Film ruined by paper

[Hatchetman]

It seems that some have concluded that the backing paper is necessarily defective and is the cause of the problem. But is it defective?.

There are three different people reporting the same thing. Suspicious enough that I won't be buying any more Kodak 120 until we hear word from them.

 

[pentaxuser]

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

I look forward to hearing its reply. If we can eliminate X-Rays, no red window etc and have incidents reported by different people then this is worrying. I am a user of 120 TMax 400 myself.

If it is new backing paper that is at fault then what does that say about Kodak's QC? If it is using new stuff that hasn't been put through the gamut of tests, especially given the state of Kodak, is a kamikaze-type action.

pentaxuser

 

[ignatiu5]

It's happened to me recently too, with TMax 400. At first I thought it was something I did (exactly what, I couldn't tell, since I didn't treat these rolls any differently than the previous hundreds of rolls that I've shot and developed). However, since reading the previous recent thread and this one, I've come to believe that there's an issue with the new backing paper.

Certainly my allotment of film didn't see any airport x-rays in the ground transport between B&H in New York and me. Before that, I don't know.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

It seems that some have concluded that the backing paper is necessarily defective and is the cause of the problem. But is it defective?

No film manufacturer has any control of the film, how it’s handled, and the environment it’s subjected to after it’s packaged and shipped. This includes X-rays and other high-energy radiation used for the inspection of international shipments, or temperatures beyond a safe range. There is no way we can know what the film experienced from the time it left the factory, was shipped to its destination, and until purchase.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_scanning

I have used many 120 paper-backed roll films: black-and-white negative, color negative, and color transparency since 1985. I have never encountered the images of characters printed onto the backing paper transferred in some unknown manner onto the processed film. I currently use 120 paper-backed roll films by Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji regularly without such issues.

I don’t see any reason cited within the previous posts to conclude that defective backing paper is—or is not—the cause of the spurious character transfer as shown in the scans. Clearly there is a problem, but this might have nothing to do with the film and its backing paper, other than the fact that it is the IMAGE of the printed characters that that have spoiled the finished negatives.

If you are simply stating that no one knows exactly what is the cause, well then, yes, that's the whole point of this thread. The product users are speculating. Which is exactly what Kodak will initially also do if they start thinking about it.

That speculation is correctly taking the form of trying to come up with possible intersecting causes common to all who have experienced the problem.

Assuming that the product emerged from the manufacturer correctly, what set of circumstances could be common to two or more different users of the product, that would also exhibit the behaviors necessary to result in the observed effect?

X-rays, weather (temperature and humidity), optically or chemically faulty new backing paper? These are all good initial candidates. Matching camera light leaks or identical faulty user loading? Possible, sure. But less likely.

Debugging is the process of logical elimination.

Ken

 

[Prof_Pixel]

It's my understanding that Kodak no longer manufacturers their own backing paper (I'm not sure how long ago the change was made) making them vulnerable to outside suppliers. From the comments here, it seems that several film manufacturers are affected (probably getting their backing paper from the same source).

 

[pentaxuser]

It's my understanding that Kodak no longer manufacturers their own backing paper (I'm not sure how long ago the change was made) making them vulnerable to outside suppliers. From the comments here, it seems that several film manufacturers are affected (probably getting their backing paper from the same source).

I take it by "from comments here" I take it that you mean APUG as opposed to this thread? If so which other film manufacturers have been cited?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I take it by "from comments here" I take it that you mean APUG as opposed to this thread? If so which other film manufacturers have been cited?

Thanks

pentaxuser

In this thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[RattyMouse]

I look forward to hearing its reply. If we can eliminate X-Rays, no red window etc and have incidents reported by different people then this is worrying. I am a user of 120 TMax 400 myself.

If it is new backing paper that is at fault then what does that say about Kodak's QC? If it is using new stuff that hasn't been put through the gamut of tests, especially given the state of Kodak, is a kamikaze-type action.

pentaxuser

I'm 90% certain that I bought this film in Shanghai, which means that it was never X rayed in my possession. I can't be totally sure because I may have had some extra film from a recent trip to Japan, which would mean it went through a single X ray exposure at the Osaka airport.

My camera has no red window, it is 100% light tight.

 

[RattyMouse]

It seems that some have concluded that the backing paper is necessarily defective and is the cause of the problem. But is it defective?

No film manufacturer has any control of the film, how it’s handled, and the environment it’s subjected to after it’s packaged and shipped. This includes X-rays and other high-energy radiation used for the inspection of international shipments, or temperatures beyond a safe range. There is no way we can know what the film experienced from the time it left the factory, was shipped to its destination, and until purchase.

I agree with most of your post, however the above is incorrect. Film suppliers *DO* have control how film is shipped. They know their product, and the environment that is safe and unsafe for it. The film supplier *will* state very clearly to the shipping company how to properly ship their film so that it arrives safely.
Kodak's responsibility most certainly does not end once the film has left their facility. They have the responsibility to choose a shipping firm that is capable of moving the film from location to location without any damage.

If some governmental authority wanted or demanded to X-ray a large shipment of film, Kodak should know about that *before* it happens, work with the authority to make sure it is safe to do, or does not happen at all. (Find another way around the problem). If the X-raying happens, then Kodak should QC the product again.

Chemical companies work with importing authorities all the time. My tiny company has TWO full time importation specialists.
Kodak is 1000 times larger than my company and probably bigger. Someone should be following what is happening to their products while being shipped.

I dont know how much film Kodak ships to Asia but let's assume a lot. Suppose that many pallets of film were x-rayed and thus ruined. Do you think Kodak will just wash their hands of this and say that all these thousands of rolls are not their problem? No, they would take possession of the problem and produce a corrective action.

I really wish that I had the backing paper from this batch of film. I would supply it to Kodak to try to help understand why 5 rolls of their film went bad.

I have used many 120 paper-backed roll films: black-and-white negative, color negative, and color transparency since 1985. I have never encountered the images of characters printed onto the backing paper transferred in some unknown manner onto the processed film. I currently use 120 paper-backed roll films by Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji regularly without such issues.

I too have used a huge amount of roll film, since the early 90's. This has never happened to me before, until now. I did have one or two frames ruined in a similar fashion using Ilford film, but never a 5 straight rolls.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I would report this to Kodak using the warranty as backup and using the phone number or address to use in case of warranty complaints.

PE

 

[BetterSense]

It seems more likely to me that the number ink just reacted with the emulsion so as to impact development. Anything that would change the pH or diffusion rate of developer and or development byproducts could cause a contrast difference.

 

[pentaxuser]

In this thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

This is the thread where I have commented that the two threads might be combined to everyone's advantage. Apart for one post on Lomo colour film with an explanation from the poster as to why that might have happened and its solution, all the rest of the posts are connected to Kodak TMax. In the same post about Lomo the poster actually mentions that he has never had a problem with Ilford and I have never seen any posted problem with Fuji, Adox or Foma.

Yes, there has been problems with Shanghai but that is not unexpected but clearly of the big three i.e. Ilford Fuji and Kodak it seems that only Kodak has the problem.

pentaxuser

 

[Prof_Pixel]

This is the thread where I have commented that the two threads might be combined to everyone's advantage. Apart for one post on Lomo colour film with an explanation from the poster as to why that might have happened and its solution, all the rest of the posts are connected to Kodak TMax. In the same post about Lomo the poster actually mentions that he has never had a problem with Ilford and I have never seen any posted problem with Fuji, Adox or Foma.

Yes, there has been problems with Shanghai but that is not unexpected but clearly of the big three i.e. Ilford Fuji and Kodak it seems that only Kodak has the problem.

pentaxuser

Read message #2 in that thread again. It says:"Have seen it on 120 format films from Foma (fresh) , Agfa and some Iilford (both expired)."

 

[RattyMouse]

I would report this to Kodak using the warranty as backup and using the phone number or address to use in case of warranty complaints.

PE

PE, In 6 days I move from China back to the US so right now I'm far too busy to spend time on something like this. My house is in a state of complete flux, with most of my personal possessions heading for a boat right now and the rest going into suitcases. We move out of our house and into a hotel in just a few days.

I did find the box where my last batch of TMAX 400 film came from and due to the markings, I can state definitively that this was purchased in Shanghai and not Japan.

The lot # of the film is 0149 001 with an expiration date of 02/2017.

I found one last roll of film in the box as well so I might see more of this problem in the future when I am able to restart shooting again. Of course, nothing even remotely critical can be trusted to this film.

 

[MattKing]

Since the backing paper is dark, according to one observer, the text is being exposed, not held back. I suspect x ray exposure.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I've been trying to work my head around this, and it is a bit of a struggle!

The numbers that one sees in the images are lighter than the surrounding area, which implies increased density in the negative.

Now I note that those numbers are not mirror images - they are right side around.

Does that not imply that if they are due to some sort of transfer, then the transfer isn't to the emulsion side of the film, but rather to the base?

Unless of course the pictured examples have been flipped for posting here.

Or am I just turned completely around?

 

[Vaughn]

I have no idea why...

But out-dated Kodak film (I believe it was Tech Pan) in a Diana Camera.

 

[DWThomas]

I've been trying to work my head around this, and it is a bit of a struggle!

The numbers that one sees in the images are lighter than the surrounding area, which implies increased density in the negative.

Now I note that those numbers are not mirror images - they are right side around.

Does that not imply that if they are due to some sort of transfer, then the transfer isn't to the emulsion side of the film, but rather to the base?

Unless of course the pictured examples have been flipped for posting here.

Or am I just turned completely around?

I'm thinking the emulsion is wound against the printed side of the paper on the next layer underneath and a bit of the ink transfers/embeds in the emulsion causing a slightly higher density. In that case it would read as "normal" looking from the film base side. There have been a lot of changes in the world of printing inks and pigments, mostly out of environmental concerns. It seems possible some printed lettering may not dry as thoroughly as in the good old days. No question it's weird and concerning (we may be forced to 35mm and sheet film!)

I suppose one could unroll a suspect film and look at it and see if there is an imprint. One could also develop a roll unexposed and get a clearer feel for whether the whole roll is affected, or just edges, etc.

 

[pbromaghin]

Oh, my. This is really messed up.

 

[Xmas]

You will get images of numbers if you don't wind on in shade and cover the red window afterwards.

If the camera has a light leak on to backing paper you will get strange effects.

If you store the film in fridge or get the film damp by other mechanism you are likely to get all the paper graphics transfer.

You need to send the negs back to supplier, if they are swamped by returns and claims they will do something.

 

[DWThomas]

You will get images of numbers if you don't wind on in shade and cover the red window afterwards.

If the camera has a light leak on to backing paper you will get strange effects.

If you store the film in fridge or get the film damp by other mechanism you are likely to get all the paper graphics transfer.

You need to send the negs back to supplier, if they are swamped by returns and claims they will do something.

In this case, in the original post the OP described a Fuji GF670 with no red window and supplied an image that appears a beautifully even exposure other than for the numbers. I would posit that rules out the first two items. But for sure we need to keep good procedures in mind. I have minimized refrigerated storage as I think it invites as many problems as it may solve (for me -- I don't maintain large stocks).

 

[ignatiu5]

You will get images of numbers if you don't wind on in shade and cover the red window afterwards.

If the camera has a light leak on to backing paper you will get strange effects.

If you store the film in fridge or get the film damp by other mechanism you are likely to get all the paper graphics transfer.

You need to send the negs back to supplier, if they are swamped by returns and claims they will do something.

All good suggestions. In my case, film was loaded and unloaded indoors in subdued light. The camera is a Bronica ETRSi that has no (similar to at least one other affected party) red window.

Film was bought recently from B&H, assumed to be fresh, and has never been refrigerated by me.

Multiple affected frames; here is one, where you can see "Kodak" and "8" in the upper third of the negative, and "4" in the lower third, along the right edge:

 

[Vaughn]

I have no idea why...But out-dated Kodak film (I believe it was Tech Pan) in a Diana Camera.

Well, maybe an idea...mine could have been exposure thru the red window (photographing along the Oregon coast in actual sun!). Which could explain the darker numbers, rather than lighter, and why there are two '16s' as I rolled the film forward.

Alex was 13 yrs old -- too bad the numbers did not match! That would have been cool! The print is 8x8 inches on glossy VC paper. Just a quick straight print to see what the negative looked like.

 

[RattyMouse]

In this case, in the original post the OP described a Fuji GF670 with no red window and supplied an image that appears a beautifully even exposure other than for the numbers. I would posit that rules out the first two items. But for sure we need to keep good procedures in mind. I have minimized refrigerated storage as I think it invites as many problems as it may solve (for me -- I don't maintain large stocks).

My TMAX400 was never refrigerated. I bought and used it in less than 2 months.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

My TMAX400 was never refrigerated. I bought and used it in less than 2 months.

Could it have been refrigerated BEFORE you purchased it?

 

[RattyMouse]

Could it have been refrigerated BEFORE you purchased it?

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.