Are there 120 films that are not numbered on the paper backing?

[knj]

Thanks for all the information. I am not looking for film without numbers on the backing. I am try avoid buying anything that might have been made without them. I want to make sure I am getting film I can use in an older folder that uses the ruby window. I truly thought my original post was clear on this point.

Thanks again

knj

 

[Donald Qualls]

The three 6x9 folders I own all work fine with the red windows on current production .EDU Ultra and Kodak films I've used in them. That's a 1927 Voigtlander, a mid-1950s Wirgin Auta, and a 1959 Moskva 5. The only 6x6 I have any issue with is my Mamiya 6, because of the recessed film plane; my Daiichi Zenobia (6x4.5) also does fine with both of those film sources.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I can't understand the reason, why someone needs a backing paper without numbers..
It is the same as if you were searching for a backing paper with a, b, c, instead of 1, 2, 3..
What is the problem with that? just close your eyes and they will disappear

Perhaps the Greek, Cyrillic or Tibetian alphabet would be better for the OP.

 

[DWThomas]

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.

Well that roll did! As I commented upthread, I think the circa 2016 paper with missing rows of numbers was a temporary quick fix to be followed by further work. There were even Apuggers who said "why does anybody need the numbers today" who received numerous hints that there are many of us out there who need them! The latest paper has a shiny, plasticky feel as though the actual paper has undergone changes also.

The rate of change for some of this stuff hasn't built confidence. Since Plus-X was dropped, 400TX has been the only Kodak roll film I've been shooting so I can't offer info about the others. I've used some Tmax in 35mm.

 

[DareFail]

Thanks for all the information. I am not looking for film without numbers on the backing. I am try avoid buying anything that might have been made without them. I want to make sure I am getting film I can use in an older folder that uses the ruby window. I truly thought my original post was clear on this point.

Thanks again

knj

My mistake then. I am sorry. I have never seen any film without numbers. Every Kodak, Ilford, Foma, Fuji in b&w or c-41 is ok.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My mistake then. I am sorry. I have never seen any film without numbers. Every Kodak, Ilford, Foma, Fuji in b&w or c-41 is ok.

I have never found numbers on the paper for any 35mm film.

 

[Ballinderry-Michael]

DareFail is new here, doesn't deserve what looks like sarcasm.

 

[DareFail]

I have never found numbers on the paper for any 35mm film.

Since when 135 films have backing paper?

 

[Xylo]

I know I missed a few shots on my Lubitel because the numbers were really faint. It also almost happened on my Ondu pinhole, but with this one I can rewind the film so it wasn't really a problem.

I guess the best would be to keep the backing paper of one of those pale rolls and try it in various cameras.

 

[MattKing]

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.

My T-Max 400 has 6x9 numbers.
But when the problems with wrapper offset were most acute, some film no longer had three sets of 6x9 numbers, which means that some 6x9 cameras with what may have been less common window placement may not have been compatible. I believe that the current stuff has added back some number sets - DWThomas' example posted above being an example.
I believe, but am not absolutely certain, that there is now just one version of Kodak backing paper being used, not different versions for different films.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Since it never had numbers on the backing.

 

[MattKing]

Since when 135 films have backing paper?

When they are actually 828 or 126 films
By the way, Welcome to Photrio.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Oh yes, a little late …

Welcome to APUG Photrio!!​

 

[pbromaghin]

My T-Max 400 has 6x9 numbers.
But when the problems with wrapper offset were most acute, some film no longer had three sets of 6x9 numbers, which means that some 6x9 cameras with what may have been less common window placement may not have been compatible. I believe that the current stuff has added back some number sets - DWThomas' example posted above being an example.
I believe, but am not absolutely certain, that there is now just one version of Kodak backing paper being used, not different versions for different films.

That would include the Bessa 1 which needed that outermost(?), lowermost(?) row of 6x9 numbers. That roll went through the Zeiss 645 just fine.

 

[mshchem]

828 is cool!

 

[BrianShaw]

…
I believe, but am not absolutely certain, that there is now just one version of Kodak backing paper being used, not different versions for different films.

That is exactly what Mr Mooney implied, if not outright stated. Doer 6x9 it seems some cameras are difficult, if not impossible, to use now.

 

[MattKing]

That is exactly what Mr Mooney implied, if not outright stated. Doer 6x9 it seems some cameras are difficult, if not impossible, to use now.

I would be careful about that conclusion.
As far as I can tell, some of the lines of 6x9 numbers that were removed temporarily by Kodak are now back - those wrapper offset crisis years caused a lot of disruption that ended up being temporary.
That being said, it wouldn't surprise me if 6x9 might not have been a format where there were a lot of very different cameras, designed for a lot of different films other than Kodak films - from film companies that are no longer in existence.

 

[BrianShaw]

You’re seeing the multiple 6x9 tracks have returned, Matt? Maybe you should let Mr Mooney know what’s really going on with his companies products. The email interaction I posted earlier in this thread was from about a month ago.

 

[MattKing]

You’re seeing the multiple 6x9 tracks have returned, Matt? Maybe you should let Mr Mooney know what’s really going on with his companies products. The email interaction I posted earlier in this thread was from about a month ago.

The Thomas Mooney email you posted shows that all three 6x9 tracks have returned. As I recall it, during the height of the wrapper offset crisis, the number of 6x9 tracks was temporarily (as it turns out) fewer than that.
I'm terrible drawing/writing with a mouse, but see my red highlights here:

 

[BrianShaw]

Yep; you are right. Sorry. I shouldn’t rely on memory. My profound apologies!

 

[DareFail]

When they are actually 828 or 126 films
By the way, Welcome to Photrio.

135 films will never be 126 films. That's why everything has its "name". Let's agree that 135 films have not a backing paper
Pleased to meet you.

 

[DareFail]

DareFail is new here, doesn't deserve what looks like sarcasm.

Thank you very much but i can reply to whatever looks like sarcastic answer

 

[Xylo]

One thing I could never understand is why the red window on most of my 6x9 cameras is so darn small?
6x4.5 is mostly bigger and 6x6 are often giant.

 

[MattKing]

One thing I could never understand is why the red window on most of my 6x9 cameras is so darn small?
6x4.5 is mostly bigger and 6x6 are often giant.

In many cases it is quite close to the edge of the paper. Maybe that makes the film more vulnerable to light leak.

 

[Donald Qualls]

why the red window on most of my 6x9 cameras is so darn small?

As Matt suggested, this is to minimize light leakage around the edge of the backing paper. The windows were red because the films available in 1901-1920 were mostly orthochromatic (red-blind), and they could get away with this placement because of this and the relatively low film speeds (old ASA 25 was common; 16 and 12 were as well). The windows then were larger; as film got faster and panchro became more common, the windows were shrunk, shutters installed, and the windows were moved as far from the film edge as the framing tracks allowed. By about 1955, the combination of all these features were in place for the few remaining 6x9 models that weren't cardboard box cameras.