Kodak 120 film - backing paper problems - emulsions affected

DWThomas

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
4,615
Location
SE Pennsylvania
Format
Multi Format
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

Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Messages
153
Format
Medium Format
 

lensmagic

Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Messages
153
Format
Medium Format
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

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,045
Location
Ann Arbor, Mi
Format
Multi Format
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

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
1,154
Location
Southend on Sea Essex UK
Format
Plastic Cameras
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 They are a little out of date but have been stored well in cool conditions and all the other films that I have both ie 35mm and other 120 films, have been fine.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

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
635
Format
Medium Format
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

 

Chris Livsey

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
635
Format
Medium Format
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

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
6,805
Location
South Texas
Format
Multi Format
Ha ha a Photoshop "Faulty Paper Backing" plug-in.
 

Gerald C Koch

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
8,131
Location
Southern USA
Format
Multi Format
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

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2015
Messages
6
Format
Multi Format
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
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
7,533
Location
San Clemente, California
Format
Multi Format
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

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,045
Location
Ann Arbor, Mi
Format
Multi Format
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

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

lensmagic

Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Messages
153
Format
Medium Format
I was surprised to learn that Kodak Aleris is a British firm.
 

AgX

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

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
54,023
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
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

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2017
Messages
25
Location
Milky Way
Format
Med. Format RF
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

Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Messages
153
Format
Medium Format
One would think that of all the companies in the world, we could rely on Kodak to produce good film.
 
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
5,462
Location
.
Format
Digital
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

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Messages
1,297
Location
Brooklyn
Format
35mm RF

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.
 
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
5,462
Location
.
Format
Digital
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

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,798
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
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.
 
OP
OP

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
54,023
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Sadly, neither K|odak makes or prints the backing paper, and doesn't buy the ink.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…