Film ruined by paper

pentaxuser · Sep 13, 2015

RattyMouse said:
Regardless, if simple refrigeration is what it takes to mess up film, well then, our little hobby, shooting roll film, is going to enter into a death spiral.

You would appear to have a point here. I'd expect to see a raft of complaints from those who use film from a freezer and if this is correct, feel very sorry for those who have frozen tens if not hundreds of films

pentaxuser

Lachlan Young · Sep 13, 2015

Offsetting of ink with a consequent chemical reaction is entirely plausible - most of the inks that are used for web offset work have powerful solvents in them & some are designed to 'stay-open' for some time.

Given that Kodak seems to run a JIT operation for packaging & finishing it's entirely plausible that a switch to a fractionally slower drying ink & an uptick in demand led to a few rolls being assembled with a still slightly tacky ink.

I also wonder if the backing paper redesign was as a result of problems like these mentioned above - are the problems on films with the old or new backing papers?

C Jensen · Sep 14, 2015

Has anyone developed an unexposed roll from a bad pro pack?

ozphoto · Sep 14, 2015

RattyMouse said:
Anything is possible. How does Kodak ship their film to Asia? Via refrigerated boat? What does their distributer do? Who knows?

My supplier only refrigerates chrome film, never black and white or C41.

Regardless, if simple refrigeration is what it takes to mess up film, well then, our little hobby, shooting roll film, is going to enter into a death spiral.

My local retailer *always* stores their film in the refrigerator. Been using them nigh on 20+ years - so if this was indeed true, you'd think every pro-lab, every store that keeps it's film refrigerated, would have shown this problem well before now, right?

I've *never* seen this in all the years I've been shooting roll film, nor when I was assisting and processing film for the photographers I worked for, and they shot hundreds of rolls.

Best guess - Kodak have made some changes to their backing paper supplier/changed the materials used in manufacturing said backing paper, and it's starting to have an adverse affect.

Personally, I'd be reaching out to them and asking for an explanation - if you can't trust their product, their sales are going to drop rapidly as word gets around and that will be a bad thing for everyone all round.

NB23 · Sep 14, 2015

I can't help and I'm boggled.

However, I remember using TMAX400 lately and noticing this new weird backing paper. I was like "wtf is this new, thin, plasticky, pos paper. Who cares, Kodak probably know what they're doing".

I will have to print a few frames to see if the backing numbers have transfered on the film. I usually print months to years later...

georg16nik · Sep 14, 2015

RattyMouse said:
......if simple refrigeration is what it takes to mess up film, well then, our little hobby, shooting roll film, is going to enter into a death spiral.

It's not the refrigeration in itself, it's environment (temperature, relative humidity) surrounding the film before and after refrigeration and if the film had the necessary time to cool down/up.
Last time I shot MF Kodak Tmax 400, maybe 2 or 3 years ago and I had a box of 5 and each film was in it's air-tight yellow wrapper. The box sat in the freeze for a few years and then brought back to room temp in 1 day, the rolls were exposed and developed / printed over a course of a few weeks - no issues.

It's either that Kodak went bananas with a recent batch or some part of each personal story is left untold.

Xmas · Sep 14, 2015

georg16nik said:
It's either that Kodak went bananas with a recent batch or some part of each personal story is left untold.

Or both!

But it is important to note that humidity will damage even 35mm!

35mm tubs are not hermatic seals like the aluminised plastic 120 wrapper.

If you have opened a tub or unwrapped a 120 it is at ambient relative humidity if you take it down below the dew point too quickly...

Silica gel and a zip lock is your friend together with prompt processing.

Dry heat won't kill film that promptly.

You need to google relative humidity if you dropped physics too early!

removed account4 · Sep 14, 2015

RM

very sorry to see you have problems with your new film.

i'd give the rest of that tmax 400 the old heave ho and switch to ILFORD films.
send the film back to kodak (unused ), show the photographs from the prints
demand a full refund on ALL the film purchased ..
tell your supplier what happened, call kodak as PE suggested ...
( and P M the per
it has nothing to do with xrays or scanners ... high dose X-ray make a weird pattern
i can't speak for new tmy ( i won't be buying any ) but i have brought the same satchel
full of film through airport scanners at airports and boat terminals which have gone through
scanners lots and lots and lots of times ... no issue ( there is currently a poll and speak up thread about airport scanners )

good luck !
john

Lachlan Young · Sep 14, 2015

I should add that I've never had this happen with any Kodak film in 120 & I've shot quite a lot this year - mainly Portra 400 in 120 & I've not seen any problems whatsoever - Hasselblad X5s are far more brutally revealing of flaws than any darkroom print.

It may be some weird operator error, climatic reaction or whatever, but get in contact with Alaris - they'll want to get it sorted out

georg16nik · Sep 14, 2015

Xmas said:
Or both!

But it is important to note that humidity will damage even 35mm!

...

We've had several discussions on APUG and the facts are that most APUGers are completely clueless about the storage conditions in regards to photographic materials, not just film.
Film manufacturers played along everyones ignorance and the show is around the corner.

removed account4 · Sep 14, 2015

i find it strange that the numbers aren't ... unreadable/not backwards, not right side up &c

BetterSense · Sep 14, 2015

jnanian said:
i find it strange that the numbers aren't backwards

If the numbers were printing to the film through transmission through the paper from through the back (as from a red window), then the numbers would be in the finished image upside down compared to how they appear through the red window, but not flipped...imagine a view camera.

The same would be the case if they transferred to the film from the front of the film (as from contact between the emulsion side and the backing paper).

In neither case would the numerals appear "backwards".

It should be easy to determine if the numbers are transmitted from the back or the front : if the ghost number visible is the same frame number as the exposure, it was transmitted through from the rear.

winger · Sep 14, 2015

BetterSense said:
It should be easy to determine if the numbers are transmitted from the back or the front : if the ghost number visible is the same frame number as the exposure, it was transmitted through from the rear.

Can someone with numbers on their negs check this, please? My forensic testing brain cells are kicking in and need some data. There are so many times I wish I still had access to an FTIR with ATR.

analoguey · Sep 14, 2015

I find the reactions on this thread interesting, compared to the reactions have been if it were Shanghai or Foma (or ultrafine?) film imprinting numbers.
I dont recall a single person suggesting back then that it was "user" error.
Kodak gets flak for all sorts of stuff it probably did like 20 years ago, but not this.
Wow.

That apart, Ratty, please let us know if you get a response from Kodak, and what they tell you - so far, afaik this is restricted to Kodak's BW film only, right?

Sirius Glass · Sep 14, 2015

jnanian said:
i find it strange that the numbers aren't backwards

The numbers are not backwards because the image did not come through the back of the film. The problem is that after the film was removed from the camera, the film was wound too tightly on the spool and the image transferred from the paper to to emulsion directly. Do not wind the film so tightly and the problem will go away.

removed account4 · Sep 14, 2015

Sirius Glass · Sep 14, 2015

analoguey said:
I find the reactions on this thread interesting, compared to the reactions have been if it were Shanghai or Foma (or ultrafine?) film imprinting numbers.
I dont recall a single person suggesting back then that it was "user" error.
Kodak gets flak for all sorts of stuff it probably did like 20 years ago, but not this.
Wow.

That apart, Ratty, please let us know if you get a response from Kodak, and what they tell you - so far, afaik this is restricted to Kodak's BW film only, right?

Please see the previous post and the other thread on this subject. The problem is not limited to one or a few brands. It has been reported to have occurred on Kodak film as well.

removed account4 · Sep 14, 2015

BetterSense said:
If the numbers were printing to the film through transmission through the paper from through the back (as from a red window), then the numbers would be in the finished image upside down compared to how they appear through the red window, but not flipped...imagine a view camera.

The same would be the case if they transferred to the film from the front of the film (as from contact between the emulsion side and the backing paper).

In neither case would the numerals appear "backwards".

It should be easy to determine if the numbers are transmitted from the back or the front : if the ghost number visible is the same frame number as the exposure, it was transmitted through from the rear.

right not backwards, i couldn't figure the right word / wording to express not right side up / readable ...
thanks !

MattKing · Sep 14, 2015

MattKing said:
I sent a link to this thread to the email on Kodak Alaris' Professional Film web page.

And here is the response:

Dear Mr. King,

This problem occurs when print from the backing paper transfers to the emulsion surface of the film. For that to happen, the affected rolls would have to be subjected to extremely high heat, and needless to say, obviously not in accordance with our standard guidelines for shipping / storage.

Please ask the photographer to contact me directly via email, and I will make arrangements to replace his film.

Thanks,

Thomas J. Mooney | Film Capture Business Manager
Kodak Alaris Inc., 2400 Mount Read Blvd., Rochester, NY 14615-03020

Profilm@kodakalaris.com

www.kodakalaris.com

Information contained in this e-mail transmission may be privileged, confidential and covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please
notify us immediately by return email and delete the message from your system without reading, forwarding or copying it.

The email I received had Mr. Mooney's direct email and office telephone numbers. I am uncomfortable including them in this post, and have substituted the general email (Profilm@kodakalaris.com) that I used initially to contact them. If anyone with a film problem like the OP wishes to have Mr. Mooney's direct email, for this purpose, just contact me by PM and I will share it.

removed account4 · Sep 14, 2015

thanks matt !

ColColt · Sep 14, 2015

Maybe I lucked out but I just shot a roll of 120 Tri-X with none of those problems mentioned but, I shoot, process usually within hours of exposure and no high heat or humidity involved in between. No idea as to how it was shipped or stored prior to my receiving it.

ignatiu5 · Sep 14, 2015

MattKing said:
And here is the response:

Dear Mr. King,

This problem occurs when print from the backing paper transfers to the emulsion surface of the film. For that to happen, the affected rolls would have to be subjected to extremely high heat, and needless to say, obviously not in accordance with our standard guidelines for shipping / storage.

Please ask the photographer to contact me directly via email, and I will make arrangements to replace his film.

Thanks,

Thomas J. Mooney | Film Capture Business Manager
Kodak Alaris Inc., 2400 Mount Read Blvd., Rochester, NY 14615-03020

Interesting. This answer coupled with multiple users purchasing their film from very different parts of the world (for example, RattyMouse purchased film in either Japan or China, whereas my film came from New York City) suggests that the high heat exposure might be very early in the distribution/shipping chain.

MattKing · Sep 14, 2015

ignatiu5 said:
Interesting. This answer coupled with multiple users purchasing their film from very different parts of the world (for example, RattyMouse purchased film in either Japan or China, whereas my film came from New York City) suggests that the high heat exposure might be very early in the distribution/shipping chain.

One further possibility:

My local Canadian source, which has a fairly extensive selection of film and darkroom materials, and has full access to a normal Canadian Kodak distributor, actually buys some of their stock from B&H and re-sells it, because even with the the costs associated with importing from the USA, the B&H sourced stuff is cheaper.

gijsbert · Sep 14, 2015

He he, not as easy as I thought!
First the Kodak 120 negative numbers are for 6x6 (I think) and this roll was shot 6x9 AND I advanced a bit too far from going frame 2 --> 3 (argh), so I decided to skip a 645 frame and use the second window from then on (luckily the last frame fit with some excess for handling).

This is a scan from last two frames:

trying to match the backing paper with the camera red window and the negative I am guessing that in this case the numbers were transmitted through the rear. However, I can't say for sure due to the 645 frame offset plus it's at the end of the roll so one winding is maybe 35-40mm so it could just be the other case.

BetterSense said:
If the numbers were printing to the film through transmission through the paper from through the back (as from a red window), then the numbers would be in the finished image upside down compared to how they appear through the red window, but not flipped...imagine a view camera.

The same would be the case if they transferred to the film from the front of the film (as from contact between the emulsion side and the backing paper).

In neither case would the numerals appear "backwards".

It should be easy to determine if the numbers are transmitted from the back or the front : if the ghost number visible is the same frame number as the exposure, it was transmitted through from the rear.

Xmas · Sep 15, 2015

gijsbert said:
He he, not as easy as I thought!
First the Kodak 120 negative numbers are for 6x6 (I think) and this roll was shot 6x9 AND I advanced a bit too far from going frame 2 --> 3 (argh), so I decided to skip a 645 frame and use the second window from then on (luckily the last frame fit with some excess for handling).

This is a scan from last two frames:

trying to match the backing paper with the camera red window and the negative I am guessing that in this case the numbers were transmitted through the rear. However, I can't say for sure due to the 645 frame offset plus it's at the end of the roll so one winding is maybe 35-40mm so it could just be the other case.

The backing paper should have numbers for 12 and 8 exposures if you don't get both sets of numbers it is probable not ink transfer, unless your camera has a light leak into the film rear which could print both sets.

Eg rotten foam with non red window camera.

Ink transfer will be offset from normal frame position, with an offset which varies along the film, light leak will be exact to frame position(edit in a red window camera).

You align the uncut film with backing paper?

You are supposed to go slow when the little dots are visible!

400 ISO is exposed (ie risky) with red windows designed for 100 ISO or slower.

Film ruined by paper

pentaxuser

Lachlan Young

C Jensen

ozphoto

NB23

georg16nik

Xmas

removed account4

Lachlan Young

georg16nik

removed account4

BetterSense

winger

analoguey

Sirius Glass

removed account4

Sirius Glass

removed account4

MattKing

Moderator

removed account4

ColColt

ignatiu5

MattKing

Moderator

gijsbert

Attachments

Xmas

Film ruined by paper

Moderator

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency