Kodak 120 film - backing paper problems - emulsions affected

[John Wiegerink]

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

Are you absolutely sure they don't print their own backing paper? If that's the case then this problem should have been solved months ago. The last time I worked in a factory was about 50 years ago, but I know one thing for certain and that is if we had a supplier of raw goods or whatever and they delivered an inferior product they would end up eating it or they wouldn't be supplying us anymore. I cannot believe Kodak Alaris would continue to do business with them. We've all heard about the "only one backing paper supplier" before, but it really seems strange other film manufactures don't have this problem? Yes, Yes I know we've heard they have, but nothing like this. I wonder if it ever will be solved?

 

[lensmagic]

I have made the switch to the Delta films.

 

[MattKing]

Are you absolutely sure they don't print their own backing paper?

Yes. They haven't had the capability to do so for a long time now. It is a very complex paper product that requires specialized equipment and knowledgeable staff to manufacture and print. Neither version of Kodak have that equipment and staff any more.
And my understanding is that the specialty paper manufacturer supplied them with backing paper that met their specifications and passed all the quality checks that they had used historically when they did make the backing paper.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that the newer emulsions made by Eastman Kodak and the modern inks used by the backing paper manufacturer are interacting in the same ways that the old products did. So they have reduced the ink levels substantially (as other manufacturers such as Ilford have done in the past).
There will always be some problem with wrapper offset with 120 film. It is always subject to factors like heat, humidity and improper handling. Traditionally, the film was more susceptible than it has been in recent years, but every time there is a major change in formulation of either the film or the backing, that susceptibility may change.

 

[MattKing]

I have made the switch to the Delta films.

And when Harman receives their next order of backing paper from its supplier, it is hoped that their already reduced ink levels will prevent problems like those experienced by Kodak.

 

[John Wiegerink]

And when Harman receives their next order of backing paper from its supplier, it is hoped that their already reduced ink levels will prevent problems like those experienced by Kodak.

Matt,
Ok, now I understand Kodak is not in control of paper, ink or printing. The question still remains, why would a company like Kodak allow a supplier to supply them with an ink that causes this problem. Why not tell the supplier to go back to the old style ink and we'll all live happily ever after. I don't like the idea of cutting the density of the ink just to solve the problem. If we can't read the numbers through our ruby windows then what the heck are the numbers good for? Might just as well not print anything on the paper then. Just a real nagging problem here and I just don't understand why it can't get resolved.

 

[MattKing]

The current and available supplier didn't print the old ink or make the old paper, so it isn't as simple as just asking them to make the old stuff. They themselves never made the old stuff for Kodak, and they use different machines, etc. than Kodak did.
And there certainly are cameras and ruby windows that do work with the new, faint numbers - just not all the cameras that used to work with the old numbers. The cameras that are now problematic with the new numbers were already problematic with Ilford films, who transitioned to the fainter numbers some time ago, due to their problems with wrapper offset.
And of course resolution of a problem that only occurs under some, not totally identified circumstances and doesn't occur all of the time or with every film is far harder to accomplish than something that always occurs or occurs always when certain circumstances are encountered. As far as I am aware, the problem hasn't been easy to replicate in the laboratory.
The problem may indeed be substantially resolved, if one is able to accept faint numbering. As I understand it, Kodak belives they have resolved the problem with all but T-Max 100, whose peculiarities are causing them more problems. To date, I have seen only one reference to the recent films encountering it, and we don't know if there may have been something like extreme heat or humidity involved there.

 

[lpt10]

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.

This is a problem. I currently live in SE Asia and the weather is always hot and humid all year long. I don't currently store film in the freezer, but in the fridge, only 120 film presently, closed in its wrapping container.
When it's to be used, i remove it from the fridge the day before, and i always develop it soon after shooting, whenever possible. Do you think carrying some kind of film box with silica gel / desiccant would help until you're home and able to develop the film?

 

[railwayman3]

Find an established papermaker in China....they'll sort out exactly what is needed, with no problems. A friend of mine is a designer and supplier of small, highly specialised, hi-tech engineering components. His US supplier decided his needs and small orders were no longer worth bothering with . His new supplier in China is more efficient, better QC and better prices.

 

[removed account4]

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

don't they do extensive tests on products they subcontract and buy from vendors ?
and if they buy from overseas do they have a testing facility there to test it themselves
rather than trust the company providing for them?
im surprised they even sell 120 film anymore considering for over a year
there has been nothing but trouble. and i am equally surprised the other companies
that make 120 film don't have the same trouble ( for over a year ) when there s only 1 maker of the paper for 120 film.

really weird.

 

[DWThomas]

I still have a bit of a problem believing the only one supplier bit, as to my eye, the backing paper from Fuji Acros looks considerably different from some of the other backing papers, especially in surface finish. Now perhaps that is a consequence of some printing operation which may be handled by other than the paper maker, and by or not by, the film producer. My assumption is that at least some of the changes were to avoid environmentally unfriendly components used in earlier inks, something that's been going on for several decades with printing in general.

All that said, I have run the newer Kodak backing paper through my red window cameras successfully. In my Perkeo II (6x6) I only need to find frame 1, after that I flip a lever and it indexes mechanically. My Ercona II (6x9) is strictly red window and I've run several rolls through it without incident. Admittedly one needs to observe more carefully than in the past. Even with ISO 400 film, I've not encountered a problem with letting enough light in that window to read what's there. (I've not yet tried my Brownie Target Six-20!)

The one major problem was that where there had been a triple row of numbering for 6x9 format, the big K dropped one row. If one of your cameras uses that, ya gotta problem.

 

[R.Gould]

Asabove, Fomapan and Rollei both use the same backing paper and it is very different to either Kodak or Ilford, it is heavier, thicker, than anything else I have usede, in fact with my Folders with built in auto wind such as my Balda Super Baldax and Ensign Autorange only Rollei/Foma films are able to be auto wound due to the thickness of the backing paper, so if there is only one maker left they must be making different pa[ers for different film makers to order, If that is the case surely Kodak would be able to say this is what we want, and spescie requirementrs, I can't believe this problem has gone on for so long, so is the backing paper at fault or is it something else, storage after exposing, storage before exposing, it can't believe that Kodak is entirely at fault, could be the end user, I don't know, but I do support Kodak, and have done so for many years, I used to use Tri X and Tmax 400, without any problems, and I still use Kodak Colour films when I need colour, sadly,however, it seems that it is a case of the buck stops here, at Kodak

 

[John Wiegerink]

Well, I certainly feel better after reading the above posts and now knowing that I'm not alone in my thinking about the supplier thing. LPT10, I spent a nice? 12 month vacation in Vietnam back in the late 60's and I can relate to the heat and humidity. Did I say HUMIDITY? A friend of mine there used a Yashicamat as his carry camera and never once did we see any numbers in the sky on his shots. Monsoons, extremely high heat and terrible humidity had no bearing on his film results, but of course at that time we only used Tri-X.

 

[Prest_400]

Upon close examination of some scans and with software sliding and a closer look there are faint numbers. But another related issue that isn't discussed as much and is quite annoying to me is the mottling... That film picks backing paper texture. I will have to contact the lab to discard any Dev issue though.
I got them on Portra 400 12/2017 and the mottling is with 08/2018 Ektar.

I hope Kodak get around it soon. The particularity is that I tend to batch up so film sits exposed for a couple months and that must accelerate the process. I live by the coast, ~60% RH and had this batch laying around the desk. The unexposed film was around a shelf as well. Guess I'll have to put them into the Refrigerator instead.

Was thinking that my house conditions may have to do:
The Portra was purchased in January 2016, sat around unrefrigerated all the time. One roll exposed February 2016, Developed May 2016: No problems at all. But the exposed roll I stored on a drawer. Fast Forward to October, exposing one Roll in 2 weeks time, Developed before Xmas... Stored on my desk (away from any direct sunlight but on shade). It's quite possible that the higher humidity of open air helped it.

Now, I have an idea of doing a trip to SE Asia sometime in the future. That may simply kill the film. 25ºC+, almost 100% RH and sitting around for a month or more. Perhaps it's a lack of APUGers living in those areas, but not many recollections of the issue.

Too bad 220 has the backing paper MOQ production issues, because it wouldn't have the imprinting problems and as a bonus may be flatter in camera.

 

[Daniel He]

I purchased 60 rolls of Kodak Ektar 100, number is CAT8314098. I found almost every roll has back number when I shot ten rolls.
I contacted to Kodak company. I was replied with reason of over warmed during delivery.
I was angry but have no idea.

 

[MattKing]

I purchased 60 rolls of Kodak Ektar 100, number is CAT8314098. I found almost every roll has back number when I shot ten rolls.
I contacted to Kodak company. I was replied with reason of over warmed during delivery.
I was angry but have no idea.

Did you use profilm@kodakalaris.com to contact them?
Do you know what the "Develop Before" date is, and the batch number?

 

[Daniel He]

The develop before time is 12/2016, and the batch number is 1201014
Actually I shot and developed before that time, but I did scan recently. They couldn't treat me like that.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

They couldn't treat me like that.

Did they offer you any compensation or say if the problem is fixed? I haven't been shooting medium format because of this issue, using 35mm instead.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Did they offer you any compensation or say if the problem is fixed? I haven't been shooting medium format because of this issue, using 35mm instead.

Compensation? I book a flight from Michigan to Iceland to shoot the fantastic scenery that Iceland has to offer. I bring 30 rolls of Kodak TMY2 120 film and 20 rolls of 120 Ektar 100. I have it hand inspected to make sure there is no Xray damage and also keep it stored properly. Upon returning to the States I have the film processed promptly. When I get it back I notice that all my scenes with sky and snow/ice in them also has a special added feature. Yup, the free advertising that Kodak is using on my negatives. They are plastered with numbers and the word Kodak. Now, in response to the word "compensation", I believe Kodak owes me a free, all expense paid trip back to Iceland for another go at the scenes that are all ruined by their "free advertising".
No, that's not a true story, but I think you get my drift. There is NO compensation for a situation like that. For years I shot weddings and I'd have been real pissed off if I got my proofs back and the Bride had the word Kodak tattooed across her dress. What do you do then, ask them to have another ceremony when they return from their honeymoon? I'm sorry, but I will not use any Kodak film for anything until I hear no more of this paper backing/ink bullshit. I'm not really trying badmouth Kodak, but enough is enough. Yes, I LOVE TMY2, but not now! I use Kodak Xtol and it's a great product, but that too had a bumpy start. It didn't take Kodak long to get the problem with Xtol solved, but this backing paper fiasco is taking way to long.

 

[Daniel He]

Did they offer you any compensation or say if the problem is fixed? I haven't been shooting medium format because of this issue, using 35mm instead.

They dianose it belongs to improper delivery method, they are innocent.
I booked 100 rolls of Fuji pro today, leave Kodak far away from now on.

 

[MattKing]

Where did you buy it?

 

[Daniel He]

Where did you buy it?

I bought them in China six months ago.

 

[MattKing]

Was the film purchased from a film retailer or a re-seller or an individual?
It would be very old stock if from a retailer.

 

[Daniel He]

Was the film purchased from a film retailer or a re-seller or an individual?
It would be very old stock if from a retailer.

Yes, I bought from a retailer, like every one else.
I used Fuji film at the same condition, never found this problem. With high recommandation from my friends, I started to use Kodak 100.
Any way I like other products from Kodak, not films now.

 

[MattKing]

If you didn't deal directly with Thomas Mooney at Kodak Alaris, you should definitely contact him at the email address I posted, set out all the details (including what you have posted here and details about the retailer and the transaction) and ask for a reconsideration.
Even if you did deal with Mr. Mooney, you should still ask for a reconsideration.
They are probably correct that the problem occurred because of poor transport. And they (|Kodak Alaris) would be entitled to refuse compensation if the film wasn't purchased by the retailer from an authorized distribution channel.

 

[Daniel He]

If you didn't deal directly with Thomas Mooney at Kodak Alaris, you should definitely contact him at the email address I posted, set out all the details (including what you have posted here and details about the retailer and the transaction) and ask for a reconsideration.
Even if you did deal with Mr. Mooney, you should still ask for a reconsideration.
They are probably correct that the problem occurred because of poor transport. And they (|Kodak Alaris) would be entitled to refuse compensation if the film wasn't purchased by the retailer from an authorized distribution channel.

I did sent Mr. Mooney email, he didn't reply me directly. Instead, the Kodak Shanghai Co. replied me with that solution.
I live in Toronto now, and shot in Toronto, developed in Toronto. It's difficult to contact retailer in China for me.