backing paper numbers show on negatives.

[Dirk Dom]

Hi!


I spent six weeks in san Francisco, shooting my Mamiya 7. i also shoot a linhof technikardan 69, with rollfilm.


I shot Kodak Tmax 400, exposed to 800 ASA, pushed one stop in developing, developed in Tmax developer.


All my films show the markings of the backing paper numbers on my clear sky portions. They are darker than the surrounding sky.


I developed the film eight to two weeks after it was exposed. I didn't refrigerate the film, it was kept at room temperature in a cloth bag.


I've been using kodak Tmax 400 for a few years, and never had this before. this is the first time, however, that I didn't develop the film immediately.


I'm 100% sure it isn't a light leak problem.


I'd like to continue using roll film on longer trips, with the Technikardan.


Does anyone know what causes this and what I can do to prevent it? like putting the film in bags with silicagel?


Thank you,


Dirk.

 

[gorbas]

WoW! Bad news! So far I haven't seen this effect on Kodak 120 film. Have seen it on 120 format films from Foma (fresh) , Agfa and some Iilford (both expired).
No. It's not light leak problem, it's storage problem or to be precise, chemical interaction between film emulsion and paper and printing inks used for backing paper.
How fresh rolls were? I don't think that a few weeks wait after exposure made any difference.
Do you have any more unexposed rolls left from the same emulsion #. kept in the similar condition to test it?

 

[BradS]

How was the film stored before your travels?

 

[Sceptic]

This happened to me before, but only on extremely expired film which I experimented with

 

[sly]

I've had it happen with colour Lomo film, but rolls from the same batch were not consistently affected. I've been advised it was caused by loading/unloading the 120 film in bright light, rather than subdued. Haven't seen it since I began making sure I loaded in a dim room. I've never seen it with Ilford film, no matter where I loaded.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I need more information such as a full frame scan and if possible a full frame scan of the paper backing and how it was aligned with the film.

Thanks.

PE

 

[gone]

Oh my! Shades of my one (and only) experience w/ that crap film Ultrafine. From what you describe, you may have just gotten a bad batch of film. It happens. I would buy a fresh roll of something different from a different supplier (fresh Tri-X from Freestyle would be my recommendation, unless you have access to films at local stores) and see if that shows that the problem is not the gear or the developing, but the film.

 

[Ektagraphic]

Did you contact Kodak to see what they might have to say? It seems to me that their backing papers have recently changed. http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/filmsIndex.jhtml?pq-path=13319 I have seen this new paper with film I have recently purchased and processed, but have not had a problem...yet.

 

[gijsbert]

I have had one roll with backing paper numbers on some negatives too

2015-05-11-zeiss-sic-007 by Gijsbert de Haan, on Flickr
This photo has all three rows (8, 12, 16) numbers (along left, and lower edge). These were developed in xtol 1:1, btw.

2015-05-11-zeiss-sic-004 by Gijsbert de Haan, on Flickr
This one only has the 16 numbers visible (lower left, next to the pilon).

At least one other negative has the 16 numbers, but very faintly, the other pictures seem ok but they also have more detail that would it less visible. The whole roll: https://www.flickr.com/gp/roidelapatate/2pAkH7
I still have the backing paper, it's the old format according to that link in the previous post (yellow goes all the way to the line-up arrow). I can't really see anything out of the ordinary on the backing paper.

At first I thought I might have left the red windows open (shot on Zeiss Super Ikonta 531/2 (I think), with red windows on the 16 row), but then the first photo with all 3 rows visible should not have happened.
I have shot another roll of 400TX in this camera without any problems.

 

[BradS]

This is so disappointing. I never thought that Kodak would have issues like this. Kodak Tri-X is my most favored and most used film...

 

[Photo Engineer]

Did any of this film go through an X-Ray scanner at a security point?

PE

 

[Sirius Glass]

The only things that I can think of are heat, film rolled too tightly after exposure, expired film. After that I have no ideas. Do not discount rolling the exposed film too tightly.

 

[pentaxuser]

PE It would appear that there are others who claim that their film TMax400 definitely did not go through any scanners.

The problem the OP has raised is replicated by Rattymouse under "Film ruined by paper"

MODS It would appear to make sense to combine the two threads to ensure that each person's contribution is seen by all interested parties

pentaxuser

 

[gijsbert]

I must admit I don't keep track of when I buy film, so the roll might have been to Amsterdam and back (2x1 scans), but it was most likely a local buy (Montreal) or shipped from B&H that hasn't traveled.

I've put the backing paper on a tablet-as-lightbox, black side up, and if I look really really hard I can just see some of the 16 exposure numbers but not of the word 'kodak' and not the 12 or 8 numbers (even though the 8-8 is quite visible on my negative).

I've tried scanning the backing paper as negative and as positive film (so with the backlight), but I just get black with sensor noise after compressing the histogram to (near) blacks only. This was on old epson 4490 scanner so I didn't have much hope it would show something. At least I noticed how dirty the really glass was, so it's a lot cleaner now!

Cheers.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

WoW! Bad news! So far I haven't seen this effect on Kodak 120 film. Have seen it on 120 format films from Foma (fresh) , Agfa and some Iilford (both expired).
No. It's not light leak problem, it's storage problem or to be precise, chemical interaction between film emulsion and paper and printing inks used for backing paper.
How fresh rolls were? I don't think that a few weeks wait after exposure made any difference.
Do you have any more unexposed rolls left from the same emulsion #. kept in the similar condition to test it?

Happened to me once when I loaded the film wrong and exposed the paper rather than the film side:munch:There is a limit to my intelligence but my stupidity is endless

 

[destroya]

i have heard this problem from a few others as well. I bought a pro pack last week so I'll shoot it and develop some over the next few days to see if I get the numbers also. I hope this is a fluke as tmax 400 is a great film.

 

[pdeeh]

SO, with a small cluster of similar experiences, has anyone thought yet to send a sample of the problematic film/backing paper to Kodak for analysis and comment?
That'd do two things: alert Kodak to a possible problem, and allow them to look an actual example of a possible problem.

 

[Ian Grant]

It reminds me of the issue Foma had with backing paper, problems only arose with s few types of camera which made it hard to determine where the problem was coming from. Foma's quality checks showed it wasn't the emulsion or coating as films from the same batches weren't all showing the problem. It turned out to be slight changes made by the company who made the backing paper.

It's not an X-ray issue or it would have been seen many times before and with all brands/makes of 120 film. It's quite probable that Eastman Kodak have changed or out-source the backing paper supply like their chemistry, film base etc. So it's an issue Kodak Alaris need to look into with Eastman Kodak who manufacture for them.

Ian

 

[Arctic amateur]

Would x-rays make the ink fluoresce?

 

[Steve Smith]

It's easy tell tell if it is caused by ink or light leakage.

If the numbers line up with the frame, e.g. with a 6x6 frame, exactly in the middle, then it is light*. If there is a bit of offset by the circumference of the film around the spool (varies depending on position in the roll) it will be an ink problem.

* This assumes the suspect light is coming through the red window.


Steve.

 

[Xmas]

It is way important to ziplock film not in the unsealed original aluminised/plastic packing.

The ziplock bag also needs to contain a freshly ovened silica gel package.

Putting this zip lock bag in fridge is a no no.

I've been given 120 film where the film front and back were embedded with the backing paper just from humidity in a camera. There was no point in trying to unwind it in dark.

Only break the interior sealing when you remove the current film in the middle of a shoot and intend to continue shooting.

Humidity destroys film way faster than heat.

 

[JW PHOTO]

It reminds me of the issue Foma had with backing paper, problems only arose with s few types of camera which made it hard to determine where the problem was coming from. Foma's quality checks showed it wasn't the emulsion or coating as films from the same batches weren't all showing the problem. It turned out to be slight changes made by the company who made the backing paper.

It's not an X-ray issue or it would have been seen many times before and with all brands/makes of 120 film. It's quite probable that Eastman Kodak have changed or out-source the backing paper supply like their chemistry, film base etc. So it's an issue Kodak Alaris need to look into with Eastman Kodak who manufacture for them.

Ian

Yes, I had several rolls of Foma film that had little (scratchies) on the negatives and for the life of me I couldn't figure out why. Then I read on this forum that it was a backing paper issue and it affected only certain cameras. Seems some cameras drag and bend film more than other, thus causing the backing paper to rub its fibers into the film. That was the last time I used Foma. I guess its fine now, but I just didn't see that much of a savings over Ilford for me or even Kodak at that time.
I can't believe for the price of Kodak film now that they would even try a different(cheaper?) backing paper. "Penny wise, pound foolish"! I'm sure that if this is a fault of Kodak Alaris then it will hurt them dearly in film sales. They are probably doing what most U.S.companies are doing and that's buying raw materials from China where rules, regulations and standards don't always apply. I bet they are buying the backing paper from the same company the sells it for use on Shanghai GP3 film. Just joking of course. I think? GP3 was another film that had the numbers bleed through to the film emulsion. Nice film, but bad backing paper. Well, the only bright side to this whole thing is that it will help Ilford's film sales. It also means that it will help Ilford to be able to stay afloat longer. Wait, could this be "Industrial sabotage" ??? Stay tuned for the next exciting episode in the "Who screwed Kodak"! John W
P.S. I love TMY2 in 120, but will be using HP5+ and FP4+ until this mess is cleared up.

 

[Ian Grant]

I'm not suggesting Eastman Kodak have cut corners or gone for a cheaper backing paper rather that it's probable there's some slight variation if they've outsourced it like the film base, chemistry etc. Like the Foma issue it might only show up under certain conditions.

Ian

 

[JW PHOTO]

I'm not suggesting Eastman Kodak have cut corners or gone for a cheaper backing paper rather that it's probable there's some slight variation if they've outsourced it like the film base, chemistry etc. Like the Foma issue it might only show up under certain conditions.

Ian

Ian,
Yes, it's possible the change in backing paper wasn't due to saving a few bucks, but 99% of the time it is about the bottom dollar with corporations. We'll see how fast Kodak takes care of the situation or explains to us what the problem is. Ilford/Simon is very good about informing us here as to any problem there is with Ilford B&W products and my hat is off to him over that. John W

 

[MattKing]

My understanding is that there is only one company left in the world making backing paper.

So this may turn into more than just a TMax 400 issue.