• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Hello APUG from FILM Ferrania (PART 2)

Latest Gallery

Mackenzies Pocket

A
Mackenzies Pocket

  • 3
  • 1
  • 17
Flush

H
Flush

  • 2
  • 0
  • 24

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
202,910
Messages
2,847,425
Members
101,529
Latest member
Abjayan
Recent bookmarks
0
Status
Not open for further replies.
The ink, the paper base, the carbon black .... all of it must be chosen with care as well as the preparation method if one is to make a good paper backing for 120 film.

PE
 
cmacd123 said:
If that was the case - Kodak would not have been caught with their problem batch of TMax 100.
Click to expand...

Let me clarify that I wasn't talking about the paper itself, but about the numbers printed on the back, and specifically related to what Dave said.

It's pretty well understood by now — at least for the ones that read the numerous explanations on the threads about T-Max and the frame numbers appearing on the negatives — that backing paper is a specific kind of paper, with varying thickness (thinner in the longitudinal center), coated with a black kind of resin on one side and printed (numbers, marks and arrows) on the other.

My guess is that the problem Kodak faces is chemical fogging caused by one of the paint components.

But, then again, it's a guess.
 
WilmarcoImaging said:
Regarding 120 backing paper, why are the problems isolated to TMX and not other films, eg TMY, TX and C-41 film?
Click to expand...

hard to speculate, but perhaps the emulsion of that particular film was particularly sensitive to one of the ingredients in the printed numbers. One of the real risks is that the emulsion spends all the time the film is kept from day of manufacture until exposed with the emulsion in contact with the printed numbers and adjacent paper. (the Seagull film I mentioned earlier had fogging in a pattern where the Numbers were NOT present) Heat exposure, humidity, radiation can all play a part.
 
WilmarcoImaging said:
Regarding 120 backing paper, why are the problems isolated to TMX and not other films, eg TMY, TX and C-41 film?
Click to expand...
The initial problems were with TMY - that is the film that I have had replaced.
And I have seen a small number of reports here on APUG about problems with C41 films.
It may be that the C41 films got less of the first, most problematic backing paper due to the vagaries of production schedules or even because there was more of the older, film specific paper left for them after the transition to use of common backing paper for all films.
The TMX film is relatively unusual. For example, as far as I know it is the only film with a UV blocker incorporated into it.
 
Carbon black is a fairly common pigment used in many applications including plastic masterbatches. It shouldn't be difficult to source good quality pigment. I don't know about the ink used for the numbers but I'm sure what happened with tmy film is just one of those things that sometimes happens.
We make it sounds like something nearly impossible to make, while the only reason why 120 film could disappear is lack of demand.
 
WilmarcoImaging said:
Regarding 120 backing paper, why are the problems isolated to TMX and not other films, eg TMY, TX and C-41 film?
Click to expand...
TMY certainly has major problems with backing paper. I have been burned many, many times with ink imprints on my TMY film in some of my most critical photos.

Some here have posted imprints on both Portra and Ektar films as well, although that is much less common.

I've never seen any imprints on Tri-X or *any* Fuji film.
 
Why one film should have the problem and another does not have it is quite a mystery, isn't it. Anyone with the answer should notify Kodak ASAP. :D

As for carbon black, ordinary carbon black will fog film almost instantly due to the high content of sulfides. It requires specially purified carbon black to be used in backing paper.

PE
 
Photo Engineer said:
Why one film should have the problem and another does not have it is quite a mystery, isn't it. Anyone with the answer should notify Kodak ASAP. :D
Click to expand...

sounds like ferrania will have to do tests on their 120 product (including extreme environment) before committing to having even a major maker packing any roll film for them. (or using paper bought in from a partner.) The degree of voodoo involved might mean that THERE film might not be compatible with someone else’s packing line.
 
Personally, I've only experienced numbers from backing paper carrying to the photographic image once. It was VP-126-20 (Verichrome Pan) with a 1980 develop before date in a Brownie R4 Instamatic in about 1998 or so. The image was somewhat faint.

Could the black ink have interfered with cosmic ray fogging?
 
1L6E6VHF said:
Personally, I've only experienced numbers from backing paper carrying to the photographic image once. It was VP-126-20 (Verichrome Pan) with a 1980 develop before date in a Brownie R4 Instamatic in about 1998 or so. The image was somewhat faint.

Could the black ink have interfered with cosmic ray fogging?
Click to expand...

The current Kodak 120 problems manifest themselves by showing an increase in negative density where the numbers or text make contact with them. So it is the reverse of most fogging situations.
 
cmacd123 said:
sounds like ferrania will have to do tests on their 120 product (including extreme environment) before committing to having even a major maker packing any roll film for them. (or using paper bought in from a partner.) The degree of voodoo involved might mean that THERE film might not be compatible with someone else’s packing line.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, the problem did not show up with the standard (extreme environment) tests, so Ferrania might not discover the problem either.

PE
 
RattyMouse said:
Kodak should call up Fuji and pay them a consulting fee and end this madness.
Click to expand...

you do have to wonder, as Fuji seems to have the highest contrast printing for the frame numbers on their backing paper. Of course they probably would not think of buying in any part of their product.
 
Fuji has limited their "exposure" to backing paper problems by discontinuing almost all of their films.
 
Matt, a very good point and it was in my mind when I made the post above. I just didn't want to open a raw wound. As for communications RattyMouse, photographic emulsion making and film coating is one of the most secret in the world of manufacturing. We talk about the weather or whatever, but anything but this sort of problem. My last visitor here at home was the VP of Konishiroku, his wife and two daughters. We talked about the meal, namely beef stew - jaganiku, and its variations in Japan and the US. We talked about his daughter's exchange program and a lot more, but not film making.

PE
 
Gee, every time I have a Japanese chef over for supper we talk about photographic emulsion making and never even mention the jaganiku. Ironic.
 
The irony is that the backing paper is becoming now more difficult to produce and source than the film itself!
 
Nzoomed said:
The irony is that the backing paper is becoming now more difficult to produce and source than the film itself!
Click to expand...
It has been more expensive to produce than the film itself for a significant time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:
Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom