Inserting 120 film: do Fuji films leak less light than Kodak?

trondsi · Apr 6, 2016

I have noticed that several of my negative 120 films came back from the lab with light leaks along the edge, whereas this has not happened to any of my Fuji slide films (same day, same camera). This is not the first time this has happened, and at first I thought my camera was leaky, but now I suspect that the light hits the edge of the film while I am inserting it into the camera. Does the Fuji film have some sort of fail safe so that this is less of a problem?

MattKing · Apr 6, 2016

I'm guessing from the thread title that you are seeing more light fog at the edge of your Kodak (black and white?) 120 negatives than you are on your Fuji 120 slide films, and that you are having a lab process both types.

Like as not, the light fog is happening when you unload the film, not when you load it.

Alternatively, it could be happening at the lab. The two types of film are processed separately, so different people may be handling it.

There are a couple of tricks that one can use to ensure the film and backing paper are taught to the spool when you load and unload them. One of them is to not remove the wrapper on the unexposed film until the spool is seated in the camera.

The sealing tabs are different on the Kodak and Fuji films. They both work equally well when you are used to using them, but they are sufficiently different as to bring rise to the possibility that you are better at using the Fuji version than the Kodak.

Of course, you might be using fast Kodak film and slower Fuji film - the faster film would show more evidence of fog than the slower version. And the transparency film would be light (not dark) where exposed, and might therefore be less obvious.

trondsi · Apr 6, 2016

The Kodak films are both B&W and color neg film. You are right that these are higher ISO (400) than the slide film (100)

Poisson Du Jour · Apr 6, 2016

I use both Kodak and Fuji in 120 and see no difference other than the irritating Kodak end-of-roll tab. There are no safeguards on Fuji spools; preventing fogging is down to good and refined technique.

When a film is wound on at the end of roll, it is normally a bit loose on the spool. You then use two fingers -- one too and bottom of the spool, to press down -- tightly, while you rotate the spool to tape down the leader. The same process is followed when loading a fresh roll, two fingers used to apply pressure to the spool as the leader is drawn out and across the shutter gate, then engaged in the take-up spool. The cover is then closed. Certainly the higher the speed of the film the more critical it is to take additional care when loading and unloading. Technique can be refined by practising the load/unload process with a dud roll of 120 film.

MattKing · Apr 6, 2016

APUGuser19 said:
Given recent reports of things like exposure numbers fogging the film on the 120 films from Kodak, I highly suspect that Eastman Kodak Co. (or whoever they are) isn't what they used to be. It's just a name now. A hollow empty brand with ZERO in common to what they once were. I won't continue on as if I am trying to insult the company, or have an agenda, but much has changed in the US since the crash.
From where I sit, I've read on this APUG site first an issue with the black ink frame numbering on Kodak backing paper causing sensitization and imprint on the photos taken with it, and now about edge exposure from film not cut or reeled as precisely to tolerance, resulting in edge exposure.
To remedy, ignore the age-old Kodak admonition to "load in subdued light", and find an even darker place to load than that. Photography is more than ever, a pursuit of leaving nothing to chance.

The Kodak films are still of incredibly high quality.
And they load and unload exactly the same way as they did when I was shooting weddings in the 1970s - i.e. if I get sloppy and don't take normal care to ensure that they are rolled tight on the spools little bits of light can get in. It was that way 40 years ago, and it is that way now.

The spools and sealing tabs are however slightly different between the two brands, so it certainly is possible that technique that works with one might not work the same with the other.

MattKing · Apr 6, 2016

APUGuser19 said:
Thank you Matt. I agree to the extent you covered in your post. Though I'm still troubled with the frame number issue previously discussed on this site. In my mind, edge fogging has always been a non-issue, so this particular thread brings up nothing that prudence could have avoided. But about that ink sensitization that we have previously read about on this website, I hate to think that rolls like that have made their way into the public circulation. I personally hope that some of these internet posts and threads are untrue.

I am sure they are quite true.
Wrapper offset has always been a problem. It has happened in the past on many occasions. It is just that it only happened under certain extreme conditions (usually involving heat) that Kodak always recommended against.
The current problem seems to have arisen either because a batch of film has been exposed to those conditions after the film left Kodak, without Kodak's knowledge, or because the recent change in backing paper has brought rise to a new and unexpected set of extreme conditions under which wrapper offset can occur.
It certainly hasn't affected the vast majority of the films out there, because they are all fine. Somewhere in the distribution chain some films have been exposed to out of specification conditions that have caused the wrapper offset. Kodak may never know where or when they were encountered, but they appear to have arranged to have the backing paper supplier change the product that Kodak buys from them to help ensure greater than previously required resistance to heat.

shutterfinger · Apr 6, 2016

I have not tested nor looked up the specs of any film from Kodak or Fudgie, or Ilford lately but here is what I know from a few years back. Backing paper is .006 inch thick on these film brands. Kodak and Ilford films use a 4 mil base (.004 inch thick). Some of their films may be 4.5 mil. Fuji, the fudgie stuff is 3.5 mil thick. The Fuji being thinner will not come as close to the edge of the spool as Kodak or Ilford films. I have encountered a situation where a serviced Roll Film Holder for a 2x3 Graphic camera spaced correctly with Ilford/Kodak films but had touching to just overlapping images with Fuji films. Another camera mechanical problem that will affect edge leaking is how tight the film is being wound on the take up spool. I have only worked on a few brands of medium format/2x3 cameras. The ones I'm familiar with use a tension spring on the supply spool to prevent the supply spool from free turning which would cause scratches from the film emulsion touching the inside of the film chamber that was not designed to come in contact with the film. The spring can be weak enough to allow loose take up spool winding without letting the supply to run freely. The older the camera or the higher the use on a newer camera the more likely this is the case. To test your camera for a weak supply spool spring wind a roll of film through the camera making exposures if you wish. Upon removing the film from the camera hold the ends of the spool firmly between your fingers and pull on the end of the backing paper. If the amount of backing paper pulled out as the film tightens is less than 1 inch all is OK, 1 inch or more indicates loose winding. A loose supply spool does not affect spacing. Film thickness and advance gearing/clutch systems affect spacing issues.

I can take any emulsion from Kodak, Ilford, or Agfa and expose it at box speed at metered reading and get good (ballpark correct) results. With Fuji films I get over exposed or exaggerated contrast negatives that suggest I need to do testing to get a ballpark correct exposure, therefore I do not use Fuji films.

BrianShaw · Apr 6, 2016

I have seen edge fogging but never to the extent where it was problematic to the image, and not with Kodak, Fuji or Ilford. Bergger exhibited it a lot, though.

paul ron · Apr 6, 2016

just curious if its at the start or end of the roll or consistant throughout? one edge... top or bottom or both?

it may be possible the spool tension springs in the film insert need adjusting?

BrianShaw · Apr 6, 2016

paul ron said:
just curious if its at the start or end of the roll or consistant throughout? one edge... top or bottom or both?

it may be possible the spool tension springs in the film insert need adjusting?

The only time I experienced edge fogging with Kodak or Fuji or Ilford film was in a Rolleicord that needed the spool tension gismo adjusted. It was top and bottom but I cant recall if it was at the start, end, or throughout the film. It was a long time ago.

anikin · Apr 6, 2016

I may be imagining things, but it feels to me like Fuji spools are just a hair wider than Kodak. If you intermittently run Fuji and Kodak rolls of film, you end up with using fuji spools to take Kodak film and vice-versa. If my feeling is correct, the minute difference between widths of backing paper and spool would explain the OP's experience. Did anybody else get the feeling, or is it just me?

Sirius Glass · Apr 6, 2016

I see no difference in the high quality of both Fuji and Kodak. I think this can be classified as an Operator Assisted Failure [OAF: usage the OAF did this or the OAF did that. ] Load and unload cameras in subdued light.

scapevision · Apr 6, 2016

APUGuser19 said:
I was kinda hoping on this thread that someone would pipe up and tell me I was full of baloney and didn't know what I was talking about. And that Kodak film is as good as ever. That's what I was hoping to hear.

I can, in my experience I got a lot of loose rolls with Acros. Kodak's always been tight.

Chadinko · Apr 6, 2016

This is very interesting. I'm shooting Arista.edu 100, which is Fomapan in a different frock, and I've been getting light leaking at the upper edges (camera bottom) for the last few rolls. I've been wondering if it's the camera, but now I think it might not be? I had a few rolls where the stick-um seal wasn't stick-um and it took a bit to find a rubber band to seal the film after exposure; maybe they unrolled a little in my pocket. But the other films that were properly sealed still had very minor leakage on the edge.

Further testing with the camera bodies is warranted. Have to get out the electrical tape.

BrianShaw · Apr 6, 2016

APUGuser19 said:
I was kinda hoping on this thread that someone would pipe up and tell me I was full of baloney and didn't know what I was talking about. And that Kodak film is as good as ever. That's what I was hoping to hear.

"Full of baloney" on this topic... or any topic?

My experience with Kodak has been good. I'm sure that I shoot less than many folks and not shooting professionally, so the whatever risk there is when shooting Kodak is a lot less critical. That said (and I hate that internet expression but will use it nonetheless), I had a failure that affected my images I'd be upset also. These are real problems but we have no real data on the cause or magnitude.

NJH · Apr 6, 2016

I have only ever had this sort of effect on lab developed B&W, and that on 35mm as well. It seemed to me more like uneven development caused by the way film may have been agitated in the deep tank i.e. more development around the edges probably caused by more turbulence there.

shutterfinger · Apr 6, 2016

I used a digital caliper accurate to 3 decimal places to measure the inside of empty 120 film spools from Arista, Ilford, Kodak, and a vintage metal spool of unknown make probably from the 1930's. The variance is .007 inch from the narrowest to the widest. Arista 2.466 inch/62.63mm; Ilford 2.47 inch/62.73mm; Kodak 2.476 inch/62.89mm; vintage metal spool 2.473 inch/62.73mm.

BrianShaw · Apr 6, 2016

Nice work... l LOVE data! How many measures did you take per spool to get those averages?

RattyMouse · Apr 6, 2016

shutterfinger said:
I can take any emulsion from Kodak, Ilford, or Agfa and expose it at box speed at metered reading and get good (ballpark correct) results. With Fuji films I get over exposed or exaggerated contrast negatives that suggest I need to do testing to get a ballpark correct exposure, therefore I do not use Fuji films.

Well, Fuji makes the only slide film so that would explain your inability to expose it properly.

Sirius Glass · Apr 6, 2016

Chadinko said:
This is very interesting. I'm shooting Arista.edu 100, which is Fomapan in a different frock, and I've been getting light leaking at the upper edges (camera bottom) for the last few rolls. I've been wondering if it's the camera, but now I think it might not be? I had a few rolls where the stick-um seal wasn't stick-um and it took a bit to find a rubber band to seal the film after exposure; maybe they unrolled a little in my pocket. But the other films that were properly sealed still had very minor leakage on the edge.

Further testing with the camera bodies is warranted. Have to get out the electrical tape.

Be careful using a rubber band. A tight rubber band will mark any film. You are better off using tape if it is available.

BrianShaw · Apr 6, 2016

According to the Indian version of the ISO standard for roll film spools and backing paper, the acceptable measurement for the flange-to-flange (inside) dimension is:

minimum - 62.7mm
maximum - 62.9mm

paul ron · Apr 6, 2016

APUGuser19 said:
I was kinda hoping on this thread that someone would pipe up and tell me I was full of baloney and didn't know what I was talking about. And that Kodak film is as good as ever. That's what I was hoping to hear.

ah you're full of baloney!

its a common problem with all brands of cameras n film.

if the roll unravels, its possable to get edge light leaks. regardless, if its loading or unloading just a tweak of the springs can cure the problem.

Chadinko · Apr 6, 2016

Sirius Glass said:
Be careful using a rubber band. A tight rubber band will mark any film. You are better off using tape if it is available.

Amen. It's all I had available... actually, it was a hair band, but yeah. I now carry tape with me.

Chadinko · Apr 6, 2016

Chadinko said:
Amen. It's all I had available... actually, it was a hair band, but yeah. I now carry tape with me.

Oh yeah, and the hair bands weren't Whitesnake, Motley Crue or Poison. A little more mundane than that.

scapevision · Sep 7, 2018

Seems like unrolling is much more prone to Fuji than Kodak. I've had a bunch of rolls of Acros 120 do that to me, never had it in Kodak. I mostly shot Kodak.

Inserting 120 film: do Fuji films leak less light than Kodak?

trondsi

MattKing

Moderator

trondsi

Poisson Du Jour

MattKing

Moderator

MattKing

Moderator

shutterfinger

BrianShaw

paul ron

BrianShaw

anikin

Sirius Glass

scapevision

Chadinko

BrianShaw

NJH

shutterfinger

BrianShaw

RattyMouse

Sirius Glass

BrianShaw

paul ron

Chadinko

Chadinko

scapevision

Inserting 120 film: do Fuji films leak less light than Kodak?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency