Bessa I 6x9 red window - HELP!

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Donald It does look as if in camera Peter has there is no way of knowing where the frames are with Kodak. A real pity.

Peter do you know or for that matter anyone else know if Ilford films show the numbers in the Bessa I 6x9? If they do then maybe there is hope in the B&W field

pentaxuser

 

[pbromaghin]

Everything I see online and in that older thread says that Ilford is good - they have 3 different 6x9 marking lines, Fuji too.

 

[thuggins]

There is no "international standard" for ruby window placement or for backing paper numbering. The situation is most extreme with 6x9 as there was really no concept of international standardization before the war. Into the 1930's some manufacturers were not printing the 6x6 numbers. The 4.5x6 numbers didn't show up consistently till after the war. Camera designers likely positioned the window based on whatever roll of film they happened to have on hand. For the Bessa this may well have been something from AGFA.

Film manufactures were left to accommodate the situation as best as they could. Some did better than others. From samples currently sitting around, Ilford has two rows of 4.5x6, two rows of 6x6 and three rows of 6x9, all with "warning dots". It is unlikely there is any camera that won't align with some number on Ilford film. Fuji has two rows of 4.5x6 with "warning dots" on each row, two rows of 6x6 with one row of "warning dots" in the middle and three rows of 6x9 with one row of "warning dots" on the very edge. Kodak has one row of 4.5x6, one row of 6x6 and three rows of 6x9, all preceded with a barely visible "KODAK". Just from this sample it is apparent that 6x9 has the most variation in ruby window placement.

In the worst case I've seen the tip of the number is just visible in the window. Get a red LED flashlight and very carefully wind the film. You may miss the first number, but eventually you'll see a bit of one. Once you know what to expect you can be reasonably able to get the alignment right on each frame.

 

[Dan Daniel]

ilford hp5 paper

 

[pentaxuser]

Everything I see online and in that older thread says that Ilford is good - they have 3 different 6x9 marking lines, Fuji too.

So if Ilford still gets its backing paper with 3 different marking lines then I wonder why Kodak can't get its backing paper marked the same way- oversight, cost ?

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

So if Ilford still gets its backing paper with 3 different marking lines then I wonder why Kodak can't get its backing paper marked the same way- oversight, cost ?

pentaxuser

Because every additional bit of ink increases the possibility of wrapper offset, and you will recall the problems Kodak had with that.
The reduction in numbers happened initially when Kodak was doing everything they could think of to solve that problem.

 

[thuggins]

So if Ilford still gets its backing paper with 3 different marking lines then I wonder why Kodak can't get its backing paper marked the same way- oversight, cost ?
pentaxuser

Kodak has really gone overboard to fix the bleed thru problem. The backing "paper" on Ektachrome isn't paper, but some sort of plastic. That is the only Kodak film I use, so I'm not sure if they did it across the board. The printing is so faint it is really tough to see thru the ruby window. Of course, none of that excuses being so niggardly with the actual numbers. We'll just chalk that up to Kodak just not trying very hard to make a user friendly product.

 

[MattKing]

This discussion is kind of funny, because it is so similar to the outrage several years ago when Ilford originally caused great consternation by markedly reducing the visibility of their backing paper numbers, in order to deal with the same wrapper offset problems.
If I understand things correctly, Both Kodak and Ilford are no longer able to afford buying different backing paper for different films - the minimum order requirements make that economically non-viable.
At least some of Kodak's films react with the inked letters and numbers - wrapper offset - if the ink loads are too high. So they did a whole bunch of things, including reducing the number of rows of numbers, to try to deal with that. And due to the economics, the solution they apply for one film has to be used for all their films.
If you have one of the older cameras that has a red window in an older location that is now rare, pass your concerns on to Kodak. When they buy their next batch of backing paper, maybe they will have gained enough ground using the other changes to restore one of the deleted rows. There certainly is no way for them to know about the effect that deleting the rows will have on the users of the films unless those users communicate that - it isn't as if there are a bunch of store employees who deal with customers who shoot 60+ year old cameras regularly and share their concerns.
Send an email to profilm@kodakalaris.com with your concerns.

 

[abruzzi]

I looked at some pretty recent (last year) rolls:

Acros (not II) has three tracks for 6x9, but only the outer one has the warning circles (the other two just have numbers
Tmax100 has three tracks for 6x9
TriX has three tracks for 6x9
Ilford seems to use the same backing paper for all rolls because the paper doesn't list the emulsion (unless I'm looking at the wrong paper.) and it shows three tracks for the 6x9.

EDIT: sorry, now I think that the unlabeled roll wasn't Ilford, but Bergger Pancro.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I just checked all the cameras I own that have 6x9 track windows. Of that lot, the old 1927 Voigtlander (years before they were called Bessa) has the window furthest from the film edge, and it still shows the center of the three 6x9 number tracks on the .EDU Ultra 400 film currently loaded (I can see two 7s, and just the slightest bit of the tail of the third). The others: Super Ikonta 532/16 (uses 6x9 to start the film for the mechanical counter; as noted, tracks other than 6x9 weren't reliably available when this was designed), Kodak Bullseye, Kodak Brownie Flash Six-20, Wirgin folder (called it a Welta earlier, and I don't recall the model name, but it has masks and can shoot 6x9 or 6x4.5 with two windows on the 6x9 track), and Ansco Shur-Shot Jr. all have the window within about an eighth of an inch of the same distance from the backing edge. The Bessa 1 in this thread must be an anomaly, or the film that didn't show numbers in the Bessa was.

 

[MattKing]

There is another thread here on Photrio/APUG which deals with the same problem (which I can't find presently).
The creator of that thread was irate because he felt that Kodak had abandoned its customers. He bought a 100 or so year old 120 format Kodak camera and couldn't read the numbers on recent film, because the window placement didn't match the number placement on the recently revised backing paper.
The model of his camera was the model introduced by Kodak to be the very first camera to use their then new 120 format film.
You wouldn't have thought that Kodak would have abandoned the users of that camera after only 100 years.

 

[pbromaghin]

Matt, I posted a link to that thread earlier. It was pretty much done to death.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...per-not-aligning-with-red-window.140801/print

 

[Saganich]

ROFLOL...much of the charm of using old things if figuring out how to make them work with new things...

 

[MattKing]

Matt, I posted a link to that thread earlier. It was pretty much done to death.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...per-not-aligning-with-red-window.140801/print

Believe it or not, there is another thread on the same theme. It concerns a Kodak Brownie No. 2 camera which I understand was the camera that Kodak introduced along with the new 120 format.
By the way, here is a better link to that one: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ng-paper-not-aligning-with-red-window.140801/

 

[pentaxuser]

Because every additional bit of ink increases the possibility of wrapper offset, and you will recall the problems Kodak had with that.
The reduction in numbers happened initially when Kodak was doing everything they could think of to solve that problem.

Perhaps Kodak was unnecessarily traumatised by its problem? It may or may not believe that a third line is worth the risk assuming that there is a risk which it looks as if Ilford wasn't exposed to so was never traumatised. See example below

Trauma does some terrible things to confidence. It's a bit like the adult who cannot swim and still has a fear of water because he was unfortunately thrown into the swimming pool as a kid and nearly drowned.

I have a horseshoe above the door of my house. It's not that I believe it brings me good luck. That's not rational. However I may be frightened of throwing it away "just in case"

pentaxuser

 

[abruzzi]

I'm curious, it seems really odd that Kodak would drop two of the 6x9 tracks on one film (Tmax400) and leave it on at least two other films (Tmax100 and TriX.) My rolls were bought in the last 6 months for B&H, so I assume a healthy turnover and fresh stock. I have a freshly shot roll of Tmax400 (bought in February) in my dark room ready to develop, but I've been waiting until I finish the roll in another camera so I can develop them both together. I have about 5 more frames to shoot, then I'll develop them and let you know if there are three tracks. One possible explanation is the OPs roll was a little older, Kodak heard the complaints and resolved them.

 

[MattKing]

It would be useful to know what the develop before dates were on all three films. They could very well have been manufactured more than a year apart, and could certainly have backing paper that comes from different batches.

 

[abruzzi]

the Tmax100 is 8/2020
the TriX is 1/2022

EDIT: I don't know if they're meaningful, but the code before the date are:

Tmax100: 1021 001
TriX: 1011 013

EDIT2: The Tmax400 rolls I haven't developed yet are 0159 001 06/2021

 

[Donald Qualls]

Assuming Kodak does the same as others, those "Develop by" dates are two years from manufacture.

 

[MattKing]

It would be useful if you could mark all three sets with their Develop Before dates, Batch numbers and film type and then photograph all three together.
Essentially, you will have three sets, each of which is a year different from the next.

 

[MattKing]

Assuming Kodak does the same as others, those "Develop by" dates are two years from manufacture.

Of course if Kodak is buying their backing paper in job lots that last them for a significant period of time, the three different films migh come from one, two or three different batches of backing paper.

 

[DWThomas]

Feeling a bit frustrated reading all this as the perpetrator of some scans in the earlier thread. A combination of having over-bought for two trips and being deeply entangled in some heavy remodeling -- and now Covid-19 shutdowns -- I have no very recent purchases and relatively few uses to enable me to add any useful contribution here. I do recall in the earlier thread there were indications that The Great Yellow Father might address the problem, but can't say I've heard anything since. I have no recent Tmax in 120. The last roll of 400TX backing paper I have laying about the darkroom is a shiny, plasticky looking stuff, but I have no confident info on its dating. (I'm thinking there used to be an emulsion number stamped {not printed} along the edge of the film toward the end, but my aging bleary eyes aren't picking it up on the last 400TX negatives.) I "think" it was shot last year on a Rhine cruise and given the cost of that little trek, it's likely that to be safe I used my more recently acquired stock which had expirations of 11/20 (Emuls. #1001 011) and 05/21 (Emuls. #1001 013) -- but I can't prove it.

In any event, here's a snip and there are indeed 3 rows of numbers on the 6x9 track. But all this monkey business has been a moving target to say the least.

 

[pentaxuser]

I remember the days when a certain Simon Galley of Harman fame would eventually give us a full run down on the origins, immediate actions and fiture actions on such matters were they to have been Harman/Ilford's responsibility.

Sadly with Kodak all we can ever rely on is the kind of truth or best guess speculation by Photrio members based on known facts or sometimes no so known( as in clear and unequivocal) facts. We never enjoyed any kind of similar liaison with Kodak nor I suspect ever will we.

The best liaison we have is Henning from whom I haven't heard anything for some time.

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

I remember the days when a certain Simon Galley of Harman fame would eventually give us a full run down on the origins, immediate actions and fiture actions on such matters were they to have been Harman/Ilford's responsibility.
pentaxuser

Simon, of course, was one of the small number of owners of Harman at the time.
Things are a lot simpler when that is the case.
Publicly traded corporations, and corporations that are owned by investment groups have the interests of their stockholders and investors to protect, so they need to control information. Sometimes you will get an answer to a question, but it will take a lot longer to get to you because of the need to vet it.
Even back then, Simon wasn't really able to disclose everything, because the backing paper manufacturer had/has an interest in proprietary information.

 

[pentaxuser]

Matt, in matters Kodak you be Perry and I will be Hamilton . Like Perry, will you leave Hamilton open-mouthed in the court as you reveal the truth each time that Hamilton has missed? Hamilton was never nasty. He just had an absolute and wrong belief that every "accused" in the court was automatically guilty. Perry simply looked for the truth and revealed that his client was innocent every time
Things in real life are unlikely to be that black or white. So in all matters Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, Foma , Adox etc I am not sure the accused party is innocent each time or is incapable of changing its behaviour to reflect the changes that the facts seem to indicate now exist. Of course it has to have a desire to do this as part of its contract with the consumers who buy its products .

As a consumer I hope I can remain able to ask what appear to me to be reasonable questions of any and all the analogue producers of photographic materials. As I hope others can, such as Peter in this case, who appear to have a legitimate complaint.

If we treat such companies as being similar to those who were they to have control( heaven forbid) over our supply of air and water then we do ourselves a serious injustice. We are then close to behaving as pure takers whose best and maybe only bet is to praise our givers or at least remain uncritical if we wish to secure our future well being.

pentaxuser