Kodak 120 film - backing paper problems - emulsions affected

[DWThomas]

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.

I generally agree with your sentiment, but as R.Gould suggests, there are alternatives, at least for B&W. I've quite happily used Ilford FP4+ and HP5+, as well as Fuji Acros in my folders -- but I've also shot recent vintage 400TX.

I think it's only a few 6x9 species that are affected. In my Ercona II, the Kodak numbers show. But that said, there must be a reason there have been two or three rows of numbers for each format. Likely the viewport locations on cameras weren't standardized -- either at all, or not until 20 or 30 years of production -- pretty common in the technology world. Also IIRC, somewhere in this or a parallel thread there was an indication Kodak was not done "fixing" the problem.

 

[lensmagic]

There are already two threads about this subject, but in the interest of making it easy to find the information about problem batches, I've brazenly decided to copy a couple of posts from those threads, to make it easy to find the information.

The threads are this one: (there was a url link here which no longer exists) ;

and this one: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

From Michael R 1974's post #195 in the latter thread:

Some more information about the affected emulsion numbers below in this excerpt from John Sexton's latest newsletter. The full newsletter can be found here http://www.johnsexton.com/newsletter05-2016.html


IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR USERS OF 120 FORMAT KODAK PROFESSIONAL FILMS- PLEASE READ

As many readers are likely aware, I have used Kodak Professional film continuously for more than four decades. Over the years I have found Kodak film to be of the highest possible quality and consistency. However, anomalies can occur from time to time. There have been recent reports that appear to be associated with certain batches of 120 format Kodak Professional film.

The problem can easily be seen in the photograph below recently made by William Wetmore. I appreciate William allowing me to share this example with readers. You will notice the word Kodak clearly appears in the sky, along with frame number '13' multiple times. I first became aware of this situation a few months ago when a former workshop participant brought some online discussions on this topic to my attention. Unfortunately, as time has passed, I have encountered a number of students, colleagues, and friends who have experienced this exact problem.

©2016 William Wetmore. All rights reserved.

I have spoken at length with Thomas J. Mooney, Film Capture Business Manager at Kodak Alaris about this phenomenon. He told me "Kodak Alaris has had a limited number of inquiries for similar problems, and that the affected film may have seen some abnormal keeping after it left the factory (e.g. sat in a truck over a hot weekend, etc.). That said, we are taking this issue very seriously and have recently made modifications to the backing paper which we believe should minimize the potential for this type of blemish going forward."

Mr. Mooney has supplied me with the emulsion numbers - which I have listed below – where this latent image print issue could potentially be seen. If you have experienced problems, or have questions or concerns, you should email Profilm@Kodakalaris.com. This email address goes directly to Mr. Mooney, who will be able to answer your questions, address your concerns, and replace any problematic film you might have on hand or have used.

If you purchase new film you should make sure that the emulsion number, printed on the box as well as the individual foil packages, is higher than the suspect emulsion numbers listed below. All photographers can imagine the disappointment and frustration any of us would feel if this happened to any of our negatives. Please pass this important news on to your photographic friends.

Emulsion numbers that may exhibit the above problem only in Kodak 120 format roll film:
(Emulsion numbers can be found on the film box, the foil wrapper, and printed on the clear edge of processed film near frame number 11.

Kodak T-Max 400
Emulsion 0148 004 through 0152

Kodak T-Max 100
Emulsion 0961 through 0981

Kodak Tri-X
Emulsion 0871 though 0931

 

[lensmagic]

Oh, thank God I only have six bad rolls of 400TMax and three bad rolls of 100 TMax. Kodak's batting average is not as good as Ted Williams's. But then, sadly, Ted Williams is dead. Where does that leave our close friends at Kodak?

 

[RattyMouse]

Oh, thank God I only have six bad rolls of 400TMax and three bad rolls of 100 TMax. Kodak's batting average is not as good as Ted Williams's. But then, sadly, Ted Williams is dead. Where does that leave our close friends at Kodak?

Ted Williams' head is cryogenicly frozen. Perhaps there's some TMAX on ice with him.

 

[tezzasmall]

I've only scanned quickly through a lot of the posts, but I have to say that the numbers appearing on the film has just happened to me recently with ILFORD films = 120 HP5. They are a little out of date but have been stored well in cool conditions and all the other films that I have both ie 35mm and other 120 films, have been fine. Browsing in google, the repeated comments (about Ilford films doing this) say that it is a film aging problem(?) I will bin the last two rolls of the 120 HP5 that I have and test an ISO 3200 120 film to see if that's affected. I think I will only buy in small batches OF ANY FILM in the future and if able, store it in the fridges salad draw. Then at the first sight of it happening again, I will only have a few films lost to the bin.

Terry S

 

[Chris Livsey]

I've only scanned quickly through a lot of the posts, but I have to say that the numbers appearing on the film has just happened to me recently with ILFORD films = 120 HP5.
Terry S

This is seriously OOD HP5+ strangely the numbers are indistinct but the paper has left its mark

 

[John Wiegerink]

This is seriously OOD HP5+ strangely the numbers are indistinct but the paper has left its mark

Chris, many of us or at least me anyway, would like to replicate that same pattern, but probably never will be able to. That is just cool!

 

[Chris Livsey]

Chris, many of us or at least me anyway, would like to replicate that same pattern, but probably never will be able to. That is just cool!

I know!! I said at the time it should be a Photoshop action or Instagram filter, it did actually make Flickr Explore so it's not just you that likes it, I have some more rolls

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Ha ha a Photoshop "Faulty Paper Backing" plug-in.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Chris, many of us or at least me anyway, would like to replicate that same pattern, but probably never will be able to. That is just cool!

The effect is quite striking. You should be able to replicate it by making a mask.

 

[FootZoom]

Just got 2 rolls back from lab that were from a complimentary box of 400TMax sent by Kodak to replace faulty rolls:
The problem isn't solved: backing paper printing on all frames.

batch 0153 002
exp 04/2018

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Just got 2 rolls back from lab that were from a complimentary box of 400TMax sent by Kodak to replace faulty rolls:
The problem isn't solved: backing paper printing on all frames.

batch 0153 002
exp 04/2018

Have you informed Thomas Mooney about this? If not, please do. If so, what was his response?

 

[RattyMouse]

Just got 2 rolls back from lab that were from a complimentary box of 400TMax sent by Kodak to replace faulty rolls:
The problem isn't solved: backing paper printing on all frames.

batch 0153 002
exp 04/2018

This is VERY bad news.

 

[drkhalsa]

This is VERY bad news.

So, I bought a box of TMax 400 yesterday at a local camera shop. After reading the previous 2 posts, I decided to check the batch number and it's the same as FootZoom's film. I shot and developed a roll today and there is no apparent problem with numbers and letters transferring on the film.

 

[removed account4]

The effect is quite striking. You should be able to replicate it by making a mask.

i know, its beautiful, and reminds me of taking a photo out the window of a fast moving car.

 

[lensmagic]

I was surprised to learn that Kodak Aleris is a British firm.

 

[AgX]

It was founded by a british entity to ensure british interests. That most probably was the reason to base it in the UK...
Though in current times of tax evasion that is rather a conservative thinking.

 

[MattKing]

Kodak Alaris is owned by the pension fund in place for the benefit of Kodak Limited workers and pensioners. Kodak Limited was the subsidiary of Eastman Kodak that operated in the UK. The largest Kodak outside of the US. At its heyday, Kodak Limited was a huge employer - far, far, far larger than the current Eastman Kodak.

 

[lpt10]

Just got 2 rolls back from lab that were from a complimentary box of 400TMax sent by Kodak to replace faulty rolls:
The problem isn't solved: backing paper printing on all frames.

batch 0153 002
exp 04/2018

Hi
I have batches 0153 002, 0153 003. Did you store the film in the fridge by any chance? Were there any somewhat rapid humidity and/or temperature changes that could cause some condensation? I'm starting to wonder what is going on, because i actually noticed one shot of Portra 800, 120 format, with numbers on, but not all. The cameras used, Fuji GS645 and a Mamiya 6 have no window on the backplate.
The case with the Portra 800 was strange. I bought it fresh, but only some frames had this.
What's the general view here? Could this be caused by some kind of light leak? Or temperature, humidity changes and condensation?

 

[lensmagic]

One would think that of all the companies in the world, we could rely on Kodak to produce good film.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Or temperature, humidity changes and condensation?

This is one thing a finger can be pointed at. Among other reasons, including those discussed much earlier in this thread, anomalies in-storage at the Kodak distribution facility.
But also improper storage post-exposure (by user): high humidity / condensation, prolonged time before the roll is actually processed... whatever.

 

[Saganich]

This is one thing a finger can be pointed at. Among other reasons, including those discussed much earlier in this thread, anomalies in-storage at the Kodak distribution facility.
But also improper storage post-exposure (by user): high humidity / condensation, prolonged time before the roll is actually processed... whatever.

The box I bought had the problem inconsistently between rolls. One roll was affected the next wasn't all shot, stored, developed under same conditions. Definitely not user error. The newer versions with faint numbering hasn't been an issue yet.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

The newer versions with faint numbering hasn't been an issue yet

That faint numbering is infuriating with cameras such as ZeroImage pinhole cameras with red frame count windows. My most recent roll of TMAX 100 wasted 2 frames as the numbers were near impossible let to see. Back to ACROS 100!

 

[John Wiegerink]

That faint numbering is infuriating with cameras such as ZeroImage pinhole cameras with red frame count windows. My most recent roll of TMAX 100 wasted 2 frames as the numbers were near impossible let to see. Back to ACROS 100!

I agree! My best cameras are a vintage Kodak Monitor 620 (I respool my film from 120) and a stunning Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta C. Plus, I use several other roll film cameras with the "ruby window" and find this move by Kodak to be a kick in the face for us vintage users. I'm sure that sales of 120 film goes mostly to modern medium format cameras, but there is a very large group of use Neanderthals out there yet. To me it seems this lighter dye/ink was an easy way out of a problem that started by somebody decided on a certain type of dye/ink and now they don't want to correct it by getting a different ink, paper or whatever. It's probably a case of them (Kodak Alaris) buying a million gallons of the damn stuff and now they are stuck with it and were stuck with a terrible backing paper/ink combination. For me it's now Ilford Delta films and HP5+ and FP4+. I also have a stock of Fuji Across also and find it a great 100 speed film. TMY2 is the best 400 speed film made, but is useless to me. At least for now anyway.

 

[MattKing]

Sadly, neither K|odak makes or prints the backing paper, and doesn't buy the ink.