Kodak 120 film - backing paper problems - emulsions affected

[MattKing]

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.

Welcome to APUG.
Can you share the "Best Before" date and the batch number?

 

[JoshElchin]

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.

 

[StoneNYC]

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

Yes this is the same issue. Sorry to hear. I had the same issue with Tmax400

Follow the procedure listed in the thread for contacting Kodak and I'm sure they will replace the film.

Be well.

 

[Craig75]

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 too rotten luck

 

[Craig75]

oddly i just saw a photo book today where it seems the guy was using this defect to great effect in his work. at least thats what i thought was happening.

 

[Vaughn]

It would have been perfect if Alex had actually been 16! (Diana camera, out-dated Tech Pan -- scanned silver gelatin print)

 

[Craig75]

i like that one with numbers in - complements the lomo style vignette.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

View attachment 166666

It would have been perfect if Alex had actually been 16! (Diana camera, out-dated Tech Pan -- scanned silver gelatin print)

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!

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

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

That's quite a nice image indeed (Iceland? That pointy islet in the middle distance reminds me of an offshore feature). I was not aware at all the backing problem could also manifest on Kodak's colour films. To see it like this is quite disturbing. I occasionally use Portra 160 but nothing else of colour in the Kodak line-up.

 

[Vaughn]

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!

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.

Josh's example in post 103 seems to be darker than the background sky.

 

[MattKing]

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!

Josh's example in post 103 seems to be darker than the background sky.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Josh's example does appear to be different than the problems seen recently. It does appear to be much more like the classic problem with a red window or other source of unwanted illumination through the backing paper.

 

[Prest_400]

I was browsing around about Lomo 100 CN film and stumbled upon another Ektar Case. In the link, 3rd shot of the sunset, there is a faint "15" frame marking as well as some clumpiness from the paper texture looking close.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/...andscape-lomo-100-backing-paper-imprints.html

Again, the third one. Exp. 09/2016 (produced in 9/2014 then?). Indeed the Lomo ones are really heavy handed.

Another note, I recall reading a thread around (perhaps it wasn't here, instead at RFF) about Ektar not having one of the set of frame numbers printed in the backing, as a user loaded it into a Bessa 6x9 and didn't see anything for the red window. The relevant part in here was that Kodak told him something about them revising the printing because for some reason Ektar had a different set of numbers, lacking the row for that format.

I tend to keep exposed rolls a while in a drawer in my desk awaiting batch expedition to the lab, so far no problems with Portra. I live in the Mediterranean coast and we're often around 60% RH. Curious about triggering the issue.

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

With built in mechanisms for frame counting and film advancement, there is no need for putting numbers on the paper backing.

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[MattKing]

QUOTE: Kodak Alaris sent me thirty rolls to replace unexposed rolls I had purchased which were in the problem batches. I have never suffered the wrapper offset problem myself. To the best of my knowledge, I never exposed any film that came from the problem batches ...

Matt

QUOTE: Thanks for the reply. As a matter of curiosity what did you do with the unexposed rolls that were in the problem batches?

pentaxuser

UPDATE to my answer to pentaxuser

The problem rolls have served me well as I experiment with my own take on "pinhole" - more to follow.

(so far, no problem with the print showing)

 

[MattKing]

(so far, no problem with the print showing)

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.....

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Hasselblad C film backs or later
Mamiya Cxxx

... for starters do not use the numbers. I would guess the same is for some models of Rollei, Broncia, other Mamiya, ...

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why use currently manufactured cameras where there are so many classics like Hasselblad, Rollei, Mamiya, ... that can be bought at great prices?

 

[MattKing]

Why use currently manufactured cameras where there are so many classics like Hasselblad, Rollei, Mamiya, ... that can be bought at great prices?

A significant portion of the users who are new to film photography, many of whom are relatively young.

 

[miha]

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.

There is Linhof: http://linhof.com/en/super-rollex-kassetten/

 

[AgX]

Why use currently manufactured cameras where there are so many classics like Hasselblad, Rollei, Mamiya, ... that can be bought at great prices?

I can buy simple type 120 cameras for 5€. But not a Hasselblad, Rollei or Mamiya.

 

[Agulliver]

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.

 

[R.Gould]

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.

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,