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

[Bill Burk]

Hi Gary,

I was able to demonstrate that it was "NOT" the same ink that was in contact with the emulsion in the wrapped roll of film or after wound onto the takeup spool.

Thoughts I had about the mechanism of how it happened or how the thing that happened caused the issue didn't pan out in experiments.

For example, I thought maybe the unknown agent was offset to the black side of the paper like you say, and in contact with the base may have altered a quality of the anti-halation backing or the black surface itself. I tried by writing on the black surface with a shiny ink pen... my marks didn't show up.

 

[RattyMouse]

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.

Yes, very sad indeed. I was a HUGE shooter of TMAX400, probably shooting 200 rolls or so while I was living in Asia. A beautiful film, that when undamaged by poor quality paper, produced results I always enjoyed. Had I not found Acros first, I could have lived with TMAX400 quite happily. It was my love for TMAX400 that caused me to be burned time and time again when the paper issue first appeared. Many here savagely attacked me when I brought up the issue each time it happened, accusing me of being anti-Kodak. But it was infact quite the opposite. I loved TMAX400 so much that I bought it continuously throughout the height of the paper problem. IT was my second most shot film. Despite acquiring a large amount of Neopan 400 (120 size) I have not shot one frame of 400 speed monochrome film in 120 size since my last ruined batch of TMAX400 in 2016.

 

[glbeas]

Hi Gary,

I was able to demonstrate that it was "NOT" the same ink that was in contact with the emulsion in the wrapped roll of film or after wound onto the takeup spool.

Thoughts I had about the mechanism of how it happened or how the thing that happened caused the issue didn't pan out in experiments.

For example, I thought maybe the unknown agent was offset to the black side of the paper like you say, and in contact with the base may have altered a quality of the anti-halation backing or the black surface itself. I tried by writing on the black surface with a shiny ink pen... my marks didn't show up.

The side with the numbers would be in contact with the emulsion of the next wrap of film, so if there is any outgassing involved with uncured inks it may react with the emulsion to change its characteristics. Theres so many brands of ink and ways to mix the colors theres no telling if a contaminant crept in to the mix at some point. Recycling ink often will mix colors into the black, which hides the colors and still looks black but uses up the waste ink pretty effectively. At that point theres no telling what compounds are in the black besides the usual carbon black. Then theres all the modifiers to the base to change the viscosity, shine and drying rate. We may never know.....

 

[Bill Burk]

The side with the numbers would be in contact with the emulsion of the next wrap of film.....

I demonstrated this is NOT where the number is.

 

[macfred]

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?

I don't have the link to the thread but a photo ...
sheepness by Andreas, on Flickr

From a roll of Portra 160 with those Kodak 120 film - backing paper problems;
this is 6151012 - Exp.date 07/2018 (have a look at the skies). I had 3 affected rolls from a pack of 5. Film was stored in my freezer; took it out in the morning; shot the photograph a few hours later.
For my affected Ektar shots (1 roll of 5) I have to search deeper. But I guess interest is lacking here and there will only be conflict and dispute ...

 

[RattyMouse]

I don't have the link to the thread but a photo ...
sheepness by Andreas, on Flickr

From a roll of Portra 160 with those Kodak 120 film - backing paper problems;
this is 6151012 - Exp.date 07/2018 (have a look at the skies). I had 3 affected rolls from a pack of 5. Film was stored in my freezer; took it out in the morning; shot the photograph a few hours later.
For my affected Ektar shots (1 roll of 5) I have to search deeper. But I guess interest is lacking here and there will only be conflict and dispute ...

I've seen that sheep photo before. That's a beautiful animal portrait. A shame about the imprint.

All it took was a slight effort from you and another to find that this problem went into Kodak's color 120 film. It was there for those truly interested in finding the facts.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Costco no longer sells film.

 

[macfred]

Just to clarify …
I never gave inflammatory speech against Kodak, I just documented an issue I had with some of their 120 negative films (Portra 160, Ektar, TMY).
The retailer replaced my films without discussion and I'll buy Kodak products further on.
However, I have a hunch, that a few members here cannot resist making fun of the persons concerned or they are trying to blame them for the problem. Others just negate those issues.
This disturbs me more than the problem itself.

Finally I like to say, that I don't have problems with recently manufactured Kodak negative film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't have the link to the thread but a photo ...
sheepness by Andreas, on Flickr

From a roll of Portra 160 with those Kodak 120 film - backing paper problems;
this is 6151012 - Exp.date 07/2018 (have a look at the skies). I had 3 affected rolls from a pack of 5. Film was stored in my freezer; took it out in the morning; shot the photograph a few hours later.
For my affected Ektar shots (1 roll of 5) I have to search deeper. But I guess interest is lacking here and there will only be conflict and dispute ...

I can clearly see "93" on the photograph. Gasp!!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yes, very sad indeed. I was a HUGE shooter of TMAX400, probably shooting 200 rolls or so while I was living in Asia. A beautiful film, that when undamaged by poor quality paper, produced results I always enjoyed. Had I not found Acros first, I could have lived with TMAX400 quite happily. It was my love for TMAX400 that caused me to be burned time and time again when the paper issue first appeared. Many here savagely attacked me when I brought up the issue each time it happened, accusing me of being anti-Kodak. But it was infact quite the opposite. I loved TMAX400 so much that I bought it continuously throughout the height of the paper problem. IT was my second most shot film. Despite acquiring a large amount of Neopan 400 (120 size) I have not shot one frame of 400 speed monochrome film in 120 size since my last ruined batch of TMAX400 in 2016.

No one should have experienced the problem that you had with the print through problem.

 

[MattKing]

No one should have experienced the problem that you had with the print through problem.

Agree - although "wrapper offset" problem is the technical term.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Agree - although "wrapper offset" problem is the technical term.

Aw, now you made me self conscience!

 

[macfred]

Gasp!!

Cool down, Stephen - Portra was originally introduced in 1998 ...

 

[RattyMouse]

Just to clarify …

The retailer replaced my films without discussion and I'll buy Kodak products further on.

How often would you have to encounter this problem in order to cease using Kodak film? Were you just burned this one time with the sheep image?

 

[Pioneer]

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

I currently have quite a bit of Ilford FP4 that also has imprinting on the film from the backing paper. It is pretty old stock and I have no idea how it has been handled since it was part of a bulk buy of some old expired film for a camera store in Utah. I use it when I am doing some testing where the imprinted information will not be a problem.

I have not seen the problem on any other Ilford film I have used so far.

 

[macfred]

How often would you have to encounter this problem in order to cease using Kodak film?

Hypothetical question - I cannot answer this question ...

Were you just burned this one time with the sheep image?

Overall (if I remember correct), I had 3 rolls of Portra 160, 1 roll of Ektar and 5 or 6 rolls TMY400 with those issues.

 

[RattyMouse]

Hypothetical question - I I cannot answer this question ...

Really? Seems odd.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I currently have quite a bit of Ilford FP4 that also has imprinting on the film from the backing paper. It is pretty old stock and I have no idea how it has been handled since it was part of a bulk buy of some old expired film for a camera store in Utah. I use it when I am doing some testing where the imprinted information will not be a problem.

I have not seen the problem on any other Ilford film I have used so far.

Many, many years ago I had it happen with old film which was left for days in hot cars. Never had it happen again.

 

[macfred]

The problem is ancient ... This one is from the mid-70's (though I have to confess it was developed 40+ years later ... )

untitled by Andreas, on Flickr

 

[Pioneer]

The problem is ancient ... This one is from the mid-70's (though I have to confess it was developed 40+ years later ... )

untitled by Andreas, on Flickr

Mine doesn't look quite that bad MacFred but it isn't worth much. I do have several bricks so if someone would like some throwaway film feel free to drop me a note. Cover the shipping and you to can have 10 rolls to play with.

 

[macfred]

Mine doesn't look quite that bad ...

Found this film roll under a bathtub while cleanig my parents-in-law's house ... My wife and her siblings in 1976 !

 

[Craig]

Did anybody ever pin down exactly why the numbers would imprint on the film?

Lots of speculation, but I've never heard of anything definitive.

 

[mshchem]

Costco no longer sells film.

The point I did not make very clear ,is, that B&H, like the big box stores, don't really want to sell any item under 25 bucks. You go to these places and come home with a 42 pound bag of cat litter that you can barely lift. Thus at B&H, single rolls of something are 7 or 8 bucks but a box of 5 are 23.95.

 

[JWMster]

And I really, really, really wish that ILFORD and Bergger would put out 5-packs, cause when you order 10 rolls from B&H, they come shrink wrapped together. So Ilford has the idea, but doesn't trigger the pricing. Bummer.

 

[mshchem]

And I really, really, really wish that ILFORD and Bergger would put out 5-packs, cause when you order 10 rolls from B&H, they come shrink wrapped together. So Ilford has the idea, but doesn't trigger the pricing. Bummer.

I love Ilford single boxes. You still get a box end for your memo holder on your camera ..

Right now Ilford is more committed to the art of photography than most. And you still get a neato retro box