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

[Sirius Glass]

There have been very few problem reports fir a while. It seems like the supply line has cleared the problem. I have bought several boxes of five over the last few months.

 

[Kino]

There have been very few problem reports fir a while. It seems like the supply line has cleared the problem. I have bought several boxes of five over the last few months.

Good enough for me!

I really didn't expect to start a lengthy debate, just wanted to know the general consensus on the problem.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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

The backing numbers aren't without merit - they're necessary for a lot of cameras that use frame sizes other than 6x6, 6x7 or 6x9, and of course for all those vintage cameras that have non-geared film advance. I'd be up a creek with my 6x18 panoramic pinhole if backing paper didn't have numbers.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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

Why, when you disagree with someone, or even if you have factual data to correct someone, do you have to be a jerk about it? Couldn't you just have said, "it has also happened with Portra and Ektar"? I don't recall seeing discussions about it with Portra and Ektar. Could you provide links to those threads?

 

[RattyMouse]

Why, when you disagree with someone, or even if you have factual data to correct someone, do you have to be a jerk about it? Couldn't you just have said, "it has also happened with Portra and Ektar"? I don't recall seeing discussions about it with Portra and Ektar. Could you provide links to those threads?

There is nothing wrong with anything I posted. Your predisposition to post anything negative about me supersedes my text. I note you had no problems name calling me just last week. Typical.

The Portra and Ektar examples are here in the archives if you care to look for them. They are quite old so will require more than a few minutes of work.

 

[mshchem]

The backing numbers aren't without merit - they're necessary for a lot of cameras that use frame sizes other than 6x6, 6x7 or 6x9, and of course for all those vintage cameras that have non-geared film advance. I'd be up a creek with my 6x18 panoramic pinhole if backing paper didn't have numbers.

I agree. but if I had the option of buying film without back print I would. But I will stop suggesting such evil ideas

 

[JWMster]

To my way of thinking, I'm a tad puzzled by the 120 roll pricing of things. Kodak TMAX (TMY-2) 400 bought in 5 packs costs a not inconsequential bit less than Ilford Delta 400. In fact, Delta 400 works out to about the same roll price as Kodak's Portra 400. I like to think of prices as signals, and I know that the margin Kodak wants to add and/or B&H wants to discount in combination makes it hard to really ascertain what's going on here, but in light of the expected price rise(still?) for Ilford products... a dude might wonder if there's been any impact on the market sales of Kodak products that leads to the differential pricing between Ilford and Kodak? So there we are: I get to voice my pricing complaint without seeming to shift the topic, huh? Subtle? NOT?

 

[faberryman]

To my way of thinking, I'm a tad puzzled by the 120 roll pricing of things. Kodak TMAX (TMY-2) 400 bought in 5 packs costs a not inconsequential bit less than Ilford Delta 400. In fact, Delta 400 works out to about the same roll price as Kodak's Portra 400.

At B&H, Ilford Delta 400 is $5.99/roll; Kodak TMY-2 is $6.49/roll. What I wonder is why the TMY-2 5-pack is only $24.45. Short dated? Porta is $5.99/roll, less than TMY-2, though the 5-pack is more at $29.95. Kodak pricing is screwy.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... If I mail order film, I do it in the winter...

That's clever.

If they haven't done so already, Kodak needs to issue an official announcement stating they know the cause of the problem and they've either fixed it or can describe how to avoid it.

Otherwise I'm afraid doubt and "being safe" will seriously affect their sales. Without an official announcement, anyone could claim the problem is still ongoing.

 

[mshchem]

That's clever.

If they haven't done so already, Kodak needs to issue an official announcement stating they know the cause of the problem and they've either fixed it or can describe how to avoid it.

Otherwise I'm afraid doubt and "being safe" will seriously affect their sales. Without an official announcement, anyone could claim the problem is still ongoing.

Well said. It should come from the CEO!

 

[JWMster]

Dunno about short dated. I've been buying TMY-2's ONLY in 5-packs. But I'm running through it and plan on a run of Delta 400 as my main squeeze B&W going forward with Portra 400 for my main squeeze color. Yes, the Delta 400 is a tad bit more compared to the TMY-2 5-pack... but with everything costing the same otherwise, I become less focused on cost and more on shooting and the subject. And with rolls at 400, life gets simpler. Bergger is also the same price point and that's a nice film, too. Though I've seen some pretty great results from Rollei Retro 400S, at $8.50 plus, that's a tad rich for my blood.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There is nothing wrong with anything I posted. Your predisposition to post anything negative about me supersedes my text. I note you had no problems name calling me just last week. Typical.

The Portra and Ektar examples are here in the archives if you care to look for them. They are quite old so will require more than a few minutes of work.

Using your logic: Since I have never had the paper printing imprinting 120 for color and black & white Kodak and Ilford film, the problem does not exist and never existed.

Good now all of us can sleep better.

 

[mshchem]

At B&H, Ilford Delta 400 is $5.99/roll; Kodak TMY-2 is $6.49/roll. What I wonder is why the TMY-2 5-pack is only $24.45. Short dated? Porta is $5.99/roll, less than TMY-2, though the 5-pack is more at $29.95. Kodak pricing is screwy.

A few weeks back 5 packs of Acros 120 was 23.95 at B&H. Now it unobtainable. Who knows why. I suspect it's a bit like Costco or Sam's Club the deals come in volume, jumbo packages.

 

[Hekoru]

A few weeks back 5 packs of Acros 120 was 23.95 at B&H. Now it unobtainable. Who knows why. I suspect it's a bit like Costco or Sam's Club the deals come in volume, jumbo packages.

It's being discontinued for good. That's probably the reason. Even here in Japan it's hard to get it sometimes. I guess everybody (including me) is hoarding whatever's left.

 

[mooseontheloose]

A few weeks back 5 packs of Acros 120 was 23.95 at B&H. Now it unobtainable. Who knows why. I suspect it's a bit like Costco or Sam's Club the deals come in volume, jumbo packages.

It's going, going, g...: click

There were unofficial rumours going around before the official announcement on the 6th, by then most stores had sold out of all stock. It'll still be around for a while, but you may be waiting on backorders or limited amounts at a time.

 

[David T T]

I never had problems with TMax 100/400, or Portra 400, ever. Just lucky I guess.

I plan on supporting Kodak, as well as Ilford and Fomapan, in both the near and distant future. I would be very upset if any of them folded. I was fond of Acros, but otherwise Fuji roll film was always a bit meh to me, so c'est la vie.

 

[JWMster]

I support Kodak. Without them....without Portra... where would we be? TMAX is still a beautiful film. But I want to give Ilford some love, too, so for B&W I'm trying to cozy up to ID-11 and Delta 400. FWIW, Bergger's Panchro 400 is a sweet, well behaved film, and in Berspeed I'm told it's worth a look.Let's not overlook our French friends, too!

 

[AgX]

I don't recall seeing discussions about it with Portra and Ektar. Could you provide links to those threads?

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...-show-on-negatives.127971/page-5#post-1795185

 

[tezzasmall]

Ilford is unaffected by this Tim.

Sorry to say but I had some 120 rolls of Ilford HP5 film that had the backing numbers on the film when processed. Admittedly they may have been not quite fresh by the time I used them, but have never come across this issue in the past under similar conditions with any branded film. The last few rolls will be binned.

In future, I'll be buy in smaller amounts and everything will be refrigerated and dated from the date of receipt.

Terry S

 

[RattyMouse]

Sorry to say but I had some 120 rolls of Ilford HP5 film that had the backing numbers on the film when processed. Admittedly they may have been not quite fresh by the time I used them, but have never come across this issue in the past under similar conditions with any branded film. The last few rolls will be binned.

In future, I'll be buy in smaller amounts and everything will be refrigerated and dated from the date of receipt.

Terry S

Many many years ago, I had a single Ilford roll of film show this problem as well. I can't recall which film it was, but it had backing paper imprints on the negatives. However, relatively speaking, Ilford is not affected by this huge issue that has plagued Kodak 120 film for now several years. I've had almost 100 images ruined by using Kodak film, including two very important events that I shot with TMAX400. All images ruined. You can see dozens of people with this problem here and at many other prominent forums that feature film users. The problem was at one point widespread and commonly encountered.

Freshness didnt matter with Kodak's film. The very last time I was burned by this, I bought film in November from B & H (a very high volume retailer), shot it by the end of the month and processed that week. Didnt matter. My entire vacation images were ruined by poor quality film (TMAX400). Every image. 4 pro packs, nothing but garbage.

I'll trust Ilford in future.

 

[Steve Goldstein]

And in contrast to RattyMouse’s experience, I’ve gone through four ProPacks of TMY from the problem lots with no problems at all. Film was also bought from B&H and frozen upon receipt. I just used the last roll a couple of weeks ago.

 

[RattyMouse]

And in contrast to RattyMouse’s experience, I’ve gone through four ProPacks of TMY from the problem lots with no problems at all. Film was also bought from B&H and frozen upon receipt. I just used the last roll a couple of weeks ago.

There are certainly many winners for every loser in this crap shoot. But once your number comes up, there's nothing you can do about it. Your images will be ruined.

I'll play the game with better odds: Ilford.

 

[David Lyga]

Years ago I bought some 100 ft 35mm rolls of 'Arista 50', Freestyle's brand for Ilford Pan F+. The tape binding the roll's end had 'cut through' the density of about three layers, in that exact spot, reducing density considerably when developed (only in that taped area). As a result, I had to unwrap about four layers (to be sure) and use those layers as testing film, in order to have a perfect 96 feet on each roll. As a result, I use either no tape on such rolls or use transparent tape which leaves no chemical problem. - David Lyga

 

[glbeas]

Did anybody ever pin down exactly why the numbers would imprint on the film? From my background in the printing industry my guess is not letting the ink on the backing paper fully cure before using it. The newer inks with soy base takes a lot longer to cure out than the older petrochemical based inks, as well fountain solutions were changed to remove alchohol, this incorporates into the ink to some degree as well. With the complexity involved in the printing process its no wonder a photoreactive chemical or two doesnt make its way into the ink.

 

[gunnar_g]

To me it's quite sad I can't trust Tmax 400 anymore. It's been my go-to film in 120 and 135. (still happily use 135 though)
I really like the tonality and the low blue sensitivity, which gives beautiful skies without filters. And the fine grain for a 400 speed film.

Now I'm learning to like HP5 instead. It's a beautiful film too, quite different though.