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

[ChrisGalway]

The numbers on the back of Ilford/Harman Delta 400 are very light, extremely difficult to see through the red window. In contrast, Fujifilm Provia could not be clearer, see the attached photo (which shows the numbers darker then they really are for Delta 400). The Fujifilm Provia backing paper also has a hole in the leader, which engages with a catch index the slot of the plastic spool, very useful for loading the film, see second photo.

Ilford/Harman make nice B&W emulsions, but they seem to have switched off on the packaging. This is "Film Photography 101". Having difficulty seeing the numbers when winding on takes some of the fun out of using a film camera. Or perhaps they think we need to be challenged?

By the way, notice how the Fujifilm dots before the numbers are so much more sensible ... large, medium, small in that order ... so you approach the number clearly. Fuji have put some thought into the packaging, Ilford have not.

 

[koraks]

Here are the photos you tried to attach; it's more convenient than having to download pdf's to view pics.

 

[relistan]

Ilford/Harman made their numbers quite a bit lower contrast as a result of all the bleed-through that happened where numbers were being exposed onto the film. This change was some years back. Presumably what Fuji has done is to actually have a better light-proof paper where this does not happen, which then enables higher contrast numbers.

 

[Prest_400]

Ilford/Harman make nice B&W emulsions, but they seem to have switched off on the packaging. This is "Film Photography 101". Having difficulty seeing the numbers when winding on takes some of the fun out of using a film camera. Or perhaps they think we need to be challenged?

In layman's terms it's paper and ink, in film manufacturing the backing paper costs even more than the film and is highly specialised (it's just paper, right?).
The offset and mottling was a huge problem even with Kodak really struggling, MattKing described well and I was surprised on the level of criticality this had. Quoting his post from another thread about backing paper:

It could very well be that due to the nature of the paper and printing options that are available to them, the two options are:
1) put up with the issues as they are; or
2) stop producing the 120 film products.
When Eastman Kodak were recently struggling with the wrapper offset problem, they came very close to option 2, because option 1 was considered totally unacceptable to them.

Fuji never seemed to have this issue or only very lightly with old film and badly stored conditions. And their backing paper has always been this strongly printed. I had shot some 2006 Astia that has some slight paper texture to it, if it comes to that.

My cameras don't use red window, and I have photo friends that chose Foma instead of Ilford Kentmere because of the frame advancing difficulties... But I'd rather have these films without defects and issues if this minimises it.

 

[Agulliver]

Fuji somehow never had the problems that Kodak and Harman/Ilford had. Kodak and Harman had to redesign their backing paper with lower contrast numbers and indicators....and I agree, it does make it difficult to see the numbers through the ruby window on most cameras.

Lomography branded film and Foma films have nice backing paper with clear numbers but it is possible their QC permits bleed through after the film expires. I know Kodak (and likely Harman) are striving to ensure bleed through doesn't happen even after expiry.

I was shooting some Harman Phoenix in 120 just yesterday and had this trouble. When I shoot Delta 3200 in a dim music club I actually get my partner to advance the film as her ability to see in the dark is way better than mine (conversely she suffers even in normal lighting conditions). I do like Fomapan 100 and 400 in 120 for this reason. All but one of my 120 cameras uses the ruby window.

 

[loccdor]

her ability to see in the dark is way better than mine

My wife says this too and says it's due to brown eyes being better with darkness than blue. I don't know if it's true or not.

I can confirm that Fuji's backing paper is nice, for example I was able to do some 4 AM shots with the red window of a Voigtlander Bessa and still see the numbers by faint ambient street lighting.

In fact, I would say just about everything Fujifilm does is better than their competition, except their ability to actually get their genuine product to market lately...

 

[John Wiegerink]

I just ran into this "AGAIN" with my lovely little Wirgin Auta folder. It has the worst, darkest ruby window of any camera I have. I have to carry a penlight even in daylight hours for that camera. I shine it very briefly into the ruby window just ti see the number as I advance the film. Of course 75 year old eyes don't help matters either. I use many old cameras that rely on a ruby window and others that rely on the window for the first frame. I've been shooting more Foma 100 and now trying some Foma 200 to see if they have fixed the emulsion problem. I could very likely use those two films only for my folders. Yes, I really miss bold numbers, but such is life I guess.

 

[Agulliver]

I do have blue eyes....the first time I had an eye test the optician actually said, "I bet you see really poorly in the dark but have super-human detailed distance vision"....and she was right. Rods & cones and all that.

I use my phone's torch/flashlight function to see the frame numbers through the ruby window but that's a bit rude in a music club....so I try not to. I cannot even begin to fathom how my partner can see the marks on the backing paper so easily in those conditions. But she can.

It seems that Harman and Kodak have finalised their 120 backing paper so we are probably not going to see the darker print from them in the future.

 

[ChrisGalway]

......

My cameras don't use red window, and I have photo friends that chose Foma instead of Ilford Kentmere because of the frame advancing difficulties... But I'd rather have these films without defects and issues if this minimises it.

Yes, perhaps this is a fiendish trick to get us all into buying Mamiya 7's, TLRs and other cameras that have auto-wind-on!

And yes, in the end our first priority is a decent emulsion/coating.

But Fujifilm's backing paper is SO MUCH BETTER ... how can making proper backing paper be so difficult? It's also the printing layout/design, and the nice Fuji touch of the hole/slot-catch in the spool ... someone at Fuji actually put some thought into this.

 

[koraks]

I do have blue eyes....the first time I had an eye test the optician actually said, "I bet you see really poorly in the dark but have super-human detailed distance vision"....and she was right. Rods & cones and all that.

Yup, rods & cones, but those have no relation to eye color. The notion that eye color would have an impact on night vision in particular (which has nothing to do with near/far vision) relies on the hypothesis that the pigment in brown eyes will block a little more light than it does in blue eyes. In reality, there's no significant difference shown between both eye colors, or put differently, there's no correlation between eye color and actual quality of vision. Someone can have blue or grey eyes and have abysmal night vision (e.g. my wife) and vice versa. Again, near/far is yet a different issue.

Btw, if you think about the pigment hypothesis, it makes very little sense since the argument relies on light penetrating the retina, but what matters for vision is actually the light that passes the iris opening. Eye color of course doesn't have any influence on the latter. And the influence on the former is also not necessarily positive as light passing the retina as a whole will be poorly focused and therefore might only help discerning the amount of light, but no shape or detail.

 

[pentaxuser]

In terms of a solution it would seem that if Fuji has never really had the "Ilford problem" if I may call it that. then the solution involves Ilford obtaining the kind of backing paper that Fuji obtains

Is this possible? Unless Fuji has a contract with its backing paper supplier that prevents Ilford obtaining this paper then the next question is: At what extra cost, if any, can this paper be obtained and does Ilford believe that its 120 film customers will pay the extra?

If it can't or won't obtain this "Fuji paper" for cost reasons then we are stuck with what we have and consumers can "put up or shut up"

This still leaves the option of complaining on forums which of course may still be therapeutic and therefore beneficíal to our mental well being

Just in case anyone thinks that the above is from a non user of a red window camera who is indifferent to the problem, it is not

I speak as someone who wound nearly a whole roll of 120 Ilford film into an Agfa Isolette before realising I has passed the point of no return but has seen nothing in the red window and had to go to the trouble of taking it 15 miles to the nearest camera dealer who was able to rewind it back for me. I had no darkroom or changing bag at that time and had anyway no experience of knowing what to do


pentaxuser

 

[blee1996]

For my older cameras with orange/red windows, I stick with Foma / Arista EDU B&W film which have way clearer numbers and dots. Modern Ilford film is really bad in this aspect.

For color, Fujicolor and Fujichrome also have good visibility.

 

[MattKing]

Just a reminder - most of the wrapper offset issues have little to do with the backing paper itself. They arise because of the chemical interaction between the emulsion of the film, and the back of the backing paper that it is pressed against, including the printing thereon.
Every time an emulsion is changed, the possibility of new wrapper offset issues arising is very real.
So swapping the backing paper from Fuji to Ilford or Kodak film may very well not work at all!
Eastman Kodak is carefully guarding the technology they use for their current backing papers - it is a very valuable asset, that cost them a huge amount of money to develop.

 

[loccdor]

Yup, rods & cones, but those have no relation to eye color. The notion that eye color would have an impact on night vision in particular (which has nothing to do with near/far vision) relies on the hypothesis that the pigment in brown eyes will block a little more light than it does in blue eyes. In reality, there's no significant difference shown between both eye colors, or put differently, there's no correlation between eye color and actual quality of vision. Someone can have blue or grey eyes and have abysmal night vision (e.g. my wife) and vice versa. Again, near/far is yet a different issue.

That's good to know. It seems the brown is just nature's UV filter, as it is with skin.

 

[pentaxuser]

Just a reminder - most of the wrapper offset issues have little to do with the backing paper itself. They arise because of the chemical interaction between the emulsion of the film, and the back of the backing paper that it is pressed against, including the printing thereon.
Every time an emulsion is changed, the possibility of new wrapper offset issues arising is very real.
So swapping the backing paper from Fuji to Ilford or Kodak film may very well not work at all!
Eastman Kodak is carefully guarding the technology they use for their current backing papers - it is a very valuable asset, that cost them a huge amount of money to develop.

Sounds as if short of spending a lot of money Ilford will be unable to improve matters

Is that a reasonable conclusion to draw Matt from what you have said and if not can you say why not?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[ChrisGalway]

Just a reminder - most of the wrapper offset issues have little to do with the backing paper itself. They arise because of the chemical interaction between the emulsion of the film, and the back of the backing paper that it is pressed against, including the printing thereon.
Every time an emulsion is changed, the possibility of new wrapper offset issues arising is very real.
So swapping the backing paper from Fuji to Ilford or Kodak film may very well not work at all!
Eastman Kodak is carefully guarding the technology they use for their current backing papers - it is a very valuable asset, that cost them a huge amount of money to develop.

The main issue is the ink and the design, not the paper itself although it obviously plays some role.

Look at the photos on post 2 (thanks Koraks), and see how much clearer and definitive the Fuji design is (and as I mentioned in the original post, the iPhone photo makes the Ilford look clearer than it actually is). When you wind on the Fujifilm, looking in the red window, you first see a big bold black dot, followed by 3-5 equally bold but gradually smaller dots and then the number. Starting off with the big black dot gets your attention (long before the number) and then you carefully concentrate on the following smaller and smaller ones until you get to the number ... the person who designed that took photos themselves, I suggest.

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

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, one of the motivating issues when it comes to backing paper is that whereas in the past film manufacturers had high enough volumes to support different backing paper orders for different films, the volumes today are so much smaller. When this is combined with the minimum order requirements of the few remaining sufficiently specialized manufacturers of paper capable of making such a specialized product, it is no longer possible to place orders for different backing papers for different films.
In Kodak's case, they needed to find a single backing paper solution that worked for traditional and T-grain black and white emulsions, slow and faster colour negative solutions, and a colour transparency emulsion.
The mix of acetate and polyester substrates may play into this as well.
In Harman's case they need backing paper solutions that work with traditional and Delta black and white emulsions of various speeds, as well as XP2.
Absent some expensive and time consuming research into a whole bunch of issues regarding your emulsions and the inks that are currently available, in order to use the Fuji backing paper as it currently is, you probably need to have Fuji make the film for you too, with Fuji designed emulsions on it.

 

[reddesert]

I don't get this eye color folklore. The color is in the iris, but you see through the pupil, that's the black part, the hole in your iris. It's like claiming that different materials of aperture blades in your lens will make it more sensitive to light - when the point of the aperture blades is to restrict the light. FWIW, I have or had fairly good dark vision, and I have blue eyes; but when I finally had to start going to an optometrist to get glasses, I found out that I had slightly larger pupils than average.

If you are having trouble reading the markings through the red window, and I understand that can be a real problem, try using reading glasses or a magnifier. I'm not being sarcastic. Many people whose reading vision is a little suspect (which often happens with age) will make do reading things in bright light without correction, but a dim image presents a real challenge, and that's what the red window presents.

 

[OAPOli]

Personally I've had little issue with Ilford numbers through red windows. But yes Fuji is better.

The red window is likely not necessary anyway. You could try removing it temporarily?

 

[mshchem]

Fuji system is great.

Fuji is the best system, except Fuji doesn't make anything (hardly)

New Eastman Kodak backing paper shellac (shiny coating) works great, be careful as the sealing tape doesn't stick. That's fine I love Kodak 120 films.

I love Ilford films.

I wonder if Fuji discontinue films when they run out of pre-printed backing papers??

 

[Agulliver]

Harman now also use the same backing paper on Phoenix so it has to work with that too. It may well be that if Harman used the same backing paper as Fuji, Lomography or Foma (all of which are clearly numbered/labelled) there would be undesirable interactions with the Harman emulsions.

It is a bit of a problem, I have occasionally wound past a frame and missed it. Rods and cones rather than eye colour, but I really do need good contrast to see things clearly and with Harman film of any brand, I do struggle. Hence using the phone light. Or getting someone to do it for me. In the jazz club, I can barely see the ruby window is even there and certainly not that there's paper behind it. Mind you, my eyes are also super sensitive to red - I can see near IR (some security cameras with IR night vision, for example) and car tail lights dazzle me as if they're being shone right in my face. It's colour perception as well as contrast and detail. I can't see in the dark but I can read a car number plate from 200m at least.

 

[BrianShaw]

It seems that multiple countermeasures were implemented to address wrapper offset interactions: lightening the printing, addition of a barrier layer on the paper, and I seem to recall that maybe the ink itself was changed. This site provides some 2018-era insights on the backing paper update from an active Kodak representative.

120 Film - Kodak Uses New Backing Paper - The Film Photography Project

The Film Photography Project informs, engages and inspires film enthusiasts of all levels. While promoting the viability of vintage cameras and film.

filmphotographyproject.com

The lightening of the printing, unfortunately, is not addressed. For me, that has been a minor problem that has been remedied by using a small flashlight. If only I had one more arm and hand! The referenced discussion does include my biggest pet peeve: the finicky nature of the sealing tape. I also carry rubber bands now.