Frame numbers on back of film

[Sharktooth]

It gets even stranger. The dark spots and numbers on the backing paper should create lighter spots on the final image if it's actually material transfer. That's not the case here. The negatives are actually lighter where the ink from the backing paper was black. This must mean that the black in the backing paper is acting as a desensitizer to the emulsion. I can see the effect on 5 shots on this roll of 12.

I was puzzled at first, because I didn't see any dark particles from the ink in the rebate area of the affected images. There should have been some bleedover at the edges of the frame, but there wasn't. It was then that I realized that any ink transfer to the negative should have created dark spots on the negative, and light spots in the final image. The final image is showing the opposite. I suppose it's also possible that the ink may have transferred to the film, and then blocked some light there on the negative, then when the film was developed the ink was washed away. So many possibilities.

It's also interesting that there is lots of dark spottiness in the rebate area and in the image areas, which does indicate some type of material transfer that results in light spots in the final image, so there are multiple things happening.

 

[MattKing]

The relatively recent Kodak problems resulted in light colored information on the prints - i.e. the emulsion was more sensitive where the ink contacted it.
The older Ilford examples posted above resulted in dark colored information on the prints - i.e. the emulsion was either blocked or de-sensitized where the ink contacted it.
It is critically important to understand that the wrapper offset problem occurs because of a reaction between the emulsion and the backing paper and the ink.
All three components - the emulsion, the backing paper and the ink have gone through a whole bunch of changes over the years.
It is quite possible that Foma is working from a stash of old backing paper printed with old inks.
It is also quite possible that Foma's emulsion technology is older or otherwise sufficiently different from Kodak's or Ilford's that the old style backing paper and ink used by them doesn't react with their emulsions.
It is also possible that the paper and ink used by Foma would cause horrendous wrapper offset with current Kodak and Ilford films.
I do know that the wrapper offset problem experienced by Kodak - with black and white and colour films, and traditional emulsions and T-Max type of emulsions, was a problem that strained all of their resources and endangered the future production of 120 film. I am also totally confident that if the Foma style backing paper had solved the problem for them, and it could be purchased new, they would have found some way to source it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Can I ask what has been your experience with this problem of number transfer and if there has been no problem, over what sort of number in terms of Foma 120 has your use of Foma 120 been?

I've used Fomapan in 120 since about 2005, and never seen wrapper offset except on a couple rolls that had been stored for several years in film cans without the foil/plastic wrap. This leads me to suspect that at least on Fomapan, humidity is a significant factor.

 

[eli griggs]

So far as reading the numbers through the red window of, say, a Zeiss Super Ikonta, has anyone tried a slide loupe and, if so, what did your experience show you?

 

[albada]

It's interesting to note that this wrapper reaction problem can be solved by switching to 220, which would give the following benefits:

• No wrapper reaction.
• You get twice as many exposures.
• At the same cost! (Ilford said backing paper is at least as expensive as film, so replacing backing with film will not boost cost)

If only the red window had not been invented...

 

[Donald Qualls]

It's interesting to note that this wrapper reaction problem can be solved by switching to 220, which would give the following benefits:

• No wrapper reaction.
• You get twice as many exposures.
• At the same cost! (Ilford said backing paper is at least as expensive as film, so replacing backing with film will not boost cost)

If only the red window had not been invented...

Let's not forget that 120 film was introduced around 1900, and at that wasn't anything like the first paper backed roll film format. Red window film advance dates from the early 1890s. Perforated 35 mm film does as well (as a cine film format), but mechanical counters for unperfed film depend critically on either friction rollers or advance cams that "know" the thickness of the film plus backing -- which changed rapidly in the early 20th century -- and cam advance was apparently easier, cheaper, or more compact to implement (judging by the number of turns-counting vs. length-counting mechanisms).

Also, 120 was a consumer format from day one (professionals of the day were still mostly using glass plates); a mechanical frame counter would have pushed the cost of the cameras up, perhaps too much for the format to take off the way it did.

The advent of 220 came along with things like lever winding and motor drives that allowed studio photographers to burn through 8, 10, 12 or even 16 frames in a matter of minutes; 220 cut the reload pauses in half (or the stress on assistants to get the reload finished before the next roll was done). And 220 can still show wrapper offset, but it'll only do so on the first and last frame or two).

 

[Sirius Glass]

It's interesting to note that this wrapper reaction problem can be solved by switching to 220, which would give the following benefits:

• No wrapper reaction.
• You get twice as many exposures.
• At the same cost! (Ilford said backing paper is at least as expensive as film, so replacing backing with film will not boost cost)

If only the red window had not been invented...

Except that 1) many films are not available in 220 2) the 220 film costs more than twice 120 film, 3) developing and printing 220 film or developing 220 slides cost more that twice 120 film.

 

[pentaxuser]

Except that 1) many films are not available in 220 2) the 220 film costs more than twice 120 film, 3) developing and printing 220 film or developing 220 slides cost more that twice 120 film.

Well (1) is certainly true but given there is only one type of 220 being produced, namely Shanghai, is this more expensive than its 120 brother and if so by how much which has to be balanced by albada's plus points. As far as (3) is concerned this surely is not true if it is home processing and can you be sure this applies to 220 at all mini-labs on a frame and print basis per negative

pentaxuser

 

[Helge]

Regarding the faint markings problem; there is an easy way to replicate the cam counter with just paper and pencil.

I don’t have my equipped folder handy to snap a pic, but it’s pretty easy to explain:

Around the winder knob (or in it, doesn’t really matter), tape a bit of paper in the shape of a round frame, with enough space to write frame numbers legibly and precisely on it.

Now take a roll of you favorite film, doesn’t really matter which one, most film nowadays has approximately the same total thickness.
Wind to frame #1 and use an easily erasable marker to indicated the first frame on the knob (or on the periphery if you chose that option) or use a small sticker cut into a precise arrow shape.
Then write #1 outside that mark, on the paper frame.
Wind to the next frame, which will be a full turn plus a bit. And write #2 on the paper frame. And so on.

After having done that through the whole roll, you will be able to wind in very little light without having to get out the phone light or penlight.

You will have to move or erase and rewrite the indicator dot for every new roll, for frame #1 (which you will of course have to glean through the red window to start with), but the number spacings will hold up.

 

[pentaxuser]

Regarding the faint markings problem; there is an easy way to replicate the cam counter with just paper and pencil.

I don’t have my equipped folder handy to snap a pic, but it’s pretty easy to explain:

Around the winder knob (or in it, doesn’t really matter), tape a bit of paper in the shape of a round frame, with enough space to write frame numbers legibly and precisely on it.

Now take a roll of you favorite film, doesn’t really matter which one, most film nowadays has approximately the same total thickness.
Wind to frame #1 and use an easily erasable marker to indicated the first frame on the knob (or on the periphery if you chose that option) or use a small sticker cut into a precise arrow shape.
Then write #1 outside that mark, on the paper frame.
Wind to the next frame, which will be a full turn plus a bit. And write #2 on the paper frame. And so on.

After having done that through the whole roll, you will be able to wind in very little light without having to get out the phone light or penlight.

You will have to move or erase and rewrite the indicator dot for every new roll, for frame #1 (which you will of course have to glean through the red window to start with), but the number spacings will hold up.

I had a look at my Afga Isolette I and on this camera the winder for most if its circumference is wider than the surrounding camera so there is no room for a round piece of paper on which to write numbers. If I have to use the window to check on the number 1 then the risk of light ingress is still there isn't it and without using the window how do I know when I have number 2 etc in the window?

If I have to rewrite the indicator dot for every new roll then doesn't this mean that the new dot for the old number one frame will not line up with the old number one on the paper so even if I could get all the numbers on the paper erased and rewritten then I am unsure how I avoid using the window each time

Also doesn't the bit in the phrase "a turn and a bit" alter after each frame as the take up spool gets thicker with film and backing paper?

Maybe I have misunderstood your explanation. If so can you help me understand?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Helge]

I had a look at my Afga Isolette I and on this camera the winder for most if its circumference is wider than the surrounding camera so there is no room for a round piece of paper on which to write numbers. If I have to use the window to check on the number 1 then the risk of light ingress is still there isn't it and without using the window how do I know when I have number 2 etc in the window?

If I have to rewrite the indicator dot for every new roll then doesn't this mean that the new dot for the old number one frame will not line up with the old number one on the paper so even if I could get all the numbers on the paper erased and rewritten then I am unsure how I avoid using the window each time

Also doesn't the bit in the phrase "a turn and a bit" alter after each frame as the take up spool gets thicker with film and backing paper?

Maybe I have misunderstood your explanation. If so can you help me understand?

Thanks

pentaxuser

That is a case where you’d put a paper disc on top of the winder knob, instead of having the numbers in a disc on the outside. I shoot mostly Ikontas with key type winders where there is space outside the knob.

The spacing of the numbers will be the same for any film. Or at least close enough for jazz.

You have to move the indicator dot because loading will never be the same. But you reset the counter and calibrate it with the first frame in the window.

Yes, using the red window for the first frame is not ideal. But IMHO very manageable and far better than having to fumble a light and skip frames accidentally later on in the roll.
You could probably use the start arrows on the film and find out exactly how many turns it takes to get to the first frame. But is it worth it? Not to me. And I’m not sure the distance is the same for all film.

You could also have the disc/ring be moveable and the indicator dot be stationary. Same thing.

The growing diameter of the roll is compensated for in the numbers you did with the first calibration roll (can be a roll you just shoot to shoot a roll you know is dead. You could probably re-roll already developed film, but I’d be worried about tightness and placement of film).

BTW it’s exactly the same thing as the Certo Super Sport Dolly winder knob. Only calibrated for modern film.

Certo Super Sport Dolly

This site is dedicated to folding cameras for 120 film. It's run by Reinhard Blanck

www.120folder.com