backing paper numbers show on negatives.

Punker · May 20, 2016

Prof_Pixel said:
Profilm@Kodakalaris.com found on http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/professional-photographers/professional-films

Thank you, Prof_Pixel.

Photo Engineer said:
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

PE, it was indeed a blix. Thanks for the info. I always use the same agitation method with no problems so it's most likely some sort of irregular contact with the reel. This film was super curly.

Photo Engineer · May 20, 2016

Unusual for fresh color film to be super curly. Well, even slightly out of date film for that matter. Bad keeping might have done it.

Blixes and bad agitation or heavy use will do what you see to highlights! Sorry. Rebleach, wash, fix, wash and stabilize and it may correct the problem of the highlights.

I'm going to tell all of you a story........... Please read.

Many years ago, a shipload of Agfa photographic products was sent to the US from Germany to the US via the port of NY. There was a dock strike and the ship was diverted to New Orleans, it being the only port open in the eastern half of the US. While going there and awaiting unloading (slowly due to the huge crowd of ships), it suffered an AC failure in mid summer. The products roasted in the hot sun for a week or two and when the products were ready to go on sale, the Agfa rep condemned them all and the company took the hit.

Now, the company knew about this and took action. I suspect in this case the problem is so diffuse or varying and spread over 3 companies that no one has determined where and how it took place. They are relying on you all to inform them and perhaps they can work out the when where and how.

PE

newcan1 · May 25, 2016

I bought 200 rolls of Shanghai 120 roll film for about 50 cents/roll and the only problem with it has been the need to reinforce the tape that affixes the film to the backing paper. It's ironic that the backing paper issues now relate to Kodak, but not to what I have. I guess I found myself a bargain.

Old-N-Feeble · May 25, 2016

newcan1 said:
I bought 200 rolls of Shanghai 120 roll film for about 50 cents/roll and the only problem with it has been the need to reinforce the tape that affixes the film to the backing paper. It's ironic that the backing paper issues now relate to Kodak, but not to what I have. I guess I found myself a bargain.

Nah... you find yourself a-braggin'.

MartinP · May 26, 2016

Lucky newcan1. Oddly, Shanghai GP3 is the only 120 film that has left numbers on the film for me! It seemed to go 'off' about 45 seconds after the date on the box.

Liese · May 31, 2016

I bought 40 rolls of Kodak TMY2 100 and 400 film. The paper backing was defective, the numbers and letters appeared on the negas like a watermark. Kodak replaced all the film, saying that indeed the backing was causing the problem, a defect of theirs, and replaced all of the film.

AgX · May 4, 2017

Photo Engineer said:
I'm going to tell all of you a story........... Please read.

Many years ago, a shipload of Agfa photographic products was sent to the US from Germany to the US via the port of NY. There was a dock strike and the ship was diverted to New Orleans, it being the only port open in the eastern half of the US. While going there and awaiting unloading (slowly due to the huge crowd of ships), it suffered an AC failure in mid summer. The products roasted in the hot sun for a week or two and when the products were ready to go on sale, the Agfa rep condemned them all and the company took the hit.

That was not the only case. In another case a refrigerating container from Antwerp had been deliberately not set on the ships power line by the shipper. Agfa claimed a total loss, but the shipping company hinted at their limited liability. Agfa went to court.

So, these cases happen.

akanne · Aug 6, 2017

I recently shot a roll of Rollei A T O 2.1 which seems to have had a severe case of this problem (as in "mostly unusable"). Before the ortho film I shot a roll of Retro 80S in the same magazine which came out great.

Having only bought the film to experiment with, I shot it at box speed only to discover that the only development times I could find for that speed were for Rollei's special developer, which I have no interest in buying. So I decided to go for Rodinal 1+100 and 1 hour stand development, a process I don't have much experience with (I normally use my Rodinal at 1+50). The film came out with a brownish stain and looked a bit uneven.
I thought the brown discoloration could be due to my fixer nearing exhaustion so I re-fixed using freshly mixed fixer but that didn't do much to resolve it. What's worse, when scanning the negatives I discovered that the backing paper on some frames is more visible than the actual image.

I guess my question is: Should I bother with raising this issue with the manufacturer or does my decision to use stand development have something to do with it? The frames do look a bit uneven (I guess I should have given it an inversion at the 30 minute mark). They also look underexposed, so I guess I should have increased development time as well. But I guess that shouldn't be able to cause this type of print-through?

removed account4 · Aug 6, 2017

Photo Engineer said:
Now, the company knew about this and took action.

that's a great story !
its too bad EK/KA took so long to take action with their problem .. its working on 2 years now and people
are still having problems ... maybe it is user error for not checking batch numbers &c but they were kind of slow off the mark dealing

Photo Engineer · Aug 6, 2017

John, keeping tests take time! You have no idea of the complexity involved.

PE

MattKing · Aug 7, 2017

Photo Engineer said:
John, keeping tests take time! You have no idea of the complexity involved.

PE

They are, of course, tests of whether or not things change over time. So it sort of makes sense that time will be involved in the process.
I think though that at least part of what John is talking about is the failure to make more public announcements to warn about the problem.

removed account4 · Aug 7, 2017

when a company doesn't say " hey we have a problem " early it makes me think
of sinister motives, whether they are founded in reality or not.
im thinking of the last decades smatterings greed + profit related sensationalist headlines
tainted baby formula, blood supply, toothpaste, dog food
bad air bags, bad brakes, tricking air quality tests, farma bro, to just name a few .. the list is too long to write..
on the other hand there are companies that have done the right thing and gotten wrecked afterwards
.. im reminded of good old j+c and their mis-cut film from eastern europe. they announced there was a problem
and later sold it cheep cheap as "defective" for people who didn't care
( the threads here are still archived )yet when they were riding "the big one" and the owner fell-ill, and
corporate types raided and pillaged a warehouse full of $100,000.00+ of film his reputation &c was ruined.
with social media/tweeter, FB &c making it so ez for a company like EK/KA to make an announcement
2 years back " hey all you 120 film users, we have defective film /paper that may bleed onto your film, problems are trickling in stay tuned "
would have let people know what was going on with no fanfare &c and pros and amateurs wouldn't have invested sometimes 100$ if not 1000$ in film
and photographing things that will never happen again, now unfortunately there are those same social media websites
with threads, posts, announcements talking about bad-film, and bad vibes directed towards the company that made it ...
the end consumer who was screwed doesn't really care how complicated it is, or how much testing is needed ...
they care about how their film was ruined and in some cases was never replaced...

John Wiegerink · Aug 7, 2017

jnanian said:
when a company doesn't say " hey we have a problem " early it makes me think
of sinister motives, whether they are founded in reality or not.
im thinking of last the decades smatterings greed + profit related sensationalist headlines
tainted baby formula, blood supply, toothpaste, dog food
bad air bags, bad brakes, tricking air quality tests, farma bro, to just name a few .. the list is too long to write..
on the other hand there are companies that have done the right thing and gotten wrecked afterwards
.. im reminded of good old j+c and their mis-cut film from eastern europe. they announced there was a problem
and later sold it cheep cheap as "defective" for people who didn't care
( the threads here are still archived )yet when they were riding "the big one" and the owner fell-ill, and
corporate types raided and pillaged a warehouse full of $100,000.00+ of film his reputation &c was ruined.
with social media/tweeter, FB &c making it so ez for a company like EK/KA to make an announcement
2 years back " hey all you 120 film users, we have defective film /paper that may bleed onto your film, problems are trickling in stay tuned "
would have let people know what was going on with no fanfare &c and pros and amateurs wouldn't have invested sometimes 100$ if not 1000$ in film
and photographing things that will never happen again, now unfortunately there are those same social media websites
with threads, posts, announcements talking about bad-film, and bad vibes directed towards the company that made it ...
the end consumer who was screwed doesn't really care how complicated it is, or how much testing is needed ...
they care about how their film was ruined and in some cases was never replaced...

+2

Photo Engineer · Aug 7, 2017

Actually, they did not know there was a problem even though posts appeared here. You see, no one told them about it. A post is fine, but customer complaints were kind of delayed a bit, things being stirred up here first. When they got the word, they believed it but could not reproduce it in the lab. If they could have, they would have known about it first. It turns out to be very subtle I guess.

In any event, they are working on it. In the mean time, those "out of stock" notices for products mean that KO/KA are not making any profits. Do you think they want that? Of course not. At the present time, they are under staffed and overworked. They are advertising for help locally.

PE

removed account4 · Aug 7, 2017

i can only imagine PE

maybe people contact EK/KA but maybe their problems weren't taken seriously .. until it was too late?
and then .. after they realized what was going on they didn't do anything ?
usually when something is a faulty companies RECALL THEM, .. maybe i am clueless
and i obvioulsy have no idea about EK/KA "backstage" but from the internet chatter they didn't do a mass recall ..
and as i said, doing absolutely nothing / continental drift slowness leads to believing there are other things ( that i mentioned previously ) in play
oh well what can you do ...

Prof_Pixel · Aug 7, 2017

Photo Engineer said:
At the present time, they are under staffed and overworked. They are advertising for help locally.

Yup. I just did a Google search on 'Kodak jobs Rochester' and there are quite a few - many involving coating technology. I'm not sure how many new engineers are interested in working for a company with Kodak's current track record.

AgX · Aug 8, 2017

akanne said:
I recently shot a roll of Rollei A T O 2.1 which seems to have had a severe case of this problem (as in "mostly unusable").

Welcome to Apug!

This thread is about an interference between backing paper of roll film and the emulsion, yielding distinct images of the numbering of the packing paper on the film.
Your problem obviously is different.

prado333 · Feb 23, 2018

Unfortunately today i have received a batch of developed film tmy 400 in 120 format from the lab with several backing numbers in the negatives . It is true that i send to develop several months after i exposed the film .

RattyMouse · Feb 23, 2018

prado333 said:
Unfortunately today i have received a batch of developed film tmy 400 in 120 format from the lab with several backing numbers in the negatives . It is true that i send to develop several months after i exposed the film .

I'm very sorry to hear your news. This has happened to me many times as well. Please shoot Ilford Delta 400 in the future to avoid this problem completely.

MattKing · Feb 23, 2018

prado333 said:
Unfortunately today i have received a batch of developed film tmy 400 in 120 format from the lab with several backing numbers in the negatives . It is true that i send to develop several months after i exposed the film .

I'm sorry to hear that you experienced this.
Do you know what the "best before" and batch numbers of the film were, and can you share them with us?
In case you haven't noticed the information already, Kodak Alaris can be contacted about this problem via email: profilm@kodakalaris.com
They have replaced films for many of us here and elsewhere.

Rrrgcy · Sep 21, 2022

I just discovered this post after having gotten back my prints today of several rolls 120 Kodak B&W w 2017-era expiry. “Kodak” and numbers everywhere on the negs and prints. Plan to test some other brand rolls to rule out anything else, hope Kodak might be responsive if the issue lays w Kodak… I know it’s expired film but it still shouldn’t ghost through. Never would have believed this could be a result from ‘bad manufacturing.‘ A lot of folk from my trip have been contacting me and expecting me to provide them enlargements from a fairly intimate, historic and singular event I imaged w these rolls. This rates just as badly as the other month when I went overseas on an important diplomatic mission and on the Big Day my film on the critical roll didn’t properly catch/advance on the sprockets… 35, 36, 37, 38, 39… I have a problem. At least the latter was easy to explain, this one is more complicated to the lay person who was amazed at Film (!) and are begging for prints.

Bill Burk · Sep 21, 2022

Rrrgcy said:
I just discovered this post after having gotten back my prints today of several rolls 120 Kodak B&W w 2017-era expiry. “Kodak” and numbers everywhere on the negs and prints. Plan to test some other brand rolls to rule out anything else, hope Kodak might be responsive if the issue lays w Kodak… I know it’s expired film but it still shouldn’t ghost through. Never would have believed this could be a result from ‘bad manufacturing.‘ A lot of folk from my trip have been contacting me and expecting me to provide them enlargements from a fairly intimate, historic and singular event I imaged w these rolls. This rates just as badly as the other month when I went overseas on an important diplomatic mission and on the Big Day my film on the critical roll didn’t properly catch/advance on the sprockets… 35, 36, 37, 38, 39… I have a problem.

Batch 0149?

Anyway check your batch number against the list.

At this point you should embrace the defect if you still have some stock from the known bad batches… or pass it along to someone who wants it.

There’s no remedy. Things that have been tried like presoaking and developing immediately do not help.

The numbers and “Kodak” will appear.

Rrrgcy · Sep 21, 2022

Exp issue is on me. Some are light and difficult to see, but stuff like this I can’t embrace . Blechh.

Moose22 · Sep 21, 2022

Rrrgcy said:
How on earth does one embrace this? Yikes.

May seem hard for you to embrace, but others might do so. Remember, even porcupines have babies.

Sirius Glass · Sep 21, 2022

Rrrgcy said:
I just discovered this post after having gotten back my prints today of several rolls 120 Kodak B&W w 2017-era expiry. “Kodak” and numbers everywhere on the negs and prints. Plan to test some other brand rolls to rule out anything else, hope Kodak might be responsive if the issue lays w Kodak… I know it’s expired film but it still shouldn’t ghost through. Never would have believed this could be a result from ‘bad manufacturing.‘ A lot of folk from my trip have been contacting me and expecting me to provide them enlargements from a fairly intimate, historic and singular event I imaged w these rolls. This rates just as badly as the other month when I went overseas on an important diplomatic mission and on the Big Day my film on the critical roll didn’t properly catch/advance on the sprockets… 35, 36, 37, 38, 39… I have a problem. At least the latter was easy to explain, this one is more complicated to the lay person who was amazed at Film (!) and are begging for prints.

This was a known problem for Kodak, Ilford and others. It appeared when the film manufactures went to a new paper source when the paper suppliers were leaving the business. There is no need to test since it is a know problem. Contact Kodak to see if they will replace the film as they have in the past.

backing paper numbers show on negatives.

Punker

Photo Engineer

newcan1

Old-N-Feeble

MartinP

Liese

AgX

akanne

removed account4

Photo Engineer

MattKing

Moderator

removed account4

John Wiegerink

Photo Engineer

removed account4

Prof_Pixel

AgX

prado333

RattyMouse

MattKing

Moderator

Rrrgcy

Bill Burk

Rrrgcy

Moose22

Sirius Glass

backing paper numbers show on negatives.

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency