Disaster with Lomochrome Purple

Paul Manuell · Oct 7, 2017

bsdunek said:
As to the exposure latitude - Lomo Purple is a reversal film so it acts like one. Hot to hit those exposures right on.
I think your film was old and stored who knows how. I'm sure new rolls from Lomo would be OK. I have used their Redscale film with no problems.

Seriously, Lomo Purple's a reversal film? I didn't know that, I just assumed (or thought I'd read somewhere) that they'd done something with the dyes to make them produce the whacky colours, but that it was still a colour negative rather than reversal film. Oh well, learn something new every day

As for the film's age; it expires/expired this month, so although not strictly out of date it was right at the end of its 'use by' date. As far as I'm aware, they no longer make the Purple in 120 format, only 35mm, hence why the 2 rolls I received were within a few weeks of expiry.

MattKing · Oct 7, 2017

Paul Manuell said:
What's Kodak's ongoing paper issue by the way? As my main film is Portra 160 and the occasional 400, should I be worried?

I am scared to respond.
When Eastman Kodak stopped producing their own backing paper, they contracted that out.
Since then, they have had problems with some films, in some situations, in uncertain frequency. Reports of those problems were most prevalent in and around 2015 going into 2016.
The problem is called "wrapper offset", and occurs when the film reacts with the paper and ink on the backing paper. Ghost images of the numbers and "Kodak" may appear in your negatives. It is a problem that 120 film has always been susceptible to, particularly when exposed to high humidity and/or temperature, but the incidence apparently increased greatly with the then new backing paper.
Some films have had more frequent reports of problems than others. Many films either haven't suffered from the problem, or the effect isn't visible. The incidence of the problems might in fact be quite low, but the internet tends to do a wonderful job of integrating the reports of the problems that do arise.
The problems seem to be film type dependent - not surprising as it involves an interaction between film, ink and paper. T-Max 400 seems to have been the first where it was reasonably widely observed. I have seen some reports of problems with Ektar and Portra, but my sense is that there have been more reports from the users of the black and white emulsions.
T-Max 100 hasn't been available for quite some time because of the problem. It is a fair bit different than other 120 emulsions, and therefore seems to suffer more from wrapper offset. It may be that Kodak will need to re-design it.
Eastman Kodak have had their supplier revise the backing paper at least twice since 2015. There have been statements here on APUG/PHOTRIO from Ilford/Harman and others that there remains only one paper manufacturer in the world that has the capacity to manufacture the backing paper to the necessary high standards. A few years ago Simon Galley from Ilford confirmed that it cost them more money to buy the backing paper for a roll of 120 than it did to manufacture the film itself.
Avoid Kodak 120 film with 2017 "develop before" dates. There are lists of problematic batch numbers out there, but despite best efforts, they have become fragmented.
If you encounter this problem, it is important to understand that the only role that Eastman Kodak has with respect to still film is as a contract manufacturer, and their only customer is the separate UK entity known as Kodak Alaris.
Kodak Alaris are the people to contact for film replacement if you find you have problematic film. profilm@kodakalaris.com is the email address that worked for me.
With great trepidation, I refer you to one of my threads, where I tried to organize some of this information: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ing-paper-problems-emulsions-affected.137251/ As you will see, that thread has morphed into many things.

Gerald C Koch · Oct 7, 2017

RauschenOderKorn said:
Wow, you only bring one roll of film to a shoot where a model comes from out-of-town?

I know that I sometimes take too much precaution, but I bring more sets of batteries than that.

+1

May I also add using an untried roll without doing a test.

Paul Manuell · Oct 7, 2017

MattKing said:
I am scared to respond.
When Eastman Kodak stopped producing their own backing paper, they contracted that out.
Since then, they have had problems with some films, in some situations, in uncertain frequency. Reports of those problems were most prevalent in and around 2015 going into 2016.
The problem is called "wrapper offset", and occurs when the film reacts with the paper and ink on the backing paper. Ghost images of the numbers and "Kodak" may appear in your negatives. It is a problem that 120 film has always been susceptible to, particularly when exposed to high humidity and/or temperature, but the incidence apparently increased greatly with the then new backing paper.
Some films have had more frequent reports of problems than others. Many films either haven't suffered from the problem, or the effect isn't visible. The incidence of the problems might in fact be quite low, but the internet tends to do a wonderful job of integrating the reports of the problems that do arise.
The problems seem to be film type dependent - not surprising as it involves an interaction between film, ink and paper. T-Max 400 seems to have been the first where it was reasonably widely observed. I have seen some reports of problems with Ektar and Portra, but my sense is that there have been more reports from the users of the black and white emulsions.
T-Max 100 hasn't been available for quite some time because of the problem. It is a fair bit different than other 120 emulsions, and therefore seems to suffer more from wrapper offset. It may be that Kodak will need to re-design it.
Eastman Kodak have had their supplier revise the backing paper at least twice since 2015. There have been statements here on APUG/PHOTRIO from Ilford/Harman and others that there remains only one paper manufacturer in the world that has the capacity to manufacture the backing paper to the necessary high standards. A few years ago Simon Galley from Ilford confirmed that it cost them more money to buy the backing paper for a roll of 120 than it did to manufacture the film itself.
Avoid Kodak 120 film with 2017 "develop before" dates. There are lists of problematic batch numbers out there, but despite best efforts, they have become fragmented.
If you encounter this problem, it is important to understand that the only role that Eastman Kodak has with respect to still film is as a contract manufacturer, and their only customer is the separate UK entity known as Kodak Alaris.
Kodak Alaris are the people to contact for film replacement if you find you have problematic film. profilm@kodakalaris.com is the email address that worked for me.
With great trepidation, I refer you to one of my threads, where I tried to organize some of this information: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ing-paper-problems-emulsions-affected.137251/ As you will see, that thread has morphed into many things.

Thank you so much for going to the trouble to type that lengthy post, very much appreciated. Fortunately, my current stock of Portra has later use by dates than 2017 and the ones I've used in the past (loads of them) haven't displayed this problem, so it looks like I got away with it. Phew

lantau · Oct 7, 2017

MattKing said:
I am scared to respond.
Eastman Kodak have had their supplier revise the backing paper at least twice since 2015. There have been statements here on APUG/PHOTRIO from Ilford/Harman and others that there remains only one paper manufacturer in the world that has the capacity to manufacture the backing paper to the necessary high standards. A few years ago Simon Galley from Ilford confirmed that it cost them more money to buy the backing paper for a roll of 120 than it did to manufacture the film itself.
Avoid Kodak 120 film with 2017 "develop before" dates. There are lists of problematic batch numbers out there, but despite best efforts, they have become fragmented.

Over the last few months I've tried to find the post again, but to no avail. So this is from memory:

In one of the german language forums Mirko of Adox mentioned that this statement of one single paper maker in the world is not quite correct. It may even have originated from him. What he was saying is that there was only one maker left in Europe. Harman bought them or the production line (otherwise they may have shut down production, perhaps?) and after that the prices of backing paper for other film makers increased dramatically. IIRC more than for Adox to buy complete film from them. So his statement back then was that Adox and Foma are trying to setup their own paper making facility. Don't know if they were working together or each going for their own.

I can't imagine Fuji not having it's own Japanese supplier or even making it themselves. And I would expect Kodak to have another, likely US, supplier as well.

pentaxuser · Oct 7, 2017

Not adding a lot to the problem of Lomochrome Purple, especially if the OP has decided not to use it again but I may have gotten to the bottom of how the P645N or Nii detects frame 1. Based on replies from members of Pentax Forums it would appear that the key is setting the line on the backing paper to the start indicator. It uses this to draw the backing paper forward a set distance to line up the first frame. So if you cut the backing paper and effectively shorten it, you make frame 1 start further in to the film that it should. If you cut a lot of the backing paper off then you might only get 15 or 14 frames from what should have been a 16 frame film. However this in no way explains why the camera was not registering any frame numbers in the LCD windows.

If the camera with different film is now behaving itself then either there was something wrong with the Lomography film but I cannot think what, given the way the camera detects frame 1 or there was a temporary glitch in the frame counter mechanism. The latter seems more likely as far as I can see.

pentaxuser

removed account4 · Oct 7, 2017

OP
from what i understand lomo purple was manufactured so the end user
didn't have to flip the film in the roll .. that is take it off of the backing paper
and put it emulsion side against the backing paper to shoot through the film base.
if you like that effect you can buy other brands of film and do something similar AND
crossprocess it in c41 developer if it is e6 and the other way around.
good luck !
john

lantau · Oct 7, 2017

jnanian said:
OP
from what i understand lomo purple was manufactured so the end user
didn't have to flip the film in the roll .. that is take it off of the backing paper
and put it emulsion side against the backing paper to shoot through the film base.
if you like that effect you can buy other brands of film and do something similar AND
crossprocess it in c41 developer if it is e6 and the other way around.
good luck !
john

Wouldn't that be redscale film?

Ed Sawyer · Oct 7, 2017

If you want the effect that purple rubbish is supposed to emulate, just get a roll of real kodak aerochrome from Dean.

removed account4 · Oct 7, 2017

lantau said:
Wouldn't that be redscale film?

ahh maybe you are right, im a mess, sorry for disinforming you and the readership ( FAKE NEWS !! )
i must admit i was reading another website and i think it was populated by bots and trolls
in the middle of an anti lomo disinformation campaign. i should check my sources better !

keep having fun !

Paul Manuell · Oct 7, 2017

pentaxuser said:
Not adding a lot to the problem of Lomochrome Purple, especially if the OP has decided not to use it again but I may have gotten to the bottom of how the P645N or Nii detects frame 1. Based on replies from members of Pentax Forums it would appear that the key is setting the line on the backing paper to the start indicator. It uses this to draw the backing paper forward a set distance to line up the first frame. So if you cut the backing paper and effectively shorten it, you make frame 1 start further in to the film that it should. If you cut a lot of the backing paper off then you might only get 15 or 14 frames from what should have been a 16 frame film. However this in no way explains why the camera was not registering any frame numbers in the LCD windows.

If the camera with different film is now behaving itself then either there was something wrong with the Lomography film but I cannot think what, given the way the camera detects frame 1 or there was a temporary glitch in the frame counter mechanism. The latter seems more likely as far as I can see.

pentaxuser

But I DID correctly line up the arrow when loading the film, plus as explained, the leader wasn't actually shortened when it tore as the tear was along its length, not width. Therefore, the leader was still the full length, just narrower because of how it'd torn. When loaded it was done totally correctly with the arrow lined up against the red mark on the insert, exactly as I've done with the hundreds of films I've put through the camera over the years.

Not sure if you've read the whole thread, but I've also stated I used another Lomochrome Purple film afterwards without any problems in regards to it working once inserted, and have received the photos back from it. I still had problems undoing the tape that held the new film together though, plus with the lickable tape that seals it once finished. I've also used a couple of Portras since with no trouble either, so the problem was definitely down to tearing the leader on that first Purple.

pentaxuser · Oct 7, 2017

[QUOTE="Paul Manuell, post: 1999881, member: 82805" I've also used a couple of Portras since with no trouble either, so the problem was definitely down to tearing the leader on that first Purple.[/QUOTE]

You be right but if the line was OK and the film actually travelled through the insert to its end, I am at a loss to work out how a torn leader somehow fooled the frame counter into not being able to count. The backing paper was torn for a distance horizontally for a distance was all there so once the paper had moved the requisite to where the film started which triggers it's stopping at frame 1 and recording this on the LCD I cannot see how it failed to record the frames. Can anyone other users of P645N or Nii explain why a torn leader would have this effect?

I am completely puzzled. This isn't code for saying you are wrong. I am looking for answers. Expanding my and your knowledge of our equipment which is what Photrio should be about

pentaxuser

Paul Manuell · Oct 7, 2017

pentaxuser said:
[QUOTE="Paul Manuell, post: 1999881, member: 82805" I've also used a couple of Portras since with no trouble either, so the problem was definitely down to tearing the leader on that first Purple.

You be right but if the line was OK and the film actually travelled through the insert to its end, I am at a loss to work out how a torn leader somehow fooled the frame counter into not being able to count. The backing paper was torn for a distance horizontally for a distance was all there so once the paper had moved the requisite to where the film started which triggers it's stopping at frame 1 and recording this on the LCD I cannot see how it failed to record the frames. Can anyone other users of P645N or Nii explain why a torn leader would have this effect?

I am completely puzzled. This isn't code for saying you are wrong. I am looking for answers. Expanding my and your knowledge of our equipment which is what Photrio should be about

pentaxuser[/QUOTE]
Totally agree with you; logically it makes no sense whatsoever. I dare say I could've actually shot on that film even though the frame numbers weren't showing, as the film still wound on with each press of the shutter button, but I wasn't prepared to take that risk and waste the model's time or my money having the film developed and scanned on the off chance it worked. I never actually ran the film through to the end by the way, I gave up after the 3 or 4 shutter presses with no frame numbers showing and took the insert out and threw the partially advanced film away.

Disaster with Lomochrome Purple

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency