As of 4/20/18, is the 120 Backing Paper Problem Solved?

Can anyone report on their very recent experience with 120 film bought recently?

Has the issue been addressed and solved?

Reading a lot of conflicting information on the net...

The information is mixed. Some say that the problem was solved beginning with a certain emulsion number. Others say that the problem persists beyond that emulsion number. I don't see any reason to take a chance and so use Ilford film. Once burned, twice shy. Others disagree.

When and if Kodak solves the backing paper problem I will stick with Fomapan, You can bt you life that if I get problems with backing paper from Kodak then id wold happen of that one unrepeatable shot,Kodak make lovely film, but I would rather not take the chance, On some forums they say the problem is solved, then on another someone, using film beyond a certain emulsion number says that it is still happening, so in truth we can't be 100% certain at this time

I've been using Tri-X throughout the entire backing-paper scandal without an issue. This seems to be confined to one flavor of Tmax.

Thanks to all who responded...

Having just picked up a Mamiya RB67, does the Ilford or Foma film have this issue?

I bought a fresh 5 roll box of TMax 400 a couple of weeks ago, used 4 rolls so far, and no problems.
None of the TMax or Tri-X I've used over the last couple of years has shown the problem.

I'm interested in this myself. Until this issue surfaced, I used as much Kodak as I did Ilford, but I've been holding off buying any more 120 film from Kodak because I too keep hearing or reading mixed results about this issue. However, I think I may grab a few rolls and see what happens.

I had one of the "bad" emulsion numbers of Tri-X, 2 pro-packs. No problems with it, but Kodak was good enough to send me new film and I've had no problems with that batch either.

As many will acknowledge, it is difficult to prove a negative!
The only observation I will make, as someone who has followed this carefully, is that we haven't seen reports posted here on this issue for a significant period of time.
And when it was at its worst, that was certainly not the case!
As I've said before (rather frequently) wrapper offset has always existed as a problem. Ilford had its own problems with it considerably before the relatively recent Kodak problems, and the relatively faint numbers on their backing paper were the result.
One of the contributing factors has always been unusual temperature and humidity during transport and storage. With the distribution network being so different now, I expect we will continue to see at least some isolated examples of this and related backing paper problems with all brands of 120 film.
Kodak Alaris believes that the problem has been resolved to the extent that properly stored and handled film won't exhibit the problem. They can't of course prevent it from happening to improperly stored and handled film. I would hazard a guess that current films may be more susceptible to improper storage and handling. One of the casualties of the recent "fix" is that the markings on backing paper are both fainter and less numerous - some older and unusual cameras can no longer be used with current Kodak 120 films.
FWIW, the only film I've had the problem with was TMY that came from one of the first batches identified as problematic. That film was replaced with more recent film by Kodak Alaris before I even used it.
In my case, I was using the problem film for testing, and I didn't care about the numbers. Even then, I didn't encounter the problem with all films from that batch.
I haven't seen the problem with more recent film. I should do more testing with the remains of my problem batch, to see if there is any change.

I have some new pro packs of TMY400 which have been in the car; i.e. hot and cold treatment with ZERO problem...
I'll take my chance with Kodak anytime!!
have a great day everyone!!
Peter

TheFlyingCamera said:

I've been using Tri-X throughout the entire backing-paper scandal without an issue. This seems to be confined to one flavor of Tmax.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Examples of this problem have been seen here and elsewhere with Portra and Ektar films.

Tim Stapp said:

Having just picked up a Mamiya RB67, does the Ilford or Foma film have this issue?

Click to expand...

Ilford is unaffected by this Tim. I dont know about Foma.

faberryman said:

The information is mixed. Some say that the problem was solved beginning with a certain emulsion number. Others say that the problem persists beyond that emulsion number. I don't see any reason to take a chance and so use Ilford film. Once burned, twice shy. Others disagree.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I was burned half a dozen times or more. Shame on me.

MattKing said:

As I've said before (rather frequently) wrapper offset has always existed as a problem.

Click to expand...

I know hundreds of artefacts from the past, in detail analyzed by two major manufacturers. Amongst those is not one sample of what we see with those Kodak films.

I will not buy any type 120 from Kodak Alaris until they approach this issue officially at their site and declare it as solved.

It is my understanding that the problem was with Tmax 100 and after having some on backorder for three years, I finally received mine. Haven't shot any yet but knowing the company that I bought it from and how much time and probably money this has cost them, I have faith that they think the problem has been solved.. Also just because the last rolls of other brands did not have this problem doesn't mean that the next roll from them won't have similar problems. It is my understanding that other manufacturers, including Ilford, have also had these problems in the past. I can tell you from experience that if you are looking for perfection in this life, you aren't going to find it. Have a little faith friends.......Regards!

I have missed out on the bad batches, lucky. I take Kodak's technical gurus word that it's past . I certainly can understand feeling pissed off. Film is such a precious commodity I'm buying on faith. Quite frankly Kodak is the last best hope for color film and film for all applications. TMX TMax100 is back in production after being gone for years, and Fuji cans everything black and white. I am praying that Ektachrome comes back in acceptable form before something happens to Fujichrome.

mshchem said:

I have missed out on the bad batches, lucky. I take Kodak's technical gurus word that it's past .

Click to expand...

Kodak has made NO official announcement on this topic whatsoever.

Arklatexian said:

It is my understanding that the problem was with Tmax 100 !

Click to expand...

TMAX400 had massive problems with backing paper and Portra and Ektar films had visible issues as well. This was NOT just a TMAX100 problem.

MattKing said:

The only observation I will make, as someone who has followed this carefully, is that we haven't seen reports posted here on this issue for a significant period of time.

Click to expand...

I posted back in january about my problems with tmax 400, using the supposedly unaffected emulsions.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/i-love-tmax-400-but.156882/

I've also had these problems with tri-x (although with the bad emulsion numbers).

Haven't had the problems lately since I switched to Ilford.

I had trouble with exactly one roll of TMY-2, which I bought in HK. I assume that was due to heat exposure, given the climate in HK. I never had any problems with any rolls bought from Foto Impex. They dedicated to traditional photography and I trust they store their product in a professional manner. Granted, that shop in HK is an analog shop as well, but given the climate there only big businesses will be able to guarantee around the clock climate conditioning.

I also had two pro packs of TX400, which were of the affected emulsion numbers. Bought from Impex as well, and I had no trouble with those.

For my personal use my assumption is that Kodak will have improved their backing paper, but with 120 film there is a higher chance of damaged emulsion than with 135 film. Storage is somewhat important. If your work is absolutely critical buy from someone for whom film is not just another product of many.

I also buy from dealers whose business is mostly digital, because I like to show them demand for film and some have good prices. But I'm not shooting someones wedding or other critical work. And sitting in Central Europe right on the edge between continental and maritime climate I expect my chance is slim to get damaged stock.

gunnar_g said:

Haven't had the problems lately since I switched to Ilford.

Click to expand...

That's one way to be virtually certain your images will not be imprinted with backing paper.

Ilford makes great products .

gunnar_g said:

I posted back in january about my problems with tmax 400, using the supposedly unaffected emulsions.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/i-love-tmax-400-but.156882/

I've also had these problems with tri-x (although with the bad emulsion numbers).

Haven't had the problems lately since I switched to Ilford.

Click to expand...

When I made my original post on this thread, I was trying to think of a choice of words that wouldn't exclude the relatively small number of exceptions like yours. I didn't do that well.
Back in January did consider your situation to be a bit of an outlier though, given what you told us about how long the film had spent in your camera.

I treat all film like a perishable item. I have an entire refrigerator (very efficient Amana unit) dedicated to film and paper. If I mail order film, I do it in the winter. Pro film needs to be stored at 55F or below. The issue that Kodak had wasn't storage, something went very wrong. They fixed the problem .

That doesn't mean that we won't see problems occasionally on film that somewhere along the line has been stressed. Numbers on the back are an anachronistic artifact. If Kodak just said we guarantee you perfection by eliminating the back print how much of the 120 market share would they lose? My guess is not that much.

I hope we can stop casting doubts and endless complaints on these companies that are the life blood of photography . If Fuji decided to drop Acros that doesn't mean I won't buy Fujichrome . Kodak had problems, it's done and over with as far as I'm concerned .
Best Regards Mike