Kodak 120 film - backing paper problems - emulsions affected

[MattKing]

'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.

The (North) Vancouver Kodak lab had been closed by 1989, so the film would have gone to Ontario - either Brampton or Camera/Kodak Heights in the suburbs of Toronto.
Someone must have noticed the problem there.
I expect they still had C41 processing in Ontario at that time - they never had C22 or C41 in North Vancouver.
If the problem had happened in 1983 or earlier, it would have been my Dad's department who handled it for you. He was the manager of the customer service and dealer pickup and delivery services at the North Vancouver lab until he retired in 1983.
My guess is that the error occurred in the part of the manufacturing process that dealt with the special packaging of films for Canada. Canadian films were distinguished by two factors - Kodachrome was sold with processing included, and Canadian cassettes were all labelled as being products of Kodak Canada Inc., and the writing on the cassettes was bilingual - French and English.

 

[Craig]

Thanks Matt! I was hoping you'd be able to fill in when the Vancouver lab was active.
Do you know if Canadian market Kodachrome was slit/spooled and packaged in Toronto or in Rochester?

I was thinking about this today, and I wonder how it would have been identified? Clearly it didn't go through the K14 process, but I would be surprised if the leaders were retrieved out of the cassettes and the film inspected by hand before being joined into a long roll for K14 processing - I would have though that all automated. Yet if the film identification was by bar code on the cassette, it would have shown up as kodachrome. It was a good save on the part of the processing lab. I can't imagine the havoc it would cause if it contaminated a whole batch of chemistry though.

 

[MattKing]

Do you know if Canadian market Kodachrome was slit/spooled and packaged in Toronto or in Rochester?

No I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it might have been at some time during its great run in Canada.
It also might have been put into the cassettes in Rochester, but boxed in Toronto.
The bilingual labeling was actually a problem - it's tough fitting all that info, in two languages, on to those little cassettes, and small boxes.

 

[mshchem]

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

They have kept the Kodachrome tooling! It's coming back!

 

[Craig]

They have kept the Kodachrome tooling! It's coming back!

No. This was done when Kodachrome was a current product.

I posted it as a mere observation to the earlier comment by someone else that they had used Kodak products for 40 something years and never had a problem. Oddly, I have only had 2 failures/defects that could be attributed to the manufacturer, and both times it was Kodak products. Both in the late 80's now that I think about it.
I've had plenty that were my errors!

 

[mshchem]

No. This was done when Kodachrome was a current product.

I posted it as a mere observation to the earlier comment by someone else that they had used Kodak products for 40 something years and never had a problem. Oddly, I have only had 2 failures/defects that could be attributed to the manufacturer, and both times it was Kodak products. Both in the late 80's now that I think about it.
I've had plenty that were my errors!

Rats!

 

[europanorama]

Since the backing paper is made by a single manufacturer ALL 120 files from ALL film manufacturers are potentially effected. It seems pointless to blame Kodak for the faults of another company.

Maybe contamination of paper only. Kodak should testdevelop non- papered film in 220-cameras.

 

[europanorama]

my Agfa Avipan films had been in freezer(not deepfreezer) with multiple interruptions. just go a new kitchen now perfectly stored.

 

[lantau]

Maybe contamination of paper only. Kodak should testdevelop non- papered film in 220-cameras.

The information that there was only one manufacturer for backing paper seems to be wrong. I remember Mirko (in another forum, probably) stating that he once said there is/was only one in Europe and that this was mistaken by people to be only one worldwide.

I'd been very surprised anyway, if a Japanese company like Fuji used the same stuff as the lesser species.

He also mentioned, and I think the posting was quite some time ago, that Adox and Foma were looking into setting up their own production. Ilford bought that one company and then charged others more for the paper than they'd sell the entire film for. Thats just from my memory, I haven't got the OP right now.

BTW, I just used my very first roll of TMX in 120 in Usbekistan. I'm testing to see how it compares to the 'look' of Acros. The new backing paper was different from the usual Kodak rolls and those of any other brand. It was a kind of high gloss surface. Like a soft and smooth, clear coating on it. They must have really made an effort to bring back that film!

 

[MattKing]

He also mentioned, and I think the posting was quite some time ago, that Adox and Foma were looking into setting up their own production. Ilford bought that one company and then charged others more for the paper than they'd sell the entire film for. Thats just from my memory, I haven't got the OP right now.

As far as I am aware, the meaningful information about Ilford backing paper came from Ilford (Harman Technology) themselves. Simon Galley indicated in his posts here that it cost them more to buy the 120 backing paper than it did to manufacture the film itself.
And in the context of their decision to cease production of 220 film, Mr. Galley indicated that while the cost to them of buying the leader and trailer paper was a major problem, the real problem was that the minimum order requirements from the only potential source were such that, given projected volumes, it was uneconomic to continue production.
The 220 decision was made by Ilford in the context of their 220 specific packaging machinery reaching the end of its useful life. According to Mr. Galley, it would have cost Harman at that time approximately 300,000 pounds to replace or rehabilitate it.

 

[faberryman]

I read in the 11/2018 John Sexton newsletter that Kodak fixed the 120 backing paper issue in late 2017 and early 2018 beginning with the emulsion numbers listed below. The new backing paper can be identified by its new glossy appearance.

T-MAX 100 [983]
T-MAX 400 [159]
TRI-X 400 [992]
EKTAR 100 [1302]
P0RTRA 160 [6202]
PORTRA 400 [3452]
PORTRA 800 [193]

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

Thanks Frank this is good information.

 

[macfred]

Also, thanks for this information!

 

[drkhalsa]

That explains why the Tri-x I bought has shiny paper and the Tmax 400 bought at the same time does not. It's emulsion 158.

 

[Photo Engineer]

There were complex problems involved here. It took a long time and a lot of money to solve.

PE

 

[John Wiegerink]

First, let me say that TMY2 was and now is again, my favorite ISO 400 speed film. Now for the crow eating part. I was just a little peeved about the whole number transfer/bleed thing, the time it was taking to cure the problem and the lack of information as to what was going on. For that I am truly sorry. That said, I do think that us unhappy customers would have been much more understanding if their would have been little better communication on their end. All said and done, I'm glad it's finally over and I just ordered some TMY2. JohnW

 

[mshchem]

First, let me say that TMY2 was and now is again, my favorite ISO 400 speed film. Now for the crow eating part. I was just a little peeved about the whole number transfer/bleed thing, the time it was taking to cure the problem and the lack of information as to what was going on. For that I am truly sorry. That said, I do think that us unhappy customers would have been much more understanding if their would have been little better communication on their end. All said and done, I'm glad it's finally over and I just ordered some TMY2. JohnW

I recently bought a crap load from Unique Photo, it was less than 5 bucks a roll in propacks, I love the stuff. I never got burned I got lucky.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

I recently bought a crap load from Unique Photo, it was less than 5 bucks a roll in propacks, I love the stuff. I never got burned I got lucky.

I got burned. Hundreds of lost images forever and that I can never take again. F Kodak - you’re dead to me.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Fixing this problem was one of the most difficult problems Kodak has faced in years. It did not show up on any internal tests AFAIK and was only discovered after customers began seeing it. I'm just glad that the problem was fixed for the rest of the people who still had faith in them.

PE

 

[BrianShaw]

Fixing this problem was one of the most difficult problems Kodak has faced in years. It did not show up on any internal tests AFAIK and was only discovered after customers began seeing it. I'm just glad that the problem was fixed for the rest of the people who still had faith in them.

PE

Amen

 

[dante]

I was told by Kodak in early 2017 that 153 is the start for TMY of new paper with no transfer (but the ruby-window-unfriendly light numbers). I am surmising that the 159 that John Sexton mentions is with darker numbers and some kind of overcoating to prevent ink transfer.

The funny thing about the transfer was that even with a lot of 151 film, the transfer thing didn't start until someone mentioned it. Then it happened all the time!

Dante

 

[Paul Ozzello]

I’ll never trust Kodak again. And if I ever do use tmax again it will be in a secondary back.

Fixing this problem was one of the most difficult problems Kodak has faced in years. It did not show up on any internal tests AFAIK and was only discovered after customers began seeing it. I'm just glad that the problem was fixed for the rest of the people who still had faith in them.

PE

 

[removed account4]

I’ll never trust Kodak again. if i Ever use it again again it will be in a secondary back.

years ago i was given terrible advice by their help desk which nearly ruined a job i was doing
and never used the developer they recommended again, its been 28 years, so i know what you mean ...
i don't wish kodak will fail and go belly up though ... pretty much every company that is making emulsion
needs them to be around because if they fail some chemicals will be unobtainable or cost prohibitive .
so .. unless you are doing wet plate work, making your own emulsion on a smalls cale, or using digital
if kodak fails, it will be like 1870 all over again, and i don't think you or anyone else wants that ...

 

[Bill Burk]

I’ll never trust Kodak again. And if I ever do use tmax again it will be in a secondary back.

Can you tell us the batch numbers of the affected film and the artifacts involved in that batch.

For example, I had number imprints which were frame numbers completely unrelated to the numbers which would be pressed to the emulsion or back. TMY2 120 batch 0149-002
This led me to conclude the "image" transfer happened on the master backing paper spool, or a roller or blanket of the number imprinter. And that it may have been the vapor of the solvent in the imprint ink (or the fountain solution if it was litho printed) that actually caused the image (I don't know if the presence or absence of solvent or solution caused the image).

 

[AgX]

had number imprints which were frame numbers completely unrelated to the numbers which would be pressed to the emulsion or back. This led me to conclude the "image" transfer happened on the master backing paper spool, or a roller or blanket of the number imprinter.

-) the corresponding figure has no contact with the emulsion, but is divided from it by the base.

-) in converting the film in the factory to type-120 and in respooling after exposure, in both cases unrelated and mirrored figures come in contact with the emulsion. The unrelatedness though in both cases is a fixed shift.

-) if the figures are more unrelated than that, than indeed another kind of invisible "imprint" must have been on the paper.
Whether these are mirrored or not in relation to the orientation of the proper figures to the film as you indicated depends whether these transfers originate from the proper imprint or from some roller other than the proper printing one.
After printing the printed surface comes in contact with another roller or belt.

Though how by this an invisible image of such effect may have been transferred is hard to explain, even taking in consideration wetting fluid. As this would form a negative image of the figures, thus affecting the whole emulsion but not the figure proper. In this case the proper image parts of the emulsion all must be different in density from normal and the artefacts bear standard density.

-) Implying such result, then one could return back to the paper as the cause and arguing that just the printed figures protected the emulsion.

In differenciation the location/orientation of the artefacts is of importance.

I hope there still is the expertise at Kodak to handle such complex issues and not to resort to forum posts to tackle such...


And as I said before, the backing paper problem is no new issue. I have been busy with work-arounds more then ten years ago.