Ilford backing paper thicker than Kodak/Fuji?

[waffles]

I have a Hasselblad 203fe with an E12 film back. Until this past week, I'd only shot Kodak Tri-X and Fujifilm Fujicolor Pro 400H through it. I recently bought a roll of Ilford FP4+ and noticed that there was significantly more resistance when re-cocking the shutter & winding the film between exposures. I've verified that its not a problem with the camera body, because the extra resistance disappears when I depress the multiple-exposures button in the middle of the winding crank. I know that the thickness of 120 film is standardized, but I was wondering if the backing paper that Ilford uses is thicker than that used by either Kodak or Fuji? It appears to be made of a different material, so that could explain the difference in resistance that I felt. Otherwise, there might be a problem with my film back.

 

[AgX]

A paper not even necessarily needs to be thicker than some other paper to be more sturdy.

 

[Luckless]

Paper finish may also come into play as much as thickness, especially if your pressure plate is set a tad stiff. Doesn't take much of an increase in friction to add up to a noticeable difference.

May also be worth double checking the spools. I've found a few [both from Kodak and Ilford] with a slight defect on the top that would cause it to rub a bit more than normal rolls.

Have you noticed this as being an issue with multiple rolls? After all it could have just been something like a bit of fluff caught in the mechanisms and totally unrelated to what film you actually used.

 

[pentaxuser]

Does anyone have a measuring instrument accurate enough to measure backing paper thickness from each of the aforesaid film? If so, can he/they please gives us the measurements?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[BAC1967]

Fuji backing paper is a very slipper plastic like substance, I can see how it would run through smoother that most other papers.

 

[BrianShaw]

I thought there is an international standard for backing paper. Is it possible that the various manufacturers don’t abide by it?

 

[Luckless]

I thought there is an international standard for backing paper. Is it possible that the various manufacturers don’t abide by it?

The +/- on the standard is large enough that some gear might get cranky about using it, especially when talking about older gear that's in possibly questionable alignment.

 

[BrianShaw]

The +/- on the standard is large enough that some gear might get cranky about using it, especially when talking about older gear that's in possibly questionable alignment.

I’m sure. It’s been a while since I read it so can’t recall the tolerance.

But Fuji always seemed the thinnest and slickest. The thickest and coarsest I’ve ever seen was Bergger 200.

 

[pentaxuser]

I’m sure. It’s been a while since I read it so can’t recall the tolerance.

But Fuji always seemed the thinnest and slickest. The thickest and coarsest I’ve ever seen was Bergger 200.

So it sounds as if you believe each manufacturer specifies a different standard when they order their paper. Unless the more slippery paper can give problems of its own it sounds as if the other film makers should adopt the Fuji standard. Sounds like a "no-brainer " unless the cost of the Fuji standard is greater and the cost to benefit ratio fails the other companies viability criterion. Is "no-brainer" now a so 1980s dated expression now like "blue sky thinking, out of the box and running ideas up the flagpole"?

pentaxuser

 

[BrianShaw]

So it sounds as if you believe each manufacturer specifies a different standard when they order their paper. Unless the more slippery paper can give problems of its own it sounds as if the other film makers should adopt the Fuji standard. Sounds like a "no-brainer " unless the cost of the Fuji standard is greater and the cost to benefit ratio fails the other companies viability criterion. Is "no-brainer" now a so 1980s dated expression now like "blue sky thinking, out of the box and running ideas up the flagpole"?

pentaxuser

No, that’s not exactly my belief; I actually cannot explain or understand why backing paper is so different, especially considering all of the internet belief that there is a single supplier. Given a well-established standard I’d expect a bit more consistent from brand to brand, though. I simply can’t understand the differences but know which I dislike and distrust.

I have noticed that the slicker paper goes through the camera smoother.

I’m also glad that I don’t have any “sensing mechanisms “ in my cameras.

But if I had a choice, it would be more like Kodak or Ilford, which I believe are median thickness and plenty smooth.

And I would like to see some measurements, too.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I have a Hasselblad 203fe with an E12 film back. Until this past week, I'd only shot Kodak Tri-X and Fujifilm Fujicolor Pro 400H through it. I recently bought a roll of Ilford FP4+ and noticed that there was significantly more resistance when re-cocking the shutter & winding the film between exposures. I've verified that its not a problem with the camera body, because the extra resistance disappears when I depress the multiple-exposures button in the middle of the winding crank. I know that the thickness of 120 film is standardized, but I was wondering if the backing paper that Ilford uses is thicker than that used by either Kodak or Fuji? It appears to be made of a different material, so that could explain the difference in resistance that I felt. Otherwise, there might be a problem with my film back.

I shot only Ilford and Kodak 120 in my backs but never felt or experienced a difference in frame spacing between the two.Was you frame spacing OK?

 

[mike c]

Allso different types and makes of film have different thickness, the film lays on top of the film gate so does not affect the focus . But this combined with a thinner paper could affect such camera's with an auto loading mechanism like the Rollieflex .

 

[cmacd123]

the problem that some makers had with the numbers printing through may also have made a difference in the constuction of backing paper. Kodak recently switched ot a very slick looking shiny overprint, presumably to seal in the number printing. Ilfords curent paper always feels to me as if it laminated with LDPE.

 

[waffles]

Paper finish may also come into play as much as thickness, especially if your pressure plate is set a tad stiff.

That's a good point. The backing papers that Kodak & Fuji use have always seemed more "slippery," while the Ilford paper is a bit "rougher" to the touch. How would I adjust the pressure plate?

 

[Pieter12]

From what I have experienced, the Chinese have the worst backing paper of them all. Thick, rough and easily torn.

 

[cmacd123]

From what I have experienced, the Chinese have the worst backing paper of them all. Thick, rough and easily torn.

But it is the only kind that works reliably in a seagull IV TLR

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I’m fairly sure it’s not all the same. I used to have an old knob-wind Linhof Rollex back that had frame spacing problems with some films but not others, and learned that this is a known issue with those backs. When those backs were made, the film travel was regulated by a certain number of revolutions of the wind knob, so if the film and/or backing was thinner than the original standard, frames could overlap. The later lever-wind Super Rollex back meters the actual film travel distance across the film roller, so the film and backing thickness don’t matter.

Other factors in how smoothly the film moves through the camera can be the texture of the paper and ink as mentioned above and perhaps lubrication of the film and backing. Cine film is lubricated, but I’m not sure about 120 film in that regard.

 

[ced]

I only have Ilford FP4 backing paper thickness 0.1125mm.
Both sides quite smooth & I imagine would cause near no friction.

 

[AgX]

Cine film is lubricated, but I’m not sure about 120 film in that regard.

Only Cine film is lubricated.

 

[mgb74]

So it sounds as if you believe each manufacturer specifies a different standard when they order their paper. Unless the more slippery paper can give problems of its own it sounds as if the other film makers should adopt the Fuji standard. Sounds like a "no-brainer " unless the cost of the Fuji standard is greater and the cost to benefit ratio fails the other companies viability criterion. Is "no-brainer" now a so 1980s dated expression now like "blue sky thinking, out of the box and running ideas up the flagpole"?

pentaxuser

Any change has to consider the equipment used to print, cut, and spool the paper. A "better" paper could, at least in theory, require changes at that end. And, of course, all the testing that has to happen. And the impact on long term supplier agreements. And the changes to manufacturing and QC processes. You get the idea.

 

[Luckless]

Any change has to consider the equipment used to print, cut, and spool the paper. A "better" paper could, at least in theory, require changes at that end. And, of course, all the testing that has to happen. And the impact on long term supplier agreements. And the changes to manufacturing and QC processes. You get the idea.

And beyond considerations of the needs of the equipment used by different manufactures, the end result may also be impacted by the effect of their equipment. Even if they both start with effectively the same stock material, nothing says that paper product comes out of their machines as a perfect match to each other. Paper products are fickle, and back in my early university days I got a fun lesson in trying to keep a pair of 'the same' machines in sync with end results for boxes. And those were two of the same design sitting side by side, let alone entirely different designs at different companies.

- Maybe one machine rolls the paper with more compression or tension?
- Maybe one ends up burnishing the surface more, or the choice in roller roughs up the fibers?