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

[Helge]

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!

I think you remember that story better than anyone. Even him. He didn’t seem that vexed.

But since it is just print, it should be possible to print all extant and past sync systems, as long as they don’t overlap.
One number is not going to make that much of a difference.

 

[Donald Qualls]

it should be possible to print all extant and past sync systems, as long as they don’t overlap.

Of course it's possible. However, it violates the current strategy for minimizing wrapper offset, in that the more ink you put on the backing paper, the more likely someone will see an offset into the emulsion.

 

[MattKing]

I think you remember that story better than anyone. Even him. He didn’t seem that vexed.

I did think that it was quite funny!
It reminded me of so many customers from my retail days - who expected the unlikely and impossible, and were truly vexed when the lab or the manufacturer or the retailer didn't provide it.

 

[Xylo]

As Matt suggested, this is to minimize light leakage around the edge of the backing paper.

But still, they could have stretched it up a bit more towards the center of the frame. I can't count how many frames I've wasted because I didn't see the marking pass by the tiny window!

 

[Xylo]

It reminded me of so many customers from my retail days - who expected the unlikely and impossible, and were truly vexed when the lab or the manufacturer or the retailer didn't provide it.

Let me tell you that these things don't change... sadly.
And I have plenty of weird and funny stories on the subject.

 

[Helge]

Of course it's possible. However, it violates the current strategy for minimizing wrapper offset, in that the more ink you put on the backing paper, the more likely someone will see an offset into the emulsion.

Any amount of ink will potentially leave a mark, if it is possible. You have to use ink that does not react.

 

[MattKing]

Any amount of ink will potentially leave a mark, if it is possible. You have to use ink that does not react.

All inks will react if the conditions are wrong.
The inks used minimize the problem as well as the frequency of occurrence. Minimizing the ink load helps with that.

 

[Helge]

All inks will react if the conditions are wrong.
The inks used minimize the problem as well as the frequency of occurrence. Minimizing the ink load helps with that.

I’ve shoot film that had been rolled up for 20 - 30 years stored in various conditions. No problem at all.
I realize packing and ink has been changing through the years, but come on, this is obviously not unsolvable and has been solved multiple times through the years.

One number to or fro will not make much of a difference if the ink reacts with the emulsion at all.
It will perhaps happen a smidgen less but it will still happen with a high an enough frequency to be unacceptable.

 

[BrianShaw]

All inks will react if the conditions are wrong.
The inks used minimize the problem as well as the frequency of occurrence. Minimizing the ink load helps with that.

... as does proper handling and storage, which I seem to recall stated by the film manufacturers as part of hte solution.

 

[BrianShaw]

I’ve shoot film that had been rolled up for 20 - 30 years stored in various conditions. No problem at all.
I realize packing and ink has been changing through the years, but come on, this is obviously not unsolvable and has been solved multiple times through the years.

One number to or fro will not make much of a difference if the ink reacts with the emulsion at all.
It will perhaps happen a smidgen less but it will still happen with a high an enough frequency to be unacceptable.

You are blessed. I've had a couple of instances of wrapper offset on both Tri-X and Portra, and I'm reasonably careful about storage conditions and length of time.

 

[MattKing]

I’ve shoot film that had been rolled up for 20 - 30 years stored in various conditions. No problem at all.
I realize packing and ink has been changing through the years, but come on, this is obviously not unsolvable and has been solved multiple times through the years.

One number to or fro will not make much of a difference if the ink reacts with the emulsion at all.
It will perhaps happen a smidgen less but it will still happen with a high an enough frequency to be unacceptable.

You omit the most important changing factor - the films.
Wrapper offset is a result of the interaction of paper, ink and multi-component emulsions that are specifically designed to react to almost infinitesimally small amounts of light energy.
Back when Kodak ran out of its old inventory of self produced backing paper, it became clear that the paper and printing industry could no longer reproduce their old backing papers, and the changes in the film meant that it was extremely difficult to find a replacement. It nearly brought the end to Kodak 120 film, or al least Kodak produced 120 film without numbers on the paper.

 

[BrianShaw]

You omit the most important changing factor - ...
Wrapper offset is a result of the interaction of ...

Apologies if I keep beating a dead horse, but part of the interaction is also handling/storage conditions. Everyone seems to love to blame the engineers and engineering when there is often a lot more to the story of product failures. Sheesh.

 

[MattKing]

Apologies if I keep beating a dead horse, but part of the interaction is also handling/storage conditions. Everyone seems to love to blame the engineers and engineering when there is often a lot more to the story of product failures. Sheesh.

Actually, that horse is quite alive and eager to be ridden.
When Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris were working together to bring back Ektachrome, one of the design goals was to incorporate changes that improved the ability of the film to withstand the new realities of the distribution system - changes in shipping and warehousing/shelf time/storage.
I often wonder if Kodak would have had the huge upsurge in wrapper offset problem if the film market had not crashed, leaving them with years and years of inventory of paper produced with legacy technology, a desperate need to sell off or scrap unused machinery, and no immediate or even medium term need to develop replacement technology that took into account the radical changes occurring in the paper and printing industries.

 

[Helge]

You omit the most important changing factor - the films.
Wrapper offset is a result of the interaction of paper, ink and multi-component emulsions that are specifically designed to react to almost infinitesimally small amounts of light energy.
Back when Kodak ran out of its old inventory of self produced backing paper, it became clear that the paper and printing industry could no longer reproduce their old backing papers, and the changes in the film meant that it was extremely difficult to find a replacement. It nearly brought the end to Kodak 120 film, or al least Kodak produced 120 film without numbers on the paper.

What is the changes in film?
TMY and TMX for example was produced for decades before the filmpocalypse or digigeddon around 2004.

 

[MattKing]

What is the changes in film?
TMY and TMX for example was produced for decades before the filmpocalypse or digigeddon around 2004.

The changes have been ongoing. As the sources for and availability of constituent components changed, and as manufacturing methods evolved, so did the film - with almost all the R &D and engineering aimed at maximizing output while maintaining consistent performance.
Remember as well that the problems were as much with the colour films as the black and white ones.
But all of that work was done in the context of the old types of paper and printing ink - which were unobtainable once the inventory glut was finally used up.

 

[Helge]

The changes have been ongoing. As the sources for and availability of constituent components changed, and as manufacturing methods evolved, so did the film - with almost all the R &D and engineering aimed at maximizing output while maintaining consistent performance.
Remember as well that the problems were as much with the colour films as the black and white ones.
But all of that work was done in the context of the old types of paper and printing ink - which were unobtainable once the inventory glut was finally used up.

I still don’t get the statistical significance of a single number. If the ink is going to spoil the emulsion it’s hardly going to concentrate on that number.
It’s going to be all or nothing, whether it’s pressure, moisture, friction or heat that sets it off.

 

[MattKing]

I still don’t get the statistical significance of a single number. If the ink is going to spoil the emulsion it’s hardly going to concentrate on that number.
It’s going to be all or nothing, whether it’s pressure, moisture, friction or heat that sets it off.

It doesn't/didn't spoil the entire emulsion.
In the ~2016 case with Kodak film, it increased the light sensitivity of those parts of the emulsion the ink came into contact with - leaving areas of increased negative density that corresponded to the printing on the backing paper.
Which meant ghost images of the numbers and text in prints and scans.
You can see an example on the first post in this thread: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/why-is-kodak-stamped-on-my-film.174236/#post-2266262

 

[MattKing]

You can see lots of references to it in this thread: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ing-paper-problems-emulsions-affected.137251/
I have a number of rolls that are from the most affected batches of T-Max 100. I've already received replacement film from Kodak. The problematic films are good for testing cameras.
For clarity, and because it can be hard to envision this, the offset happens because when the film is rolled on the spool, the back of the paper (including the ink) behind one part of the film is pushed against the emulsion on the adjacent layer of the rolled film.

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm aware of the two notices issed by Ilford/Harman on the topic and teir implied causal factor wsa storage. Did EK/KA issue similar statement(s) declaring increased emulsion sensitivity at the interface with the ink to be the causal factor; I couldn't find one, just forum chatter?

 

[Helge]

It doesn't/didn't spoil the entire emulsion.
In the ~2016 case with Kodak film, it increased the light sensitivity of those parts of the emulsion the ink came into contact with - leaving areas of increased negative density that corresponded to the printing on the backing paper.
Which meant ghost images of the numbers and text in prints and scans.
You can see an example on the first post in this thread: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/why-is-kodak-stamped-on-my-film.174236/#post-2266262

If parts of the ink speeds up the emulsion, why is it not part of the emulsion to start with? ;-)
Still, I don’t see why extra printing, numbers or other would hurt more?

 

[MattKing]

Still, I don’t see why extra printing, numbers or other would hurt more?

You would be happy having ghost images of numbers and letters altering your negatives?

 

[Helge]

You would be happy having ghost images of numbers and letters altering your negatives?

Of course not. But if one number spoils the roll, the chance of another number or other print right next to it will too, is very high.
You could print a checkerboard pattern on the roll, and the problem would still be much the same.

 

[MattKing]

Of course not. But if one number spoils the roll, the chance of another number or other print right next to it will too, is very high.
You could print a checkerboard pattern on the roll, and the problem would still be much the same.

Ah, now I think I've figured out what you are referencing!
Why does decreasing the number of numbers or letters on the backing paper help?
As I understand it, the total amount of ink employed - the "ink load" - is an important factor with respect to whether any interaction between ink and emulsion starts.
The emulsion coating experts and the printing industry experts that struggled with the problem back then tried a bunch of things, but it wasn't just Kodak who used reduced ink load to help deal with wrapper offset problems - Ilford did as well, a few years earlier.

 

[BrianShaw]

It sounds like their confidence in completely understanding or fully solving the wrapper offset problem isn't 100%. A good reason to retain a bit of a cautious posture.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The big catch is cumulative fogging -- ink reactions with emulsion are a form of chemical fogging, and the more other factors contribute fog, the more likely it is to have enough density to show against an exposed image. Since there's no such thing as a perfectly impermeable transparent coating. It's a similar concept to superadditive development.