Kodak 120 film - backing paper problems - emulsions affected

[MattKing]

No, that link is dead for me. It only leads to a photo gallery.

Here is the "Unlock the Power" page for Germany - for these purposes I've switched to Germany from Canada: https://www.kodakalaris.com/de-DE/
Do you not see the "Kodak Moments" and "Professional Photographers and Labs" links along the top?
One of the things I've noted over the years with both the old Eastman Kodak websites and the new Kodak Alaris websites is that they make heavy use of caches and cookies. If you don't see what I see, it may be that you have old pages cached.

 

[railwayman3]

I'd want to see a whole lot of confirmed evidence before I gave a moment's concern to possible dust in any 35mm film arising from the factory. There are so many other possible sources, mostly from careless handling, e,g poor storage, dust in loading or in the camera, processing, drying, negative storage......I've actually seen "serious" photographers carrying an unprotected cassette in their pocket then smoking while they loaded a camera,,,,

 

[Wallendo]

from this link: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=163026 post #3
The "dust" problem is described as:

All Kodak 135 films have lots of very small black dust particles both onto the film cassette, and unfortunately also inside the cassette.
These paritcles are from the black velvet in cassette mouth. Kodak is using cheap, inferior material.
If you wipe with your finger above the cassette surface (on and in) you will have these particles on your finger.

The poster does not mention any issues with the film itself, and cleans his cassettes to keep the "dust" out of his camera. This does not appear to actually be dust, but some sort of plastic particle. I have, in the past, noted a few cases where black printing on the outside of the cassette has flaked off, but, as far as I can tell, this has never affected the film itself.

 

[RattyMouse]

Can you point me to an official Kodak statement to this? It may have been referenced above, not sure.

There's never been a public statement from Kodak, of any kind, on this topic.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'd want to see a whole lot of confirmed evidence before I gave a moment's concern to possible dust in any 35mm film arising from the factory. There are so many other possible sources, mostly from careless handling, e,g poor storage, dust in loading or in the camera, processing, drying, negative storage......I've actually seen "serious" photographers carrying an unprotected cassette in their pocket then smoking while they loaded a camera,,,,

+1

 

[macfred]

The paper backing problem has been fixed ...
Lord give us the strengh to believe and hope ...

My first affected roll of Portra 160 (6151012 - 07/2018). Bought it a few month ago (pack of 5), kept in my freezer, apart from one week I was travelling through the Netherlands. I used two more rolls out of the pack and those were fine.

sheepness by Andreas, on Flickr

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

Nice image of the sheep! Sorry to hear about the backing paper.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Did the paper backing cause the tag on the sheep to show the number "93"?

 

[macfred]

Did the paper backing cause the tag on the sheep to show the number "93"?

Why didn't I come up with this myself ...

 

[pentaxuser]

macfred was muttering to himself that he hoped the backing paper problem had been fixed when this trustworthy face looked at him and assured him it was fixed. There are politicians who practice this look daily and still don't have the sincerity that I would credit this sheep with. When we are having a vegetarian meal at our house this sheep is welcome every time

pentaxuser

 

[RattyMouse]

That's a beautiful shot of that sheep. A real shame that it was shot on defective film.

 

[macfred]

...

Mia (with backing paper imprints ...) by Andreas, on Flickr

Yes, the roll belongs to those emulsion numbers that may exhibit the above problem (0151 002 - 09/2017). Nevertheless, it's a pity.

 

[RattyMouse]

Yes, the roll belongs to those emulsion numbers that may exhibit the above problem (0151 002 - 09/2017). Nevertheless, it's a pity.

A real pity. I've got a good half dozen rolls of undeveloped Kodak film that I am certain will show what your image above did. It hurts so bad to see images that you worked hard for ruined by poor Kodak quality.

I havent shot 120 black and white film in a loooong time. Only the occasional Neopan Acros rolls. I shoot so little that I need to take the batteries out of my 120 film cameras. They sit idle now for months on end.

 

[aparat]

...Mia (with backing paper imprints ...) by Andreas, on Flickr

Yes, the roll belongs to those emulsion numbers that may exhibit the above problem (0151 002 - 09/2017). Nevertheless, it's a pity.

...

Mia (with backing paper imprints ...) by Andreas, on Flickr

Yes, the roll belongs to those emulsion numbers that may exhibit the above problem (0151 002 - 09/2017). Nevertheless, it's a pity.

Such a pity! This is a really nice photograph.

 

[jvo]

Me either. I'm not saying this problem isn't real, but it's new and unique and presumably now corrected. I've used Kodak film since the 1970s and never ONCE had a quality issue with a single roll or sheet.

ditto.

 

[Craig]

I've used Kodak film since the 1970s and never ONCE had a quality issue with a single roll or sheet.

I have not been so lucky. There have been a few exceptions, I draw your attention to the edgeprint. See anything unusual? Fortunately the last roll of TMY I shot was unaffected.

 

[Anon Ymous]

I have not been so lucky. There have been a few exceptions, I draw your attention to the edgeprint. See anything unusual? Fortunately the last roll of TMY I shot was unaffected.
View attachment 190625

Is that Kodachrome colour negative film?

 

[AgX]

Craig, you got a collectors item...

 

[Craig]

Is that Kodachrome colour negative film?

It came in a Kodachrome cassette, obviously the wrong film was loaded. I did wonder why the rest of my photos from that trip came back in a week and that roll took 2 months.

 

[Anon Ymous]

It came in a Kodachrome cassette, obviously the wrong film was loaded. I did wonder why the rest of my photos from that trip came back in a week and that roll took 2 months.

See, only the film stock used was wrong, everything else was right.

I assume a very careful and eagle eyed technician spotted the wrong film material in that cassette.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I assume a very careful and eagle eyed technician spotted the wrong film material in that cassette.

Probably the absence of the REMJET coating

 

[Anon Ymous]

Probably the absence of the REMJET coating

Ah, yes, makes sense.

 

[railwayman3]

See, only the film stock used was wrong, everything else was right.

I assume a very careful and eagle eyed technician spotted the wrong film material in that cassette.

Having seen the size of rolls of film at the Ilford factory going into the edge printing, cutting and cassette-loading machine, that seems a weird error, particularly as the Kodak finishing machines and batches could perhaps be even larger. It would need an error in setting the edge-printing, then another error in using the wrong cassettes. And what about the QC, which at Ilford involves the sampling of product at each stage ? If a whole batch passed through the Kodak QC system there much have been a whole lot of other "wrong" films about ?

OTOH, I could understand it being spotted at the processing stage, as I'm sure that any reliable lab takes care to identify and extract any unusual or "wrong" looking films to avoid damage to processing chemicals or equipment.

 

[laser]

I have not been so lucky. There have been a few exceptions, I draw your attention to the edgeprint. See anything unusual? Fortunately the last roll of TMY I shot was unaffected.
View attachment 190625

Craig,
Do you have any info on where the film was purchased and when? When was it processed? There were many safeguards to prevent this from happening but obviously it did. Is there other identification on the roll? Are there any dots in the word "KODAK".

This sort of error is called an "M&M" in the factory: Mixed or Mismatched. If such an error was reported the finishing factory would be immediately shut down and the systems all examined to determine the cause and then "fool proofed".

Bob

 

[Craig]

Craig,
Do you have any info on where the film was purchased and when? When was it processed?

The film would have been purchased late spring/early summer of 1989 in Calgary, Alberta, so yes, I was digging into my archives! It was my first trip to Europe, so I splurged and thought I didn't want anything to go wrong; so I would pay the premium for Kodachrome over the Konica E6 I usually shot at the time.

I'm in Canada so all Kodachrome was sold processing included. I assume it went to the Kodak Vancouver lab for processing, I don't know. This would have been the end of July, 1989. I took it back to my local retailer ( Woodwards, those in western Canada at the time will remember them) and all the Kodachromes went out to Kodak in yellow Kodak envelopes, while E6 and C41 went in store brand envelopes for local processing. When this film eventually came back, there was the negatives, a set of prints, and a set of slides had been made too. Also 2 rolls of fresh K64.

Yes, there is a dot at the top between the O and D. There is a string of numbers that I assume is the emulsion number? It's on the top of the film between frame 20 and 21, says A64220. Spaced one sprocket hole apart, except between the double 2 there is an extra space.

It was boxed and sold as Kodachrome 64. I usually do look at the film as I load it and probably would have noticed the absence of the Remjet coating, as it has the distinct black appearance. However, when I loaded that roll we were on a small boat tour of the white cliffs around Eastbourne, England and I wanted to get the film loaded and the back of the camera shut as fast as possible to make sure no water or salt spray got on the film or in the camera, so I didn't notice it was C41 material instead. If it had been any other film change on that trip I probably would have noticed!

PS: I have both editions of your book and enjoyed them immensely.