Film wrapping marks on negative?

[dgphoto]

Hi.

While using my Fuji GSW 680 recently, I discovered markings I believe came from the paper wrapping that surrounds the negative. i.e. "Kodak 10" "Kodak 12" etc.

I did nothing unusual loading, unloading, or during film development.

But the only thing I can think of is that the paper wrapping may have loosened slightly while unloading the camera letting enough light in to expose the exterior frames with the overlying paper marking. "Kodak 12"

Does that make sense? Has anyone ever had this problem?

I've shot many many rolls of film thru a number of cameras and have had my share of close-calls of the film spool unraveling but have never had this issue.

I've included 2 images that have been marked with the offending area; one if of a negative, the 2nd is a reversal image of a different negative, both taken with my phone for uploading purposes.

Any thoughts/advice would greatly be appreciated.

Thanks,

David

 

[cmacd123]

kodak had some problems with wrapper transfer. latest batches have an extra coating toseal the numbers. contact Kodak and the may replece your film.

 

[pentaxuser]

I recall we were once given a set of batch numbers against which users could check whether their film was inside the numbers and thus affected or not but as far as I recall this was applicable to TMY only and not colour. How old are your films?

I do find it disconcerting that despite it being a while ago that the problem was identified and apparently fixed by Kodak instances of wrapper offset keep appearing.

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

The email address to use is profilm@kodakalaris.com.
Here is a link to one of the several threads about this Kodak wrapper offset problem, when it was at an early part of its height: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ing-paper-problems-emulsions-affected.137251/
Can you tell us what the Develop Before date is for your film and, if you know it, the batch number.
FWIW, while Kodak's problems with 120 backing paper were extensive, other manufacturers seem to be having problems too.

 

[MattKing]

I do find it disconcerting that despite it being a while ago that the problem was identified and apparently fixed by Kodak instances of wrapper offset keep appearing.

As I've posted before, wrapper offset has been around a long time, and will be around for a long time to come. The recent surge is just an increase of frequency of incidence.

 

[pentaxuser]

As I've posted before, wrapper offset has been around a long time, and will be around for a long time to come. The recent surge is just an increase of frequency of incidence.

So if I have understood you correctly, Matt, we can expect to see similar problems into the future for an period that is as yet indeterminate? Does this mean the problem has not been solved at source at all but is still or maybe is not still being worked on?

Without wishing to appear as a "smartie pants" your second sentence appears to be just a truism as indeed a recent surge in anything is by definition an increase in frequency of incidence. What is important is what has caused this recent surge. Any ideas?

Not directly relevant to the OP's immediate problem but may be relevant to choice of colour 120 for the future is: Is the incidence of wrapper offset one that affects Fuji equally badly or will we have to rely on anecdotal evidence on Photrio for this which of course may not cover enough instances involving Fuji to draw any conclusions

Drawing on what may be an unreliable memory on my part I cannot recall any instances of Fuji colour film wrapper offset

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

Does this mean the problem has not been solved at source at all but is still or maybe is not still being worked on?

It's an inherent risk to have a heavily inked piece of paper in direct contact with a photographic emulsion for an extended period of time in often poorly controlled conditions. Add to that periodic reformulation of eg printing inks and it becomes a very reasonable expectation that backing paper issues will be around as long as we'll have 120 film.

 

[MattKing]

The problem of wrapper offset is as old as backing paper.
There will always be some incidence of it, because 120 film is a rolled up sandwich of substrate, gelatin, light sensitive components, paper and ink - all squeezed against each other.
120 film gets stored, transported, used and abused in all sorts of environments, in all sorts of temperatures and humidity levels.
Normally It is quite resistant to wrapper offset, but it will never be immune. Kodak's problems were triggered when they had to change their backing paper, after spending many years using up inventory they had left over from when they had the capacity to make their own. Who knows what the situation is with Fuji and its backing paper - given how they deal with information, they may have had problems, but kept the information in house.
The mottling problems that other manufacturers have run into are similar.

 

[AgX]

As I've posted before, wrapper offset has been around a long time,...

But as I have posted before I have not found respective reports, neither published by the manufacturers nor elsewhere.

 

[dgphoto]

Thank you for all the responses.

I was unfamiliar with the term/problem of wrapper offset and appreciate the education.

Two more pieces of the puzzle that are likely relevant:

I checked and this is actually expired film: Use by 5/2017....I am a dad of 3 young kids and my chances to get out and shoot are far and few between! It never occurred to me to even check that.

I believe the batch number is 0891 013

Second, the film hasn't been kept in the freezer, but a basement closet and has likely ridden around in my photo bag for various trips in various weather over the last few years. Not sure what impact that may have also had.

I'll plan on testing another roll or 2 and may end up replacing my stash with an unexpired supply.

Thanks again for the quick insight.

David

 

[cmacd123]

As I've posted before, wrapper offset has been around a long time, and will be around for a long time to come. The recent surge is just an increase of frequency of incidence.

If the latest dodge, having an overcoat on the printed side of the paper, so the ink is sealed under a clear coating, MAY keep the problem from reappearing, although of course the clear coating may itself react with some film emulsions.

back in the old old days, Kodak made the inks themselves, and knew what ingredients that they could use. these days the work is contracted out and so they have less control.

 

[pentaxuser]

What seems to being stated is that as long as Kodak had complete control then the problem was non existent for Kodak but this is no longer the case. Nor unfortunately can Kodak and possibly other 120 film makers be sure that as long as other people control the supply of inks and backing paper this is simply a problem that cannot be said to have been solved. The danger of Kodak wrapper offset will always be with us.

As far as other makers of 120 film are concerned the same problem may(does?) exist because all makers of 120 film use the same paper as backing paper? We have seen mottling problems recently with Ilford and on Photrio it has stated this. Is this the same kind of problem albeit mottling and not wrapper offset which gives the numbers imprint

Unless someone has examples of this from film makers other than Kodak we can currently say that the numbers imprint seems to be a Kodak only problem. Is this a fair comment

Anyone know what the status of Foma and Adox 120 film is in terms of wrapper offset problem? Foma unfortunately does not have a presence on Photrio but Adox in the form of Mirko does and Henning knows a lot about Adox. It might be useful if we knew from Mirko and Henning what Adox believes its situation on backing paper problems to be.

I agree it is important to differentiate between whether there is currently a problem at source i.e. the backing paper cannot and may never be able to be declared safe from this wrapper offset problem for reasons already stated in the case of Kodak and quite separately, problems that arise from less than ideal conditions arising after the manufacture of the roll.

It would look as if on the OP's admission his problem has a reasonable chance of not being a problem that was there at source but what I am trying to do is ask questions to help determine the level of confidence we as users of Kodak 120 and of other 120 films can expect to have in terms of the likelihood of wrapper offset

pentaxuser

 

[Donald Qualls]

I haven't seen or heard of wrapper offset problems on Foma or rebranded Foma films -- but I can't say categorically that there have been none. The only in-date 120 I've handled recently is .EDU Ultra (Fomapan) and Ilford XP2 Super.

 

[MattKing]

What seems to being stated is that as long as Kodak had complete control then the problem was non existent for Kodak but this is no longer the case.

That certainly wasn't what I said.
Wrapper offset was something that Kodak and all other manufacturers work/worked hard to minimize -- but it has always occurred.
120 film is susceptible to it - period.
If you dig back far enough on APUG, you can find posts from Simon Galley talking about how Ilford had to deal with it.
It was around in the 1970s when I was active in photographic retail, it was around before then, it has been around since then and it will be around in 2020 and thereafter.
The frequency of occurrence in modern times has usually been relatively low, but never zero.
The version of wrapper offset that we saw in and around 2016 with Kodak films - positive images of the numbers and letters - is just one manifestation of wrapper offset, but there are others. At its core, wrapper offset involves something from the backing paper or the ink interacting with the film and affecting the slide or negative. Wrapper offset isn't always as visible as it is on the OP's film, but it has occurred, it does occur and it will occur.

 

[Wallendo]

The problem could be solved by simply not printing numbers on the backing paper. Ideally, manufacturers could make two versions of each film, one with our numbers and one with. Unfortunately, I don't think that is cost effective.

 

[MattKing]

The problem could be solved by simply not printing numbers on the backing paper. Ideally, manufacturers could make two versions of each film, one with our numbers and one with. Unfortunately, I don't think that is cost effective.

Well that might solve the wrapper offset problem that reveal numbers and letters, it wouldn't eliminate problems with mottling.
As it is, the minimum order requirements have forced Kodak to use exactly the same backing paper for all films. I can't see them doubling their purchase and incurring the carrying and storage costs associated with that.

 

[reddesert]

I recently exposed and developed some rolls of rebadged HP5+ in 120 - this was sold by Freestyle perhaps 20 years ago, and called Arista Pro, I think. I bought it new, and have been sitting on it for those 20 years. There is print through of the film numbers, very faint, it only seems noticeable in the underexposed areas. Not as bad as the recent examples people have been complaining about.

Obviously most people won't sit on a roll of film for 20 years, and this particular roll wasn't in the refrigerator the whole time; however, it was from before the dropoff in film production forced changes in the supply chain. In any case, I wish to support the point that backing paper problems can't be isolated to a single manufacturer or batch of paper.

 

[pentaxuser]

The problem could be solved by simply not printing numbers on the backing paper. Ideally, manufacturers could make two versions of each film, one with our numbers and one with. Unfortunately, I don't think that is cost effective.

Might the circle be squared by abandoning all printing on the back and substituting say small nicks in the edge of the paper, one nick for frame one, two for frame two etc. Pity in some ways that older red window MF cameras are still with us or your idea might be a winner but then again if the mottling problem will always be with us as long as 120 film needs backing paper then maybe we just have to accept that sooner or later one or more of us will be the victim of a backing paper problem.

Ensuring good storage at every stage and reasonably rapid use once in the hands of the user would seem to be the best policy.

Incorporating the best spirit of the Blitz the message is: Cheer up, it may never happen. This underpins many things such as dangerous sports and even developing C41 at temperatures other than 100F

pentaxuser

 

[AgX]

I recently exposed and developed some rolls of rebadged HP5+ in 120 - this was sold by Freestyle perhaps 20 years ago, and called Arista Pro, I think. I bought it new, and have been sitting on it for those 20 years. There is print through of the film numbers, very faint, it only seems noticeable in the underexposed areas.

Thank you for that hint.
I kind of stand corrected now. Though your case is exceptional due to the extreme long storage and thus not would have been published in manufacturers reports.