Define "LONG" please.
Indications here are that it cropped up just a few months ago.
PE
backing paper numbers show on negatives.
-
A
- Thread starter Dirk Dom
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Canon 5cm 3.5 Serenar (type 5?)
- Started by Gram Nylen
-
For Sale CHINON AUTO 135mm f/2.8 M42 SCREW MOUNT
- Started by Acere
-
For Sale CHINON AUTO 35mm f/2.8 M42 SCREW MOUNT
- Started by Acere
-
For Sale Rolleiflex 2.8E
- Started by Srahimian24
-
For Sale FS: Tachihara Triple Extension 8x10 Camera
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
Define "LONG" please.
Indications here are that it cropped up just a few months ago.
PE
If you look at the links in Old-N-Feeble's recent posting, it's been going on for a long time in other manufacturers' products 
Last edited:
-
- Punker
- Deleted
- Reason: formatting error
I wish I'd have seen this thread last night after I developed a roll of Ektar. Though in my case it may just have been the fact that I started this roll in August last year and it sat in the camera in my occasionally hot room (no A/C) for all these months... That could also explain the odd color shifts.
Kodak has not admitted to any problem with Ektar films AFAIK.
This is new to me. Let them know ASAP.
PE
This is new to me. Let them know ASAP.
PE
PE, google searches will find the very same problem with both color and monochrome films from multiple manufacturers and has been happening for a very long time. IMO, (I'm speculating) this is purely an issue caused by whatever company makes the backing papers. That stated, the responsibility still sits with the company who's name is on the film box.
I agree! Completely!
OTOH, you do not know how complex and vague the tests can be.
PE
OTOH, you do not know how complex and vague the tests can be.
PE
I was nailed twice by this problem in China in 2015.
That's very true, PE. However, even circumstantial evidence can eventually accumulate to a point that virtually no other conclusions may be drawn.
Wow....Ektar too.
Note from the references to other forums that other manufacturers are having the same problem. The reports seem to have started about one year ago which indicates that film from about 2 years ago are involved and it spreads over 3 manufacturers at the minimum.
PE
PE
Yes, and it I'll wager it's more widespread than that. At least this crisis isn't as extreme as THIS ONE
Tomfrh, apparently you don't know PE very well. He'll be the first to suggest Kodak make good on this issue and has done so many times despite his loyalty to EKO. Other brands have indeed experienced the very same problem and it's not just black-and-white films. It's my opinion that this issue is cause solely by the paper/ink. That doesn't excuse Kodak/Alaris or any other film manufacturer but it does (maybe) let us know what caused the problem.
I agree with you Old-n-feeble.
I was just imagining how the kodak people would be feeling knowing they're not alone.
I was just imagining how the kodak people would be feeling knowing they're not alone.
I'm sure I missed this information: Is there more than one company making paper backing for 120 roll film? If so, does anyone know which company is making the papers for what film makers and particular films? Is there more than one paper manufacturer having this problem?
MattKing
Moderator
It appears that there is only one remaining supplier. That supplier has never been identified in anything I have seen - possibly because that is closely held information?
MattKing
Moderator
The problem has been around ever since numbers were printed on backing paper. Historically, wrapper offset happens when the film and backing paper get old and/or are exposed to heat and humidity that is significantly divergent from the recommended storage conditions. The current large increase in incidence of the problem is almost certainly due to a change in paper and/or ink formulation, but the older papers and inks still remain susceptible to wrapper offset resulting from storage and handling problems.
This is what complicates the matter. Examples posted on the internet may be due to interaction between the emulsion and the 2nd most recent ink/paper, may be due to interaction between the emulsion and the 2nd most recent ink/paper plus improper handling and storage or may be due solely to improper handling and storage. You cannot tell by just looking at an internet image. The formulation of the film may also be important - the emulsion of one film may make it more susceptible to interaction with the ink and paper than the formulation of another.
I could certainly understand why Kodak Alaris would not want to undertake the expense to recall Ektar 100, as an example, if its emulsion is such that only severely mistreated film would suffer from wrapper offset - i.e. if there was no greater susceptibility for that film than with the older ink and paper.
This is what complicates the matter. Examples posted on the internet may be due to interaction between the emulsion and the 2nd most recent ink/paper, may be due to interaction between the emulsion and the 2nd most recent ink/paper plus improper handling and storage or may be due solely to improper handling and storage. You cannot tell by just looking at an internet image. The formulation of the film may also be important - the emulsion of one film may make it more susceptible to interaction with the ink and paper than the formulation of another.
I could certainly understand why Kodak Alaris would not want to undertake the expense to recall Ektar 100, as an example, if its emulsion is such that only severely mistreated film would suffer from wrapper offset - i.e. if there was no greater susceptibility for that film than with the older ink and paper.
Kodak is being foolish in not acknowledging this problem in public and not recalling all suspect film. I guess it is too costly. However, this has been an endemic problem with film since day 1 except for Agfa, Fuji, Ilford and Kodak. Now, it seems to have spread to these as well. They may have just changed over recently to outsourced paper. IDK.
PE
PE
MattKing
Moderator
PE
When I worked in retail back in the 1970s and 1980s I used to see it back in the day with Kodak film as well. It wasn't common, but it was always the typical "left in the glove compartment in our rental car during our vacation in Hawaii" type of film.
And the customer always blamed Kodak, of course.
When I worked in retail back in the 1970s and 1980s I used to see it back in the day with Kodak film as well. It wasn't common, but it was always the typical "left in the glove compartment in our rental car during our vacation in Hawaii" type of film.
And the customer always blamed Kodak, of course.
Matt, that problem was essentially solve about the time you mention.
PE
PE
There seems to be a magenta cast along the outer edges and a green one at the top. Color balancing the building in the back to white turned the sky a weird color so I left it the way you saw it.
PE, who do I contact at Kodak? Thanks.
Punker, the upper edge of your picture seems to be a stain of some sort due to irregular agitation or perhaps contact with a reel.
I'll guess that the process you used had a blix and not a bleach then fix. Am I right?
If so the building color is explained, but if not it just reinforces the process problem.
With a blix, silver metal can be left behind leaving odd colors to whites.
PE
I'll guess that the process you used had a blix and not a bleach then fix. Am I right?
If so the building color is explained, but if not it just reinforces the process problem.
With a blix, silver metal can be left behind leaving odd colors to whites.
PE
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |