Frame numbers from paper back of rollfim show up on negatives

[Agnostic]

Can anyone tell me how the frame numbers from the back of the paper on a roll film end up on a negative? They have the exact shape of the red safety window so obviously the film was exposed through a red safety window AND the backing paper. I just don't understand how this can happen. I have shot other films with the same camera that showed no problem so it can't be the camera. :confused:

The camera is a Zeiss Ikon Nettar and the film is Macophot UP 100 plus (epired 2008) rollfilm developed in rodinal 1:100 for 47 minutes.

 

[richard ide]

I would keep the window closed except when winding film. I have the same camera and had this happen to one frame when I forgot.

 

[Ian Grant]

It must be Maco's backing paper, I have no problem with my 6x17 camera and that has no red safety filter at all. That's with Ilford, Kodak, Fuji & Foma films.

Welcome to APUG BTW

Ian

 

[pentaxuser]

Likewise to Ian No problems with my Agfa Isolette 1 which does rely on a red window but with a metal slide as well athough I confess to foregetting to always slide it into position after winding on. This have been with both colour and B&W but only Fuji and Ilford films.

If Maco is the problem and it's stuff you like then I'd try covering the window with black tape and only peeling it back for winding which I'd try and do in the shade.

Of colurse it may not be Maco film. Red windows may eventually become unsafe or less safe as do darkroom safelights. I'd be unhappy leaving my window "open" in bright penetrating direct sunlight.

pentaxuser

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I once had this happen to me with Agfa film, old expired APX25, which had the imprint of the text on the paper backing all over it. I'm convinced that was a chemical reaction to the dye used to make the imprint.
Your problem seems to be related to the red window. I used to have a camera just like it, and an Agfa Defender folder as well. Both had red windows, the Ikon had the sliding door. Like the others I have never had problems with Kodak film getting exposed through the backing paper, even if I left the sliding door open.
I like pentax' suggestion. Use some Gaffer's tape and cover up the window, and only uncover the window when you wind the film. Put your back up against the sun when you wind the film and then tape it up again. Try different film also if this doesn't help.

 

[railwayman3]

I once had this happen to me with Agfa film, old expired APX25, which had the imprint of the text on the paper backing all over it. I'm convinced that was a chemical reaction to the dye used to make the imprint.

I'm sure you're correct....I've had a similar problem with some (very) old Ilford film, stored under poor conditions. I think someone here (could have been Simon Galley, apologies if I'm wrong?) said that the correct ink and density of the printing on roll-film backing are quite critical to avoid print-through but still give numbering contrasty enough to show thru the red window.

And direct sunlight over a length of time is certainly remarkably penetrating, even through visually opaque materials.

 

[Agnostic]

Thanks for the welcome and the fast replies! The window on my nettar also has a protective metal cover and I am sure I closed it at least part of the time. I guess there must indeed be something wrong with the backing paper because I shot a roll of neopan 400 on it the day before.

 

[JPD]

Maybe Macos backing paper isn't opaque enough?

 

[MattKing]

How much fog was there in the rest of the negatives (if any)?

I ask, because the effect could be cumulative. If the film was otherwise partially fogged due to exposure to low levels of light, the additional exposure through the window and the backing paper might have been enough to cause the image to go from invisible to visible.

Matt

 

[Agnostic]

How much fog was there in the rest of the negatives (if any)?

I ask, because the effect could be cumulative. If the film was otherwise partially fogged due to exposure to low levels of light, the additional exposure through the window and the backing paper might have been enough to cause the image to go from invisible to visible.

Matt

Can't find any fogging. The negs look fine to me (except for some shadow detail loss, will try a shorter development time on this film next time). The seriousness of the problem varies. I guess I will have to wind this film with the frame counter window closed by calculating the amount of turns I need on the winding knob. Here is one of the worst examples:

 

[archphoto]

OEPS !

The backing paper of your film is not opaque enough !
This has nothing to do with your deveoping times.

Keep your red window closed as much as you can with this fim is my advice and otherwise use a diferent film.

Peter

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yep, cover the red window with black gaffer's tape. Pull the tape back only when advancing the film, best done inside or in the shade. Then you will be alright.

Steve

 

[Aurum]

I've had the same experience shooting Efke 100 in 127 format. With the Efke material its a known weakness, and I'm assuming that Maco uses the same paper, which to be frank (as you've discovered) is crap.
I've yet to develop a roll of Adox material so can't comment on that manufacturers products

I'd shoot Kodak, Ilford or Fuji materials instead. I've used them in loads of red window roll film cameras (Zeiss Ikon, Brownie, Ensign Ful-vu, Ilford Sportsman, Lubitel 166B, etc etc etc etc) and not had a single problem.

Certainly for the cheap box cameras I've found that Fuji Acros 100 is a very good film, as it seems to have more latitude, or at least will handle severe overexposure (in the case of a shutter misfire) more gracefully than some of the others I've used.
What you choose, eventually, comes down to availability, price and preference

 

[ntenny]

I've had the same experience shooting Efke 100 in 127 format. With the Efke material its a known weakness, and I'm assuming that Maco uses the same paper, which to be frank (as you've discovered) is crap.
I've yet to develop a roll of Adox material so can't comment on that manufacturers products

The Adox CHS films are the Efke emulsions, of course, but maybe they use different backing paper. I've shot a fair amount of CHS 25, and a little bit of Efke 25 and ORT 25, in red-window folders, some of it in very bright, sunny conditions---never had a problem like this. Maybe it's only certain batches, or maybe I've just been lucky.

I have a whole bunch (~60 rolls) of antiquated Gevaert Dandi Pan, bought for a song on eBay, all unusable due to print-through from the backing paper. It's too bad, as I've been told this was a pretty good film and I was looking forward to playing with it, but at least I got a nifty box and a bunch of metal 120 spools.

-NT

 

[Agnostic]

Thanks guys, will keep the window closed when I use this film. I have 8 rolls of it left and I won't get any more. I don't particularly like it anyway. Rollei Retro 100 is much better (but curls like crazy in roll film) and Neopan 400 is much nicer as well. Neither of those give me any of this trouble.

 

[mikebarger]

Maybe this a consumer aid to help identify negatives when printing. Sure not going to have any trouble picking which negative matches which print.

It also will help you keep the interesting part of the picture from always being in the center of the frame, I'm sure you'll learn to shoot around the number.

Mike

 

[CRhymer]

I've had the same experience shooting Efke 100 in 127 format. With the Efke material its a known weakness, and I'm assuming that Maco uses the same paper, which to be frank (as you've discovered) is crap......

I have had the same experience with this film/backing paper. I only saw it on one frame/number. The others were masked by the images. However, it just did not add up to the red window. I spent a long time winding and re-winding the developed film on the paper to determine what had happened. It turned out that the last section of film, which I had not exposed, and had no image showed the number "12" if I recall correctly (it was a few years ago). I determined that it could not be physically possible for the light to have done this, since the window had been covered and by the placement of the film did not allow for it to be light exposure. The number was transferred where the ink contacted the film while it was rolled up. It must have been chemical, something in the ink.

The film may have been a bit out of date, or had a freeze/thaw history. I do not recall.

I know that Ilford refuses to print numbers that are easily visible through many "red" windows, presumably to avoid this problem. I am not saying that light could not be the cause in other situations, it just was not in this one.

Cheers,
Clarence

 

[driver8]

I have to admit, however, that resulting picture looks very cool with that number in the middle. I definitely like it there. Looks like it was placed there with intention. Will pass for artistic effect, seriously.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Maybe this a consumer aid to help identify negatives when printing. Sure not going to have any trouble picking which negative matches which print.

It also will help you keep the interesting part of the picture from always being in the center of the frame, I'm sure you'll learn to shoot around the number.

Mike

RAOFLMAO!

Steve

 

[Agnostic]

I have to admit, however, that resulting picture looks very cool with that number in the middle. I definitely like it there. Looks like it was placed there with intention. Will pass for artistic effect, seriously.

You're making me think... Maybe I should find a series of photos where the numbers center frame would actually gain a meaning.

Maybe this a consumer aid to help identify negatives when printing. Sure not going to have any trouble picking which negative matches which print.

It also will help you keep the interesting part of the picture from always being in the center of the frame, I'm sure you'll learn to shoot around the number.

Mike

You could still confuse the 6 and the 9 if you photograph a brick wall though.

Anyway, I have figured out what it is: It's an early version of the quartz date feature!

 

[mikebarger]

WOW, wish I had thought of that!

Mike

 

[WRSchmalfuss]

Frame numbers showing up on negatives

MACO UP100plus rollfilm has been for decades manufactured by the FOTOKEMIKA in Croatia. This is the same film as the EFKEPAN 100 roll film, still sold unchanged today. As well as own brand, and as well as private label.

The MACO UP100plus is since 2004 no longer available from current production.