Anyone ever make their own roll film paper backing?

[480sparky]

I'm on a quest: I'm looking for information on how to make my own roll film paper backing. Has anyone ever tried this? Done it successfully? If so, what process & materials did you use?

 

[michr]

It's been asserted on this forum before that making the backing is at least as expensive and complicated as making the film. I don't know the truth of the matter, but getting the ink coating thick and consistent enough to block out stray light from reaching the film and imprinting numbers on your negatives has been a problem very recently.

At the risk of the typical forum response of why do you want to do that, do this instead, what problem are you trying to solve that wouldn't be better accomplished by either cutting existing backing to size, or overlapping multiple pieces (if you need a larger piece)? Do you need to count exposures using a red window, or is the backing only for daylight loading and storage, like with 220 film?

 

[480sparky]

I'm mostly interested in blocking the light. The paper won't be an issue... I have a source that can cut paper to my specs. What I need is to make the paper light-tight. My old paper backing is worn out and now useless, and it appears to be a heavy coating of glossy ink. The paper backing from my Ilford 120 stuff almost feels like a thin rubber layer.

 

[GregW]

I've used Exeter paper from Cartoon Colour. It works great. A fine point opaque white marker for the frame numbering. Cutting it precisely I found tedious, so having someone else be responsible sounds good.

 

[Lachlan Young]

It also needs to be chemically non-reactive with the film - take a look at the issues Kodak and others have had with their backing papers & the inks over the years. This alone will rule out most cheap papers, acid content & alkaline buffering can both cause all sorts of problems to photographic materials. I suspect that it's a paper loaded with carbon or similar pigments to make it as light tight as possible, duplexed to a white sheet for the printed surface - the gloss is as much from the effects of the supercalendaring as anything else.

 

[RattyMouse]

220 didn't have paper throughout the whole roll of film did it? How does 220 film get away without paper then?

 

[480sparky]

220 didn't have paper throughout the whole roll of film did it? How does 220 film get away without paper then?

220 roll film cameras don't need it. Many 120 cameras have a little window to view the numbers on the back of the paper to properly advance the film.

 

[MattKing]

220 roll film cameras don't need it. Many 120 cameras have a little window to view the numbers on the back of the paper to properly advance the film.

220 roll film cameras require the backing paper leaders and trailers - unless one is willing to both load and unload film in total darkness.
You need something like the 35mm film cassette to do away with backing paper.

 

[480sparky]

220 roll film cameras require the backing paper leaders and trailers .........

Which is what RattyMouse referred to. Was asking about why there's no paper all the way from start to finish.

 

[MattKing]

Was asking about why there's no paper all the way from start to finish.

If there was, you would need a larger spool, and the spool plus film wouldn't fit in the 120/220 cameras.

 

[EdSawyer]

I and I am sure many others throw out a lot of 120 backing paper, I could easily save you some?

 

[480sparky]

I and I am sure many others throw out a lot of 120 backing paper, I could easily save you some?

Sure I could........... if I wanted backing for 120-size film.

 

[Wayne]

I've been saving all of my backing papers for the zombie apocalype. If the internet is still running, shoot me a note.

 

[EdSawyer]

what size do you need/want then?

 

[480sparky]

what size do you need/want then?

Just shy of 3-3/4". But that's not the problem. I can buy as much as I want.

It's the layer that's used to make it light-tight. That's what I'm after.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

You just can't use any paper. It must be completely non-reactive toward the film emulsion. A few years ago a gentlemen was selling no longer supported film sizes. When he could no longer find a supplier of suitable paper he was forced out of business. There is now only one company that makes suitable paper and ink and THEY WLL NOT SELL TO INDIVIDUALS. So good luck.

 

[480sparky]

..........There is now only one company that makes suitable paper and ink and THEY WLL NOT SELL TO INDIVIDUALS..........

Hence, the DIY approach.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Hence, the DIY approach.

I believe you misunderstood my post. I was not talking about cutting paper to size, printing it, etc. Are you prepared to actually make paper? The paper stock used is a composite, that is it is multilayered. Every step in its manufacture is aimed at making it photographically neutral. The gentleman I mentioned tried many different paper stocks for suitability and was never able to find one. The main sticking point is non-reactivity but then there are others such as paper thickness, opacity, dimensional stability, moisture resistance, etc. Why do you think Kodak and Ilford among others do not make their own backing paper? Think about it.

 

[darkroommike]

You just can't use any paper. It must be completely non-reactive toward the film emulsion. A few years ago a gentlemen was selling no longer supported film sizes. When he could no longer find a supplier of suitable paper he was forced out of business. There is now only one company that makes suitable paper and ink and THEY WLL NOT SELL TO INDIVIDUALS. So good luck.

Ilford will sell 120 backing paper during the once a year ULF maybe a shout to them could source other sizes.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Good luck on your endeavor, I rather spend my time shooting film. I recommend that you recycle old paper backings since they have the numbers properly printed on them.

 

[faberryman]

It must be obvious to everyone but me. What do you need the paper backing for?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would guess for 120, 127 or 620 film. I doubt that he would need it for 35mm.

 

[GregW]

As I mentioned earlier the Exeter paper works great, the right weight, opaque etc. From a pragmatic view, I doubt the rolls you make will be sitting around long enough to harm the film, other environmental factors will be likely more deleterious. Good luck in your endeavor.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I would guess for 120, 127 or 620 film. I doubt that he would need it for 35mm.

Also 828 film size.

 

[480sparky]

As I mentioned earlier the Exeter paper works great, the right weight, opaque etc. From a pragmatic view, I doubt the rolls you make will be sitting around long enough to harm the film, other environmental factors will be likely more deleterious. Good luck in your endeavor.

I've got that link bookmarked. I'll have to order some (despite the $75 minimum). I'll let everyone know how it works out.