]

Clearly, this thread shows that there are differences in backing paper design and opinions favoring both. Or, at least few opinions that hate one because of the other. Interestingly, it seems to me that the Fuji short-and-holey leader and spool is non-standard. Personally, I find that more of a detractor than benefit. But either works. If I were to add another pet peeve to the discussion… why the heck don’t the manufacturers print a schematic of their frame marking scheme on the box/wrapper so those of us who forget the many schemes will know what exactly to expect.

 

[pentaxuser]

And of course, it cannot be forgotten that both Harman and Kodak lack the capability to make and print their own backing paper - so they are at the mercy of what the specialized printing market can offer.

But,Matt, weren't you the one saying that Kodak solved its problem but had to spend an enormous amount of money to do so with the implicatíon that Ilford was not on a position to do this as it lacks such resources so had to settle for a cheaper solution of fainter ink?

pentaxuser

 

[BrianShaw]

It seems to me that Kodak and Hartman/Ilford chose 2 different engineering solutions: varnish barrier layer added to the paper and reducing the amount of ink on the backing paper, respectively. The backing paper was publicly verified by a Kodak Product Manager. The lighter printing on Ilford we can see with our own eyes. It’s not clear to me which is the most optimal, although the Ilford solution makes red-window cameras a bit more challenging. Calling one engineering solution “settling” is, umm, an “interesting “ opinion. I’ve not seen any indications from authoritative sources that the ink itself changed in either situation. Nor any indication that the emulsion changed due to that situation. But Im open to having my memory refreshed if it’s not just speculation or rumor.

 

[MattKing]

But,Matt, weren't you the one saying that Kodak solved its problem but had to spend an enormous amount of money to do so with the implicatíon that Ilford was not on a position to do this as it lacks such resources so had to settle for a cheaper solution of fainter ink?

pentaxuser

Yes - Kodak solved their problem by spending a bunch of research and development money on it, and by doing so developing a closely guarded trade secret solution that the existing specialty paper manufacturers and printers were able to implement.
We don't know how much of that work also consisted of developing required revisions to the film emulsions that complemented the work on the paper and printing.

 

[MattKing]

It seems to me that Kodak and Hartman/Ilford chose 2 different engineering solutions: varnish barrier layer added to the paper and reducing the amount of ink on the backing paper, respectively. The backing paper was publicly verified by a Kodak Product Manager. The lighter printing on Ilford we can see with our own eyes. It’s not clear to me which is the most optimal, although the Ilford solution makes red-window cameras a bit more challenging. Calling one engineering solution “settling” is, umm, an “interesting “ opinion. I’ve not seen any indications from authoritative sources that the ink itself changed in either situation. Nor any indication that the emulsion changed due to that situation. But Im open to having my memory refreshed if it’s not just speculation or rumor.

The printing industry has in relatively recent times made major changes to the inks employed generally in the industry. Apparently all sorts of things like metallic components are out, and soy is now prevalent.
Of course those changes were not made with 120 backing paper in mind, as that application is a niche within a niche within a niche.
Kodak had initially tried just reducing the ink loads - resulting in numbers as faint as the Ilford numbers - but even that wasn't enough.
The need to have the same backing paper work with all 120 films - fast and slow, t-grain and traditional, colour negative and (in the offing at the time) colour transparency - no doubt complicated the problem.
One of the options that were considered was to omit the back printing entirely, but that choice wasn't taken by any of the major manufacturers.

 

[BrianShaw]

Hi Matt. Just for context and not intended to be confrontational. Most industries transitioned to soy-based inks about 3 decades ago.

 

[DREW WILEY]

What I miss are the Fuji Easy-Load spools. I've saved up a number of them. Just that slightly more convex top and bottom surface did make a distinct difference in ease of loading. The current Acros II film doesn't use them. I wonder who owns the patent.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Thank you for this; I could not have written anything quite that polite. “Don’t care” doesn’t seem to be in the Harman/Ilford vocabulary. It is possible that they overcompensated on countermeasures against future transfer issues. In my mind, that’s caring a lot.

Actually Brian, I was intentionally stirring the pot. Yes, I'm guilty as charged. First off I never said that Harman/Ilford "don't care". What I said was "I really wonder if they........, Which is not the same as a direct, positive "don't care". Also, I never condemned the product, just the packaging. Since Matt said Kodak solved their problem, but at a fairly heavy cost, it would seem that Kodak at least cared a little more than HARMAN/ILFORD. Just going by what Matt said and I can't prove anything one way or the other. I do think Harman/Ilford could have at least used a much whiter Foma or Fuji style paper, which would at least up the contrast to make those faint numbers stand out much more than they do now on their almost grey backing paper. I can't see where the cost of a whiter paper would have been that much more. Matt also said that Ilford would have to reformulated their emulsion if they were to use a different ink/paper. That might just be true and not worth it for just making it easier for ruby window users. I have always wonder about that answer?
It might sound like I hate Harman/Ilford, but the truth is I shoot far more Iford film than any other B&W film on the market. Like I said, I have zero complaints about the films themselves.
I think I'm going to try to solve this little mystery of Foma style ink and paper not working with an Ilford B&W emulsion. Here is what I'm going to do and I wish a couple other folks here, having trouble seeing Ilford film numbers, would do the same thing. I'm going to take a 120 roll of HP5+ and one of Delta 400, two different emulsion types and re-roll those tightly onto Foma 100 120 backing paper. Then expose both to normal climate and slightly hotter more humid climate with zero refrigeration. In six to eight months time I should have a pretty good answer. I'll even use Ilfords own ID-11 developer for home processing. Time will tell I guess. No more pot stirring! As for now, I'll just keep carrying a penlight and soldier on with Ilford B&W films.

 

[BrianShaw]

Hi John, no need to defend yourself to me. I understand you although I don’t necessarily agree. Engineering changes, even those that are seemingly easy, can be complex and costly… and impossible to fully understand the decisions and trade space unless one is part of the engineering team.

You were not the source of “Ilford don’t care”; apparently that’s an impression that was given to another member.

The problem in every one of these discussions is that the bulk of the information stated or recited is not supported by documentation. Im trusting but “trust me” sources tend to incite a desire for authoritative first-hand verifiable sources. So far, the only verifiable source seems to be the interview with a Kodak Product Manager linked earlier.

Good luck with your experiment. Should be interesting.