Do you also have trouble flattening Kodak Gold 120 film with books?

[Certain Exposures]

I left some under a pile of books for ages and the film refused to flatten itself enough that I could avoid getting newton rings in the scans. It curls back up as if the material has 'memory'. I may switch to a different, flatter drying color film (if any exist) once I run through my stash because of the curling and the limiting ISO.

The Epson v850 medium format film holders could be a lot better!

*Edit: ages means a few weeks.

 

[Sanug]

Switch to Lucky Color C200. It is flat directly after drying. The colour rendering is similiar to Kodak, the grain even finer.

Top: Kodak Gold
Bottom: Lucky Color C200

 

[Chrismat]

I may have to try Lucky 120 film. I like Kodak Gold, but the way it curls and stays curled after weighing it down for weeks is very frustrating.

 

[gbroadbridge]

The curl problem, in my experience, occurs when drying.

If you dry with heated air while holding the film taut it dries without curl.

I use a heated air blower and weight the end of the film

 

[mshchem]

I've had the same issue. My drying technique hasn't been altered in 40 years. Hang, air dry in climate controlled house, weighted metal clip on bottom.

Seems manageable, but it's aggravating. Maybe EK hasn't worked out current coating technique with PET base changes. EK has been coating color and black and white on Estar base polyester since the 50's so it's possible that this is just a change in their specification for film flatness????

Speculation on my part, it's a real thing.

It definitely improves in Printfile sleeves under a notebook.

 

[MattKing]

EK has been coating color and black and white on Estar base polyester since the 50's

Roll film on Estar since the 1950s?????

 

[mshchem]

Roll film on Estar since the 1950s?????

Not 120, 70mm etc etc. I should have said rolls of film.
All I know is the latest 120 films from Kodak are so curled that you NEED to use a Printfile or some contraption to hold 3 or 4 strips flat to make contact proof sheets. Pain in the &ss!

 

[mshchem]

My theory is that the specification for flatness must be different, or there's been a change or elimination of an anti-curl ingredient. Something is different, it ain't a shift in the Earth's gravity!

 

[gbroadbridge]

Not 120, 70mm etc etc. I should have said rolls of film.
All I know is the latest 120 films from Kodak are so curled that you NEED to use a Printfile or some contraption to hold 3 or 4 strips flat to make contact proof sheets. Pain in the &ss!

But mine dries flat - no curl.

 

[mshchem]

But mine dries flat - no curl.

Well sure you're inverted .
Maybe is a batch of curly PET base. I don't know.

I'm sure I have 100 rolls in my refrigerator going back 15 years I guarantee you that it's not acting like what I've seen lately.

It is what it is. I can live with it.

Most people have a lab develop, scan (maybe print) and have their films sleeved and returned, gently coiled in a corrugated paper box. In this state curl isn't an Issue.

Post #2 photo is what I've seen.

I use Jobo 1500 reels (spirals) I don't think that's the issue.

Believe it or not, that's up to you.

(PS, From now on Roll film is any film with paper backing on a spool or in a plastic cartridge)

 

[mshchem]

Switch to Lucky Color C200. It is flat directly after drying. The colour rendering is similiar to Kodak, the grain even finer.

Top: Kodak Gold
Bottom: Lucky Color C200

View attachment 423246

I'm not buying film from Lucky. Some people here on the forum who live in Canada won't buy US made photo products because of the situation.

 

[mshchem]

Besides I shoot Ektacolor 160 and 400. And Ektar. Don't really use much Gold.

 

[gbroadbridge]

I'm not buying film from Lucky. Some people here on the forum who live in Canada won't buy US made photo products because of the situation.

I guess Lucky would be an expensive cheap film - bad luck really

 

[mshchem]

I guess Lucky would be an expensive cheap film - bad luck really

I'm sure I'll be tempted to try Lucky at some point.
I've always used Eastman color negative films. Still camera films.Going back to Ektacolor-S (C-22), then Vericolor, then Portra NC, then Portra and now its Ektacolor 160 and 400. All these films produced fabulous results with electronic flash and/or daylight.
Kodacolor-X yielded amazing pictures with a flashcube (and genuine Kodak processing) I sent my films to the Kodak lab in Chicago Illinois. I think it was on Prarie Avenue??

 

[Sanug]

Here are my image samples of Lucky C200 and Kodak Gold.

Zenza Bronica SQ-A
Zenzanon-S 2.8/80mm
Lucky C200 and Kodak Gold 200
Adox C-Tec C-41 kit
Canoscan 8800F, Vuescan

 

[Certain Exposures]

But mine dries flat - no curl.

@gbroadbridge Are you talking about Kodak Gold 120 film you purchased new within the last few months? If so can you please show us a picture of a strip of your Kodak Gold on a table like this one below to demonstrate how flat it is?

We may not be talking about the same film because so far you are the first person I have come across without this complaint.

Switch to Lucky Color C200. It is flat directly after drying. The colour rendering is similiar to Kodak, the grain even finer.

Top: Kodak Gold
Bottom: Lucky Color C200

View attachment 423246

 

[gbroadbridge]

Are you talking about Kodak Gold 120 film you purchased new within the last few months? If so can you please show us a picture of a strip of your Kodak Gold on a table like this one below to demonstrate how flat it is?

We may not be talking about the same film because so far you are the first person I have come across without this complaint.

Yes, it's new gold 200 - the flimsy stuff.

Perhaps I'm the only person who warm air dries the film at 100F instead of just hanging it at room temperature.

 

[Sanug]

Yes, it's new gold 200 - the flimsy stuff.

Perhaps I'm the only person who warm air dries the film at 100F instead of just hanging it at room temperature.

This might be the reason. Maybe I should try warm drying of the Kodak Gold as well.
The Lucky has a thicker classical acetate base. Much preferred. I dislike that flimsy and curly PET stuff.

 

[BurntOutElectronics]

PET may have it's downsides, but for archivability and dimensional stability, it beats acetate with ease. Not having to see my film develop vinegar syndrome is a big enough plus for me alone to rather put up with PET's curl issues.
Also, Kodak's switch to PET is partly because they make it in-house, acetate isn't. From a supply line stability I can understand it, god forbid we end up seeing portra on glass plates because they ran out of acetate!
I do wish they'd use thicker base sizes however, gold is very flimsy feeling and 4x5 is even worse.
The only area certain to remain acetate is motion camera stocks

 

[DREW WILEY]

PET sheet films lay completely flat; of course, those are thicker. Roll film has to conveniently roll up, and has to be thin. It's memory therefore, both in the spool or cassette, and then in the camera, is to curl a particular direction. After it's processed, try storing it awhile in reverse curl fashion, rolled up, prior to flattening it. That generally works for me. I don't scan but enlarge, and always use carriers with both top and bottom AN glass.

 

[pentaxuser]

PET may have it's downsides, but for archivability and dimensional stability, it beats acetate with ease. Not having to see my film develop vinegar syndrome is a big enough plus for me alone to rather put up with PET's curl issues.

I haven't noticed much mention of vinegar syndrome with acetate-based films so can I ask what is the average expected life of acetate-based films before vinegar syndrome rears its head?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Depends on storage conditions. If you can actually detect a vinegar smell, that's a bad sign. Acetate based films tormented me, because they are dimensionally unstable, shrank over time, and didn't maintain register with contrast control masks over the long haul, which created an enormous headache back when masking was routinely necessary for Ciba printing. Ciba involved chrome positives, rather than color neg film; but still, sometimes masking was needed for RA4 printing too, for optimal results (and still is sometimes needed).

But earlier color negs were more likely to go bad due to dye fading before the base breakdown issue was apparent, although these could hypothetically be related, since both are accelerated by poor storage conditions.

 

[bfilm]

The Lucky has a thicker classical acetate base. Much preferred. I dislike that flimsy and curly PET stuff.

For multiple reasons, I will only use acetate base film. I prefer this more natural and traditional film base material.

PET may have it's downsides, but for archivability and dimensional stability, it beats acetate with ease. Not having to see my film develop vinegar syndrome is a big enough plus for me alone to rather put up with PET's curl issues.
Also, Kodak's switch to PET is partly because they make it in-house, acetate isn't. From a supply line stability I can understand it, god forbid we end up seeing portra on glass plates because they ran out of acetate!
I do wish they'd use thicker base sizes however, gold is very flimsy feeling and 4x5 is even worse.
The only area certain to remain acetate is motion camera stocks

I doubt that Kodak has any problem getting acetate film base from Germany or Japan. Because of the motion picture camera film (and the few photography films that they still put on acetate base) Kodak probably still coats more film on acetate base than they do on polyester base.

I haven't noticed much mention of vinegar syndrome with acetate-based films so can I ask what is the average expected life of acetate-based films before vinegar syndrome rears its head?

I don't think it is usually very much of a problem if you use natural, breathable, archival-quality paper envelopes and boxes for storage. I think it is more of a problem for reels of motion picture film sealed in metal cans (or similar plastic containers).

 

[MattKing]

For multiple reasons, I will only use acetate base film. I prefer this more natural and traditional film base material.

While it is traditional, I don't know how natural it is, compared to polyester.
The major influence on cost and availability is the petrochemical products used to actually manufacture it in industrial quantities.

 

[bfilm]

While it is traditional, I don't know how natural it is, compared to polyester.
The major influence on cost and availability is the petrochemical products used to actually manufacture it in industrial quantities.

Granted, this is from a company making it and so it might be biased, but it does give some idea.

https://www.daicel.com/cell_ac/en/

https://www.daicel.com/cell_ac/en/triacetate/