Kodak 120 film - backing paper problems - emulsions affected

OP
OP

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
54,017
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
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

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
2,389
Location
Calgary
Format
Multi Format
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.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
54,017
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Craig said:
Do you know if Canadian market Kodachrome was slit/spooled and packaged in Toronto or in Rochester?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Craig

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
2,389
Location
Calgary
Format
Multi Format
mshchem said:
They have kept the Kodachrome tooling! It's coming back!
Click to expand...
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

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
15,289
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Format
Medium Format
Rats!
 

europanorama

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Messages
381
Location
Basel-CH
Format
Large Format Pan
Gerald C Koch said:
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.
Click to expand...
Maybe contamination of paper only. Kodak should testdevelop non- papered film in 220-cameras.
 

europanorama

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Messages
381
Location
Basel-CH
Format
Large Format Pan
my Agfa Avipan films had been in freezer(not deepfreezer) with multiple interruptions. just go a new kitchen now perfectly stored.
 

lantau

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
826
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
europanorama said:
Maybe contamination of paper only. Kodak should testdevelop non- papered film in 220-cameras.
Click to expand...

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!
 
OP
OP

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
54,017
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
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

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 4, 2016
Messages
6,048
Location
Wherever
Format
Multi Format
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]
 

drkhalsa

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
483
Location
Houston, TX
Format
Multi Format
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.
 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,796
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
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

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
15,289
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Format
Medium Format
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.
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
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

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,792
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
Amen
 

dante

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
60
Format
Medium Format
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

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2004
Messages
618
Location
Montreal
Format
Medium Format
I’ll never trust Kodak again. And if I ever do use tmax again it will be in a secondary back.

 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
fatso said:
I’ll never trust Kodak again. if i Ever use it again again it will be in a secondary back.
Click to expand...

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

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,425
Format
4x5 Format
fatso said:
I’ll never trust Kodak again. And if I ever do use tmax again it will be in a secondary back.
Click to expand...
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

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,972
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format

-) 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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…