Are there 120 roll films that don’t have the number on the backing to use with the red window on my vintage folder? What films do I need to avoid?
Thanks
knj
Thanks
knj
Are there 120 films that are not numbered on the paper backing?
-
A
- Thread starter knj
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy (Rada? Rollex?) Roll film back for Kodak Recomar No. 18 camera
- Started by alanshaw
-
Sold Rollei Rolleinar 2 Bay II
- Started by skylight1b
-
For Sale Beseler 8053 35mm Negative Carrier for the 23C models
- Started by mgb74
-
For Sale NIKON 20mm f/2.8 AF-D
- Started by Acere
-
Sold Coolscan 4000/5000 MA-21 Slide mount adapter (free)
- Started by RoboRepublic
Forum statistics
I want to buy film to use in my recently cla‘ed Ansco Speedex. Mostly snapshots and family. Color and b+w. I was reading some reviews at B and H that said one of the Kodak Professional films were not printed on the backing paper.
There was a review for this stating backing not numbered.
I would welcome some film recommendations for general purpose photography, both color and b+w.
Kodak Professional Ektar 100 Color Negative Film (120 Roll Film, 5-Pack)
There was a review for this stating backing not numbered.
I would welcome some film recommendations for general purpose photography, both color and b+w.
If you use an un-numbered film, you wouldn't be using the red window anyway. Might it not make sense just to use any film you like and keep the red window obscured? I'm sort of assuming that you just want to avoid light reaching the film via the red window and backing paper.
Oh, sorry. On re-reading your original post, I think there's an ambiguity and that what you want to avoid is un-numbered films.
The "unnumbered" Ektar probably wasn't -- but Kodak has made their framing tracks pretty faint in the past few years, as well as narrowing the 6x9 track so it's possible some 6x9 folders might not match up with those numbers, or it might be difficult or impossible to read the framing number in a few cameras (my Mamiya 6 folder, for instance, has the film recessed from the yellow window due to the moving film plane focusing system, and faint frame numbers require strong, direct light in the window).
That said, I doubt there is or has been any 120 film with no framing numbers, since that film would be usable only in auto-counter cameras and film backs.
That said, I doubt there is or has been any 120 film with no framing numbers, since that film would be usable only in auto-counter cameras and film backs.
For any film from Kodak I’d assume that frame marking is provided on 120 backing paper. Because of bad info and random assumptions on the internet, I asked Kodak recently and received confirmation. They specifically stated “all” and did not identify any exceptions.
Somewhere I thought I had similar verification from Harman/Ilford but can't find it. All Ilford film that I've used has markings, but I haven't used them all.
The off-name films... might be best to contact the manufacturer and ask or sacrifice a roll and let us all know. It's a shame that this information is so insignificant anymore that it is not included in the film data sheets.
The off-name films... might be best to contact the manufacturer and ask or sacrifice a roll and let us all know. It's a shame that this information is so insignificant anymore that it is not included in the film data sheets.
I went to B&H and found what you mentioned:
In the frequently asked questions [EDIT: September 2018]: "If there are, as I have heard, no numbers on the back of the film, can it be used in older cameras?" , which was replied multiple times that numbers are, indeed, on the film backing paper. The mention of 220, while technically correct, is a red herring as the film is not available in 220 size.
The lone 1-star comment [EDIT: February 2018], out of 257 comments, which I'm a bit skeptical about:
For 35mm, this film is 5 stars but for 120, it's a 1 Star. Why? Because there are no numbers on the film back to know what exposure you're on, how many you have left, or where the next exposure even starts! im pretty sure this roll is going to have a bunch of double exposures because I have no idea how far to advance the film to the next exposure. Cmon Kodak, I expected better
In the frequently asked questions [EDIT: September 2018]: "If there are, as I have heard, no numbers on the back of the film, can it be used in older cameras?" , which was replied multiple times that numbers are, indeed, on the film backing paper. The mention of 220, while technically correct, is a red herring as the film is not available in 220 size.
The lone 1-star comment [EDIT: February 2018], out of 257 comments, which I'm a bit skeptical about:
No numbers on film back!
ByMattFor 35mm, this film is 5 stars but for 120, it's a 1 Star. Why? Because there are no numbers on the film back to know what exposure you're on, how many you have left, or where the next exposure even starts! im pretty sure this roll is going to have a bunch of double exposures because I have no idea how far to advance the film to the next exposure. Cmon Kodak, I expected better
Last edited:
Probably loaded the film back to front and was looking at the film threw the red window instead of the backing paper .
He'll be cursing the lab , the film or the camera when he gets it developed as it might be coming back blank !
I wonder how old some of those comments are. It seemed to me circa 2016 there was a sort of intermediate step (by Kodak) attempting to reduce wrapper offset that disappeared some rows of numbers in addition to reducing the quantity of printing and density of the ink. The numbers for 6x9 frames had been a triple row but was replaced with a single, centered row which created problems. (Since 120 film goes back over a hundred years, early standards may have been loose -- or non-existent!) The reaction stirred up caused the problem to be corrected. I have a limited number of cameras to test this issue, most are 6x6, but the 6x9s I have show numbers.
I just took a quick look at the backing paper from a recent roll of 400TX and it has the triple row of numbers in the 6x9 band. The bands for 6x6 and 645 are only single rows where some earlier examples had a double row, no idea if there may be a rare camera where that causes problems.
For standard red window use, some of the changes make the little advance markers rather faint. With an old and maybe dirty red window it's easier to crank past the frame number than in the 'good old days'.
I just took a quick look at the backing paper from a recent roll of 400TX and it has the triple row of numbers in the 6x9 band. The bands for 6x6 and 645 are only single rows where some earlier examples had a double row, no idea if there may be a rare camera where that causes problems.
For standard red window use, some of the changes make the little advance markers rather faint. With an old and maybe dirty red window it's easier to crank past the frame number than in the 'good old days'.
I've shot current Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, Foma, Ferrania, Kentmere, and Rollei and all have had frame numbers. As Donald pointed out Kodak printing is a light grey that is probably a little challenging to see through a dark ruby window.
MattKing
Moderator
The now more than 120 year old Kodak cameras that were introduced along with the then new 120 format film had/have a window that does not align with the current specification for numbering. That showed up when Kodak removed a couple of extra to specification lines of numbers in their efforts to reduce ink load on the backing paper when they were trying to deal with the wrapper offset problems they were wrestling with then.
There is an APUG/Photrio thread from several years back where someone bought one of those cameras - when the camera was already 100+ years old - and was indignant at Kodak's temerity to no longer support such a camera - he decried their policy of planned obsolescence!
There is an APUG/Photrio thread from several years back where someone bought one of those cameras - when the camera was already 100+ years old - and was indignant at Kodak's temerity to no longer support such a camera - he decried their policy of planned obsolescence!
The numbers on Ilford FP4+ are barely visible, I missed seeing '1' on the first roll in my box camera window.
2018. I edited post #9 to add that fact. Good point!
Perhaps the OP wants to avoid un-numbered films given he's been spooked by information from B&H. So OP, you are safe, all films are numbered.
OK, yes it looks as though the B&H comment was 2018, but during a discussion here in the midst of the wrapper offset mess, I scanned (and posted) some backing paper in 2016 to illustrate the problem (and yeah, the change for 400TX was pretty hard to ignore!):
(Gad, post Covid and a few other issues, it feels like about 3 decades ago!!!)
The last few years I've fallen behind in shooting my existing stock, so haven't had much input on recent changes, if any.
FWIW, a quick scan of 400TX backing of my most recent purchase circa 2019, Exp date Nov 2021 (yeah, I am behind!)
One observation. Kodak is using, what appears to me, a clear coating of some sort over the printing on the wrapper. It's glossy and seams to seal the ink/paper. This also makes the gummed tape, for sealing the roll after use sometimes fail to stick, maybe I should carry a couple rubber bands.
By the way, on Arista Edu Films, the small dots that indicate the near first frame is a little bit too dim/ light which have lead to decentered/skipped first frame on some of my TLR/Folders. Numbers themselves are pretty bold/clear.
I really wish that I could remember the various warning markings. Making a note would be good but that would quickly get lost. On almost every film it's real easy to miss that first frame if not paying very close attention. If I'm not msitaken, that's the one element of hte 120 wrapper ISO standard that is left unspecified and at the manufacture's discretion. If I were on that committee I'd...
Rubber bands, if too tight will imprint on the emulsion. I carry plastic five roll containers that I have attached strips of painter's tape to.
Painters tape is a great idea. I will look at the roll containers. Good point about rubber bands, introducing an unknown. Kodak are the only rolls I've had any problems, never had one come undone, yet!
So Tri-x has the 6x9 numbers? Imagine my surprise a couple years ago to discover with a Voigtlander Bessa 1 that TMax 400 did not have all 3.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |