Kodak 120 film - backing paper problems - emulsions affected

Bill Burk · Dec 9, 2018

koraks said:
That's my understanding as well. A friend of mine has been in fairly intensive contact with Alaris after having purchased several dozens of rolls of tmx 120 and noting the problem. Alaris eventually informed him that the combination of ink with bad storage during transport (film stored in a trailer that got too hot) caused the problems. In the end, Alaris swapped his tmx rolls for triX, but the whole episode took many months.

This fits my belief that as moisture moves between emulsion and paper (but blocked by ink) a difference in emulsion water content can result... before, after...

gunnar_g said:
Went back to check my post from Jan 2018. In the example I show a frame with imprints from both before and after the exposure (vertical lines / #2). Film was opened right before the exposure was made.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/i-love-tmax-400-but.156882/

or both.

I had written Kodak last September and sent them a package with film and and a stamp pad ink imprint of the paper illustrating the theory (I'd written some of it up here on Photrio). I was encouraged by PE to contact Kodak...

I had hoped they would go back to a water-based ink. But Kodak has gone to a full gloss coated paper. Kodak has done the right thing and made a backing paper that will not build up a differential of moisture where the ink is.

AgX · Dec 9, 2018

Bill Burk said:
This fits my belief that as moisture moves between emulsion and paper (but blocked by ink) a difference in emulsion water content can result... before, after...

But the typical moisture artefact is that known mottling. Following your theory we should have an overall mottled image except for those figures.

Bill Burk · Dec 9, 2018

6x9 frame 6. Numbers occurred "before" exposure. It's possible they occurred "in camera" - I went rappelling on the last full day of camp. It was really hot out there.

AgX said:
But the typical moisture artefact is that known mottling. Following your theory we should have an overall mottled image except for those figures.

Mottling isn’t ruled out by my theory. You can see the fine paper grain effect in this example.

Mottling probably happens in more extreme cases but the numbers being totally waterproof amplifies the effect... and happens more quickly.

The full gloss coating will probably eliminate mottling too.

Bill Burk · Dec 9, 2018

Bill Burk said:
Where ink touches emulsion (and where a visible image develops), the film develops to less density than where plain paper touches...

I keep saying this wrong too... film develops to greater density where ink touches.... the main thought is there’s a difference in how much moisture enters and leaves the emulsion... where the ink is in contact with it.

DWThomas · Dec 9, 2018

Bill Burk said:
I keep saying this wrong too... film develops to greater density where ink touches.... the main thought is there’s a difference in how much moisture enters and leaves the emulsion... where the ink is in contact with it.

Just had a weird thought (not uncommon ) if the problem is truly just uneven embedded moisture, one might load the questionable film on a reel and leave it in a light-tight drying cabinet for a period of time (hours to days) before development. To me the biggest problem seems to be the mysterious frequency of these incidents could make it difficult to come up with a control group to evaluate the effectiveness of any such process.

I had rolls of 400TX that were in a purportedly suspect batch number and had them replaced. Since I didn't have to return the old ones, I have occasionally shot one of the dubious rolls on some local silly thing that I could repeat if need be, and have not seen any problem. That could be it was seldom seen with 400TX, or maybe it's because I generally don't unseal the film until immediately loading it into the camera and shooting it, then developing almost immediately after. I also don't usually freeze or even refrigerate my film, so there is less likelihood (I hope) of condensation which could be another issue related to the mottling effects occasionally reported.

Who knows -- have to admit it's not confidence inspiring -- but then a wayward static zap from an acrylic knit sweater could probably wreck the contents of a 32 GB SD card too!

Bill Burk · Dec 9, 2018

Thanks DWThomas,

I can certainly reel the film and leave it in a tank for a week or so.

Thanks to fate handing me several rolls of the bad stuff, it seems I will be looking for tests that help confirm the “right thing to do” with bad batches.

Like developing immediately or your idea to air out the film for some time before developing.

I already found pre-soak is ineffective.

removed account4 · Dec 9, 2018

Bill Burk said:
I will be looking for tests that help confirm the “right thing to do” with bad batches.

LOL sounds like a oatmeal ad

i love bad film the best thing to do is know it is flawed
and just enjoy it. i think lomo sells film that is pre-exposed
for double exposures if you ask me, the bad tmy/tmx &c
is pretty much the same thing. so the right thing to do is
just shoot it and enjoy it and see what happens ..
mistakes sometimes turn into great stuff
just look at the moons over my ham sandwich
or the harvey wallbanger ...

Sirius Glass · Dec 9, 2018

jnanian said:
LOL sounds like a oatmeal ad

i love bad film the best thing to do is know it is flawed
and just enjoy it. i think lomo sells film that is pre-exposed
for double exposures if you ask me, the bad tmy/tmx &c
is pretty much the same thing. so the right thing to do is
just shoot it and enjoy it and see what happens ..
mistakes sometimes turn into great stuff
just look at the moons over my ham sandwich
or the harvey wallbanger ...

Not so fast John! Something is not Kosher!

removed account4 · Dec 9, 2018

if one knows there is problems with the film
just buy it to enjoy the random screwups with it
glass is half full .. otherwise i have no clue
why people buy film known to have manufacturing defects
if they have no plans to exploit the natural defects in the film ..
maybe its one of the wonders of the world .. ?
pyramid of giza
gardens of babylon
artemis temple
statue of zeus
halicarnassus
colossus of rhodes
lighthouse of alexandria
and
buying potentially defective film and being upset it is defective

YMMV+sorry if i have offended anybody

Bill Burk · Dec 9, 2018

jnanian said:
i have no clue
why people buy film known to have manufacturing defects
if they have no plans to exploit the natural...

You know me, I love to make things work.

But if I can’t, this film is earmarked for you

removed account4 · Dec 9, 2018

Bill Burk said:
You know me, I love to make things work.

But if I can’t, this film is earmarked for you

hope its kosher !
maybe you need to get a priest, imam or rabbi involved ?

Sirius Glass · Dec 9, 2018

jnanian said:
..
mistakes sometimes turn into great stuff
just look at the moons over my ham sandwich
or the harvey wallbanger ...

Sirius Glass said:
Not so fast John! Something is not Kosher!

Got it now?

Bill Burk · Dec 9, 2018

Sirius Glass said:
Got it now?

Went right over my head, now I get it. Good one haaaaa. My daughter is vegetarian, hope she is OK with what they make film out of. At least we don’t have to eat it.

removed account4 · Dec 10, 2018

Sirius Glass said:
Got it now?

they only use "turkey ham"

Bill Burk · Dec 12, 2018

Another opportunity knocks... While checking the bellows on my Ikonta, I found a finished roll of TMY2. I thought it was empty all this time.

This was indoors for about a year... not as bad as the garage, but definitely ambient temperature for an extended amount of time.

So I am going to test my theory. I'll load it onto a reel but let the reel sit in a tank for a long time before I develop it.

TMZ · Dec 13, 2018

Bill,
I'll await your results with bated breath.
I've just come across this problem.
We, ( a group of photographers here in Australia), have between the 4 of us 400 rolls of the affected TriX 120.
I have 120 of those rolls...

TX120, Batch 0911 011 exp 9/2017.

As most of us have been stockpiling our films, we work thru older stock before the first of us arrived at using this batch and the negs are bad.

Same issue as reported here,with imprints showing...especially noticeable in skies. Interestingly the imprint does not appear in the space between the frames.

Two of us are full time working professionals with over 30 and 40 years using analog materials, and Kodak Tri-X being a major part of that.

Personally I've lugged 120 Tri-X through the really bad conditions from the Amazon to the Andes, frozen eastern European winters, even Asian heat and humidity nightmares, processed in 30'C dodgy water and films from submerged (wet) cameras....never came across this.
I love Kodak BW materials, esp the films, TX, TMY and TMZ (well done for Kodak bringing that back!), hence the stockpiling.

Now will begin the process to see how we're going to get that mass of film replaced!

I'm going to start detailed testing on Mon, as I've got to gather samples from the 4 groups of film.

Mine have been in deep freeze, while another has been in a fridge, another in a cool cupboard (this was the rolls I processed this week), and another in our studio, having passed through one hot summer

MattKing · Dec 13, 2018

TMZ said:
Now will begin the process to see how we're going to get that mass of film replaced!

Email Thomas Mooney at profilm@kodakalaris.com. My film was replaced promptly, without need of testing.
Your enquiry might be referred to someone in Australia, but my film came directly from Rochester (across the US-Canada border).

Saganich · Dec 13, 2018

So the backing paper has changed into a paper/plastic like hybrid material that is shiny with plastic like smoothness, brighter colors and darker numbering. So far no issues in the old cameras and no imprinting.

TMZ · Dec 14, 2018

MattKing said:
Email Thomas Mooney at profilm@kodakalaris.com. My film was replaced promptly, without need of testing.
Your enquiry might be referred to someone in Australia, but my film came directly from Rochester (across the US-Canada border).

Hi Matt,

Thanks for that, I've sent him an email.

The person we spoke with yesterday at Kodak Alaris here in Melbourne had absolutely no idea what we were talking about.

I've keep you guys updated RE tests and comms with profilm@kodakalaris.com

Cheers!

AgX · Dec 14, 2018

TMZ said:
Same issue as reported here,with imprints showing...especially noticeable in skies. Interestingly the imprint does not appear in the space between the frames.

Obviously effective interaction is not with the emulsion as such, but with the latent image.

lantau · Dec 14, 2018

As a further data point to reassure users of fresh TMX... in May I used a single roll with the new glossy backing paper on my Usbekistan trip, exposed the entire roll in one session and kept it in the fridge until I finally developed it some time in November. Hence six months between exposure and development. It also received several treatments of airport x-ray, btw. So far I didn't find any imprints.

To be fair I didn't really do a detailed check of the negatives. I guess I could use a 10x loupe and take a very close look. But I made a contact sheet and one print (216mm x 216mm), so far, of a single frame and I don't see anything wrong with it.

Amador · Dec 15, 2018

I just developed 4 rolls of Tmax400 with the same issue. I can see the frame numbers and “Kodak” on all of them. So disappointing. These are the images that would have made me famous too ;-)

All rolls have been refrigerated, were brought up to room temp before loading and developed within 24hrs of exposing them. As the rolls were loaded onto my reels in a changing bag and promptly discarded, I didn’t notice if the backing was shiny or matte.

Lot #0158 001 EXP 5/2020

Such a bummer.

faberryman · Dec 15, 2018

Amador said:
I just developed 4 rolls of Tmax400 with the same issue. I can see the frame numbers and “Kodak” on all of them. So disappointing. These are the images that would have made me famous too ;-)

All rolls have been refrigerated, were brought up to room temp before loading and developed within 24hrs of exposing them. As the rolls were loaded onto my reels in a changing bag and promptly discarded, I didn’t notice if the backing was shiny or matte.

Lot #0158 001 EXP 5/2020

Such a bummer.

The TMax400 with the new backing paper starts with emulsion 159.

Bill Burk · Dec 15, 2018

Amador said:
I just developed 4 rolls of Tmax400 with the same issue. I can see the frame numbers and “Kodak” on all of them. So disappointing. These are the images that would have made me famous too ;-)

All rolls have been refrigerated, were brought up to room temp before loading and developed within 24hrs of exposing them. As the rolls were loaded onto my reels in a changing bag and promptly discarded, I didn’t notice if the backing was shiny or matte.

Lot #0158 001 EXP 5/2020

Such a bummer.

Can you tell if the numbers were formed before or after exposure?

dante · Dec 21, 2018

Is any part of this associated with twisting the film tighter on the spool after you have unloaded the shot film (i.e., trying to counteract fat rolling by the camera)? This would increase heat and friction between numbers and latent images, and I can't imagine it helps. I stopped doing that a while back, but it was also around the time the "grey number" 154 came out.

Kodak 120 film - backing paper problems - emulsions affected

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency