Kodak 120 film backing problem currently?

MultiFormat Shooter said:

Packaged by Ilford, emulsion is made by Fuji.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/fujifilm-neopan-acros-ii-test-report.176672/

Click to expand...

Fuji may be making the emulsion, as far I can tell Ilford does the rest, including coating. If you have specific reference where it says Fuji is coating master rolls, then ships to UK just for slitting and all the rest ... show me. Please don't link just a thread somewhere with countless pages.

MattKing said:

The newest Kodak 120 backing paper is almost plastic looking, and all indications are that it is much more resistant to wrapper offset than the problematic batches.
Wrapper offset will never disappear entirely, but the most recent Kodak solution seems to have reduced the frequency of occurrence back to the more common, very infrequent levels.

Click to expand...

I noticed this with 120 Ektachrome, almost looks like a protective cap? I've been fortunate never has trouble with any film in 120.

calico said:

But why are the backing and emulsion interacting? That is the question. Has the paper changed in the last few years? Or does some other change in the process of manufacturing cause the interaction later? What about all the years FP4 existed without this specs/mottling problem? Something has changed. I have not changed how I store or handle film.

Click to expand...

That basically a problem was approaching around backing paper already was clear more then ten years ago. I myself was involved in alternative approaches.

MattKing said:

They always have interacted - in the wrong circumstances. It is the frequency of interaction that appears to have increased, although at least part of that appearance is likely due to the incredible ability of the internet to spread bad news.
A lot of things have changed. There is essentially only one paper manufacturer left who makes the paper and prints the necessary information on it - it is quite complex, not least because it isn't the same thickness throughout. The inks being used now are different due to changes in the industry, and that means the paper has to be adapted to them. Any changes in FP4+ can also lead to new interactions, because it is the emulsion contacting the backing paper that results in the problem.
Most problematic though are the changes in the distribution channels, and the resulting changes in what happens to film before it gets to you. One thing to consider is that any Ilford film that makes it to the US goes by ship - I doubt that it is refrigerated.
Harman has posted in the past that it costs them more to buy the backing paper for a roll of 120 than it does to make the film itself, and that the minimum order requirements of the manufacturer are a considerable burden to them.

Click to expand...

All helpful information, thanks.

I didn't know these problems always existed.

I've been shooting medium format for 12 years and only experienced the problem in the last couple of years. There was the one problem Tmax roll. And I've had the specs/mottling on quite a number of rolls of FP4. I'd have to go through all my negs to count, but I'd say at least 10 rolls, maybe more, in two years. And I'm not prolific. Can take me a couple of weeks to shoot one roll. I wasn't dealing with it at first because it wasn't showing as I was using the photos. I thought it might be a lab development problem. My friend who had the problem in her Pan F film has been shooting Pan F for decades and just started to have the problem with the specs two years ago. So I rather doubt that it just seems the problem is worse now because the internet exists so people can spread the word more easily.

I do understand your points about all the changes that have occurred over the years, such as ink changes, which make things more difficult for the manufacturers.

You say there is just one company that makes the paper backing. But it sounds like Kodak was able to change their backing to one that prevents the problem they were having. So solutions must be possible?

Interesting that you say the paper backing isn't the same thickness throughout. What do you mean exactly? Thickness changes from beginning to end of roll of film?

Have you seen any statements from Ilford about the problem having to do with the paper backing? As I mentioned, I communicated with someone in their tech department quite extensively, and she only brought up the environmental or expired film issues. She was very nice and indicated they were trying to figure out what was going on. Maybe she is only allowed to say certain things.

Good point about how the film is stored on ships coming from UK. Maybe that is one reason Kodak film less likely to have problems.

Incidentally, I was also communicating with the Ilford tech about a separate problem which turned out to be a lab problem (which my lab was blaming on Ilford). There was horrible residue on non-emulsion side of film (FP4) which could not be removed. It certainly looked like a lab problem to me, and after many emails and taking photos of the negs, sending to lab and Ilford, it was finally determined that the lab was putting a hardener in their fixer that was causing the residue. It was not happening to Kodak film they developed. I would send rolls of FP4 as well as rolls of Trix to lab, and the Trix would not have the residue, so it was some interaction between the FP4 and the hardener.

So a lot of aggravation surrounding my beloved FP4 : )

I'm glad to hear people here say they have not had problems with Kodak film recently. Thanks to everyone who has chimed in. I'm just going to go to Tmax 100 for my 100 ISO film for now and continue using Tmax 400 and Trix for faster film.

I hope Ilford will make necessary changes so the bad film/backing interaction isn't so likely to occur.

AgX said:

That basically a problem was approaching around backing paper already was clear more then ten years ago. I myself was involved in alternative approaches.

Click to expand...

Ten years ago. Interesting. You work in film industry? Can you tell us more about the problem, why it started to occur, if certain films more likely to have the problem, and so on? Thanks.

Are there ever emulsion/paper backing issues with color film? I shoot Provia 100F fairly often and haven't seen it there. I hardly ever shoot color neg film.

The problem already started years ago with changes in supply chains. Some issues may have been forseeable, but for instance the artefacts Harman is faced with curently indicate that there are issues that are puzzling.
Mottling has been known at the industry for long time, but was considered being related to extreme damp storage. Now we got believable reports of not such storage, or storage as done for years, but now artefacts appear.


But we should not overlook, that in comparing numbers of reports of artefacts by users now and decennia ago, the internet made it much easier to report, or even to realize that one is not alone, which might only be the trigger to report.

calico said:

Interesting that you say the paper backing isn't the same thickness throughout. What do you mean exactly? Thickness changes from beginning to end of roll of film?

Click to expand...

It is thicker in the middle than at the edge - that is part of how it prevents the film from being expised to light when the roll is outside the camera.

calico said:

Have you seen any statements from Ilford about the problem having to do with the paper backing? As I mentioned, I communicated with someone in their tech department quite extensively, and she only brought up the environmental or expired film issues.

Click to expand...

The environmental conditions impact the paper, and the paper impacts the emulsion.

calico said:

Are there ever emulsion/paper backing issues with color film?

Click to expand...

Yes - the Kodak colour negative films suffered from the same problems as their black and white films. The problems took a bit longer to sow up though.
For context, it is helpful to understand that Kodak used to make their own backing paper. When the film market imploded, and volumes of sales decreased precipitously, they must have been left with a large inventory of backing paper because their films continued to be sold with that backing paper for several years after they dismantled their manufacturing capability.
When they finally started to run out, they had to go to third party suppliers, which had also been affected by the huge problems within the industry.
The problems don't manifest themselves the same way for every film and every manufacturer because the problems involve interactions between all the components, and emulsions and other parts of the films all differ.
Some of the modern advancements in the latest film products from Kodak actually seem to have made the films more susceptible to the problems!
Also for context, it is helpful to understand that pre-Harman Ilford had their problems with wrapper offset earlier. That is the reason that for many years the frame numbers on Ilford film were much more faint than on Kodak film, to the consternation of red window camera owners worldwide! Ilford dealt with the problem at least partly by greatly reducing the amount of ink used.

AgX and Matt:

Thank you for your further explanations. I had no idea this problem has such a long history and is so complicated! I have more empathy for Ilford now.

Thank goodness these companies are still making film, despite all of these manufacturing challenges and the lower demand.

Kat

Thanks also to everyone else who contributed to this discussion. Appreciate it.

Kat

Kodachromeguy said:

The Kodak packages for 120 film, both foil or plastic, are, as far as I know, air tight. Years ago, I read that they were sealed in a nitrogen atmosphere, but I am not sure if this is still (or ever was) true. The air-tight packaging is the reason I do not like the plastic film boxes where you take the film out of its foil packet and put it in the box. The film and backing paper then is much more susceptible to humidity. Of course, if you are going to use all the film in a day or two, it does not matter, but I still recommend you do not open it. I see a lot of film listed on the 'Bay where the seller took the film out of its foil pack.

Click to expand...

Yes, I was always under same impression, that the foil or plastic packaging the film came in was airtight, and that's why it was okay to put in refrigerator or freezer. I never take the roll out of the foil until I'm about to load into camera. Don't understand why someone would take out beforehand.

What kind of film comes with plastic box as you describe? Just curious.

calico said:

What kind of film comes with plastic box as you describe? Just curious.

Click to expand...

I meant aftermarket boxes that you buy into which you can place 120 or 35 mm film rolls.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/120-220-13...torage-Carrying-Box-Kodak-Fuji-/283924059111?

I put film on a Ziploc bag in my camera bag. I definitely keep film in its original sealed foil or plastic pack.

Kodachromeguy said:

I meant aftermarket boxes that you buy into which you can place 120 or 35 mm film rolls.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/120-220-13...torage-Carrying-Box-Kodak-Fuji-/283924059111?

I put film on a Ziploc bag in my camera bag. I definitely keep film in its original sealed foil or plastic pack.

Click to expand...

Oh, I see. I didn't even know such things existed.
.