Film ruined by paper

[RattyMouse]

I think I understand this situation but want to confirm so that I dont miss an opportunity to improve.

I just got back some film, Kodak TMAX400, and the scans show that there is quite a lot of transfer from the backing paper onto the negative. The name Kodak looks like a watermark all over the images. The film was shot using a Fuji GF670 (no red window) and because of this, I am assuming that the paper or ink was of very poor quality and that essentially, there was nothing I could have done to prevent this.

Is this assumption correct? A shame to lose these images, but if there's nothing that I could have done, then I guess I just have to drop it.

Here's one example. It's soft, but plenty of folks spotted the problem right away. Much quicker than me in fact!

Thank you for your help.

[/url]* by E_O_S, on Flickr[/IMG]

 

[Joel_L]

That is bizarre. The paper is black on the film side. I'm not sure I can convince myself what kind of light exposure would cause this. I don't think it should be any kind of ink transfer, but I certainly can't come up with anything. Except for the "watermarking" the exposure likes even and fine.

 

[Kevin Harding]

Is the film expired, or has it been stored in rough conditions? I've seen this with other film and suspect it to be a kind of chemical exposure, thought I have no idea if that's even possible.

 

[jeffreythree]

Wasn't there just a thread with the same issue with the same film? It would be interesting to see if they were from the same lot.

Yep, deja vu:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[RattyMouse]

Is the film expired, or has it been stored in rough conditions? I've seen this with other film and suspect it to be a kind of chemical exposure, thought I have no idea if that's even possible.

Not expired film. At worst it might have been through an X ray scan or two. I dont recall where I bought this film. If in Japan then it was X rayed to go home but most likely I bought this in Shanghai where it would have lasted all of a month or two before developed.

 

[RattyMouse]

Wasn't there just a thread with the same issue with the same film? It would be interesting to see if they were from the same lot.

Yep, deja vu:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Wow.....looks just like my problem. I *might* still have the box from this 5 pack of film. I'll post later if it turns up.

What a strange problem.

 

[winger]

Does the way it lines up with the writing and paper give any clues? It looks to me like there's a 5 as well as a 6 within the frame. I've heard of humidity causing problems.

 

[RattyMouse]

Now I'm certain that I have multiple bad rolls of film. I found this image with the same problem that is most certainly from a different roll. This location is clear across Shanghai from where the other image was shot. Shot on a different day, on a different roll. Sigh.........my final photographic walk through Shanghai ruined.

[/url]* by E_O_S, on Flickr[/IMG]

 

[gorbas]

Somebody at Kodak is cutting corners with using chemically non inert printing inks for backing paper. It's very sad to happen to film from manufacturer with 120+ years of experience.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

At worst it might have been through an X ray scan or two.

Wild-Assed Heretical Hypothesis (WAHH...)?

If the observed effect was manifested on different rolls from different times and different geographic points of use (and possibly even by different users, according to that previous thread), then there must be a common intersection point between each of the instances. That's not an easy thing to have happen, and should narrow the potential causes down considerably.

How about possible multiple passes through the extremely light-fogging airport scanners with a differential absorption by the inks used to letter the paper backing?

If Bethe is correct and there are both a '5' and a '6' being shadowed, then both of those sections of paper would have to have simultaneously been in close proximity to your ruined frame. And that could only happen when the film was tightly rolled (with an extra layer of film between the two layers of backing).

This WAHH could also account for that observation as well. Do all of the frames on the roll exhibit the symptom?

(Told you it was wild-assed...)



Ken

 

[JW PHOTO]

Yes, very sad, especially since there are many folks already upset with their film pricing to begin with. Maybe they are buying their backing paper the company that makes it for Shanghai GP3 film. Just joking, but same problem. John W

 

[Ektagraphic]

It seems to me that Kodak has recently changed their backing paper...maybe the newer stuff was not well tested? I think it would probably really be worth letting Kodak know what is up! This sucks! I have a family portrait session to shoot tomorrow, and it will be on Kodak 120 film...Guess I'll hope for the best. I have not had any problems recently though...

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/filmsIndex.jhtml?pq-path=13319

They made a little announcement about a change in the backing paper....They mention that it will have no impact on performance...maybe that is not quite the case...

 

[RattyMouse]

Do all of the frames on the roll exhibit the symptom?



Ken

Yes. What I thought was a sporadic problem now looks like 50 frames ruined across 5 rolls. It's very light, hard to see in many cases, but if I stare at most images enough, a prominent K from the word Kodak is usually findable.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Wow. You would never expect this to happen with Kodak. I purchased some rolls last June. I'm scared to use them now.

 

[pbromaghin]

Wild-Assed Heretical Hypothesis (WAHH...)?

If Bethe is correct and there are both a '5' and a '6' being shadowed, then both of those sections of paper would have to have simultaneously been in close proximity to your ruined frame. And that could only happen when the film was tightly rolled (with an extra layer of film between the two layers of backing).

The 3,4,5,6 are in the 6x9, 6x7, 6x6 , 6x4.5 tracks and would all be there at the same time. I had this happen with a roll of Velvia about 5 years ago, but only on a couple shots near the end of a roll, that I decided must have been due to my own sloppy handling. This is something completely different. This is why Kodak should have somebody posting here. If it were Ilford, Simon would have jumped in right away, made you whole in some way, and asked you to send him the film or the lot number so he could straighten the factory out.

 

[MattKing]

Is the backing paper the new, white paper labelled as "After" in the Kodak announcement linked to above?

 

[RattyMouse]

Is the backing paper the new, white paper labelled as "After" in the Kodak announcement linked to above?

Don't know. I had these films developed by a lab. I leave Shanghai for good in 7 days and all my developing gear is now shipped back home. I never saw the paper.

 

[mooseontheloose]

This worries me! I've been shooting a lot of Kodak on this trip - both with old and new backing paper (but mostly new). I will be very PO'd if this happens to my film too. Thankfully (?) it's only a quarter of the film I've shot so far, but... I guess there's nothing I can do until the film is developed. I will definitely be picking up some more HP5+ when I get to London just in case.

 

[RattyMouse]

This worries me! I've been shooting a lot of Kodak on this trip - both with old and new backing paper (but mostly new). I will be very PO'd if this happens to my film too. Thankfully (?) it's only a quarter of the film I've shot so far, but... I guess there's nothing I can do until the film is developed. I will definitely be picking up some more HP5+ when I get to London just in case.

I know, very depressing. I really LOVE Kodak TMAX 400 but this experience has shattered my faith in Kodak. 5 rolls of ruined film! All my shots on my final walk through Shanghai after 6 years of living here. They arent the greatest shots, but they are mine and they have a lot of value to me.

I hope you have better luck than me!

 

[pbromaghin]

I know, very depressing. I really LOVE Kodak TMAX 400 but this experience has shattered my faith in Kodak. 5 rolls of ruined film! All my shots on my final walk through Shanghai after 6 years of living here. They arent the greatest shots, but they are mine and they have a lot of value to me.

I hope you have better luck than me!

Ratty, they are yours and that is the most important attribute of all. If this is really an indication of how low Kodak has sunk, then I'm done with them. It's Ilford and hope for Ferrania's success from now on.

 

[PinRegistered]

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

 

[Ektagraphic]

I hope that word of this issue makes its way to Kodak. Perhaps they would at the very least send you a new pack of film?

 

[MattKing]

I hope that word of this issue makes its way to Kodak. Perhaps they would at the very least send you a new pack of film?

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

 

[DWThomas]

This is a pretty far-fetched thought (but consider the source ). I wonder if the ink used for the numbers, etc. might fluoresce a bit under X-ray exposure. That is, though the X-rays don't affect the film, there could be some visible component generated by the ink?! That's actually part of how X-ray film holders work. (Sorry I thought of it.)

Also someone upthread commented the black side of the paper is against the film. That's true -- but -- the emulsion side of the film is smack dab against the printed side of the next layer of backing paper for potential transfer, chemical vapors, whatever. I must say these results are very disturbing, there's normally enough anxiety about light leaks and other explainable phenomena.

 

[Ian C]

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.