MattKing
Moderator
Welcome to APUG.
Can you share the "Best Before" date and the batch number?
Welcome to APUG.I am new to this post but I am glad that I have found it due to having the exact same problem recently with 3 rolls of 120 Kodak Ektar 100 about a month ago. All images have the imprinted backing paper wording on them, some more noticeable than others but will be contacting Kodak. I am glad that it is not just me and some mistake I made because previously I never had a problem with Ektar.
I currently have two 5 pack boxes, but the one that I have had problems with are from batch 1231 011, Best Before Dates are 11/2017. I am attaching an example form the rolls. I highlighted the area where the imprinting can be seen best in red. Along with the imprinting, these rolls also have a very strange pattern throughout. The clumping pattern seen in this image are not present on any other scanned negative that I have done.Welcome to APUG.
Can you share the "Best Before" date and the batch number?
I currently have two 5 pack boxes, but the one that I have had problems with are from batch 1231 011, Best Before Dates are 11/2017. I am attaching an example form the rolls. I highlighted the area where the imprinting can be seen best in red. Along with the imprinting, these rolls also have a very strange pattern throughout. The clumping pattern seen in this image are not present on any other scanned negative that I have done.
View attachment 166649
killing it with that photo tooI currently have two 5 pack boxes, but the one that I have had problems with are from batch 1231 011, Best Before Dates are 11/2017. I am attaching an example form the rolls. I highlighted the area where the imprinting can be seen best in red. Along with the imprinting, these rolls also have a very strange pattern throughout. The clumping pattern seen in this image are not present on any other scanned negative that I have done.
View attachment 166649
Note the defect as seen in message #1 in this message thread results in WHITE numbers on a positive print and NOT black numbers as seen on your attachment!View attachment 166666
It would have been perfect if Alex had actually been 16! (Diana camera, out-dated Tech Pan -- scanned silver gelatin print)
I currently have two 5 pack boxes, but the one that I have had problems with are from batch 1231 011, Best Before Dates are 11/2017. I am attaching an example form the rolls. I highlighted the area where the imprinting can be seen best in red. Along with the imprinting, these rolls also have a very strange pattern throughout. The clumping pattern seen in this image are not present on any other scanned negative that I have done.
View attachment 166649
My numbers could have come from too much light getting through the red window while advancing the film (but one would think one would see the image of the window, also.. I'd have to track down that roll of negatives to see if any other numbers showed up. But it was film that expired a few decades before being used with an unknown storage history.Note the defect as seen in message #1 in this message thread results in WHITE numbers on a positive print and NOT black numbers as seen on your attachment!
Note the defect as seen in message #1 in this message thread results in WHITE numbers on a positive print and NOT black numbers as seen on your attachment!
Thanks for pointing this out.Josh's example in post 103 seems to be darker than the background sky.
With just one exception that I am aware of, all of the 120 film cameras and film backs currently being manufactured rely on the numbers on the backing paper. In addition, there are large numbers of old 120 old film cameras out there that remain perfectly usable, but rely on those numbers.With built in mechanisms for frame counting and film advancement, there is no need for putting numbers on the paper backing.
Sadly, an update. I scanned a couple and, while working at high magnifications, I noticed a faint "KODAK" in one area. It may not even show when printed, still.....(so far, no problem with the print showing)
All of the Kodak backing paper appears to be going through change, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Ektar (and eventually Portra) is losing the extra numbers too.
With built in mechanisms for frame counting and film advancement, there is no need for putting numbers on the paper backing.
With just one exception that I am aware of, all of the 120 film cameras and film backs currently being manufactured rely on the numbers on the backing paper. In addition, there are large numbers of old 120 old film cameras out there that remain perfectly usable, but rely on those numbers.
A significant portion of the users who are new to film photography, many of whom are relatively young.Why use currently manufactured cameras where there are so many classics like Hasselblad, Rollei, Mamiya, ... that can be bought at great prices?
Sirius:
The only currently manufactured film camera back that I know of that uses 120 film and doesn't use the numbers is the recently re-introduced Hasselblad film back.
All of the other currently manufactured cameras that I know of - pinhole cameras, Holgas?, etc. - use the numbers.
For many people who are interested in trying medium format, the gateway involves older folding cameras that use the numbers. Removal of those numbers excludes that option. The burgeoning market for newly built pinhole cameras needs those numbers as well.
I can buy simple type 120 cameras for 5€. But not a Hasselblad, Rollei or Mamiya.Why use currently manufactured cameras where there are so many classics like Hasselblad, Rollei, Mamiya, ... that can be bought at great prices?
Kodak is not the only film maker, and while I agree that kodak film is great, I like using my folders, I have a few of them, so instead of leaving them on the shelf I changed to Foma,ilford and other films that give me the numbers I need without the problems that seem to have beset Kodak, shame but there it is,Why render the millions of functional cameras which use those printed numbers unusable? Not everyone can afford or even wants a Hasselblad or Mamiya. There are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions of high quality folding rollfilm cameras which rely on those numbers. There is nothing wrong with these cameras, it is the film/backing paper which is at fault.
And for those who like lo-fi photography, why render useless all the Diana cameras and similar? Of the six 120 format cameras that I own, only one functions without those numbers. It almost feels like "sirius glass" is telling me I shouldn't be allowed to use these.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?