Kodak Brownie no2 what am I doing wrong ?

Hello ,
Following the instructions from both the manual and a Youtube vid I find that the numbers do not line up with the red window. As I have wrecked the first film I have taken measurements with the window being 20mm in from the edge of the camera and the film counter (on the film at 15mm ,the two do not line up so I have no idea where the film is. The film is Kodak Ektar 100.The film numbering also seems odd as can be seen in the one pic looking from left to right I have the number 4 ,3 just in front (in the direction of travel) in the middle then 2 to the right (which one should I be reading ?) Hope that makes sense any help appreciated.Sorry the photos maybe out of sync with the text I hope they make sense ! The one with the tape measure running top to bottom shows the line of where the glass window is compared to the numbers.
Am I making a really stupid mistake ?

do you have film that isn't kodak layng around ?
maybe something you already exposed and developed and you still have the paper with the # on it ?
ilford? fuji? ado? efke? foam? &c?
i ask because over the last couple of years, kodak has had troubles with the numbers &c backing paper somehow
transferring to the negatives and they had to change the backing paper / how things were numbered.
there are a handful of threads about it.
you might just have to use a different brand of film ... OR use expired film from before
they had the trouble ( within the last 2 years )

The 1952 ASA specifications for 120 film show the window for 6x9 cameras as being 20mm from the edge of the edge as you have measured on the camera. Therefore it would appear that the problem is in the film.

Rewind your ruined roll and try reloading. the numbers close to the tip of your tape measure are the ones you should see. the multiple numbers are for cameras which shoot a different sized negative. 6x6, 6x9 etc. Watch the video while you do it. Stopping the video, do what you just watched etc...
This video is well produced and is helpful.

That was the video I used (it seemed very good) but I have stupidly used Kodak film thinking it would suit the camera, how wrong was I !

I just looked at the backing paper off several 120 films from Kodak, Fuji and Ilford, no Ektar though.
All of the show 3 numbers for the 6x9 series where you show # 2 in you first photo. In other words where your tape is shows 111, 222, 333 etc instead of 11, 22, 33 like on the film you show. The 3rd number on mine is 20mm from the edge whereas the 2nd number is 15mm. Interestingly the only 6x9 box camera I have lying around is a Zeus Ikon and the red window on it is 15mm from the edge.

don't be too hard on yourself
a lot of people didn't know that
their backing paper is wonky...
its only been within the last year
they switched papers ... before that
you would not have had trouble with the #'s
but you'd be posting " there are words or numbers
all over my negatives is there something wrong with
my film?"
btw you can still use your kodak film
you just have to attach it to a different backing paper
which is a very easy thing to do ... you take the new/used backing paper
and figure out where the tape is ( or if you removed it .. was )
and in the dark you peel the film out of the old kodak roll and roll it on the new roll ...
and then rewind it back onto another spindle so you put it in your camera with #1 at #1 instead of the end.
people who use 620 spools do part of this dance all the time .. they respell ... the repapering is just as ez.

Here is a picture of 400TX and Acros.
Funny thing is the 400TX is kind of misprinted being approx 3-4 mm too close to the edge, I have several other 400TX just like it, probably from same batch.
The Fuji Acros is more correct

Is it just Kodak film that have altered this Jnanian do you know ? Hopefully the kodak Bridge camera I have brought today won't be affected ! I'm a bit gutted I've never used 120 film before so I've just wasted £25 on a £8 camera I think Kodak should do a recall on their Brownie No2's ! I take it this is a problem for a lot of 120 cameras ! I was just going to run a few rolls through the camera before keeping it as a curio item.

There is nothing wrong with your camera. They made millions of these and I don't think you got one with the window in the wrong place. If anything the film is the problem.
Get a roll of Ilford B&W and if you can't develop it yourself at home then send it to Ilford for processing.

I know that it is popular on APUG to blame Kodak for all the woes of the world like Pandora however Kodak does not print nor even make the backing paper. This duty is contracted out to the single remaining manufacturer of backing paper. So whether it is Kodak or Ilford or others it all comes from a single source.

I believe that you will find that the ANSI standard for numbering paper backing for film changed not long ago. Perhaps this change is part of the culprit.

PE

Odd that the specification for numbers on the paper would change after having been established for many decades. It's not like there are a raft of new rollfilm cameras being introduced which for some reason would necessitate a change. Personally, I blame Microsoft.

Gerald C Koch said:

I know that it is popular on APUG to blame Kodak for all the woes of the world like Pandora however Kodak does not print nor even make the backing paper. This duty is contracted out to the single remaining manufacturer of backing paper. So whether it is Kodak or Ilford or others it all comes from a single source.

Click to expand...

Yes Gerald that's true, but Kodak specs what the company prints. So, while you want to go light on Kodak you can see why people, including me, have a bad taste in their mouth. Kodak seems to be taking cheap ways out of things lately, all at the expense of the consumer they need to survive. This is how good companies go bad. Take care of the share holder, listen to only the bean counter and turn a deaf ear to the folks that put the bread and butter on the table. That is a sure way to start going without that bread and butter. Result, starvation! I'm still pissed at the damn time it took to resolve the number bleed through. If it is finally resolved? Trust me when I say I love TMY2 and I really want to like the company that produces it, but .......................

Gerald C Koch said:

I know that it is popular on APUG to blame Kodak for all the woes of the world like Pandora however Kodak does not print nor even make the backing paper. This duty is contracted out to the single remaining manufacturer of backing paper. So whether it is Kodak or Ilford or others it all comes from a single source.

Click to expand...

hi gerald


i have never blamed kodak for woes of the world, i just mentioned that kodak had troubles
that were well documented ( i have no idea of other companies had similar troubles i currently
have "industry news" on "ignore forum" ... )
while i understand what you are saying,
if other companies sell 120 film that still
have the "normal" ( normal= normal the past 60-70 years? )
printing on the back and kodak doesn't it mean it's to kodak's specs
not some sort of new industry standard, isnt' it ? from what i remember
from a thread or 2 a PM i had with MR moody, and uploads of the "new configuration of the 120 backing sheet"
kodak changed their printing on the backing paper because of bleed onto negative too, and made the ink lighter for their film backing paper, it had nothing to do with ansi standards. if it DID
no one would sell film that could be used in the OP's camera

while it might be unfortunate when using ruby window cameras, or cameras that need the 3rd row of numbers and non mechanical
film advance mechanisms, it is by no means a dead end. as i suggested the OP do, it is pretty simple to tape film onto a new backing paper
if someone is inclined to use kodak film, and there are plenty of spools of 120 film with the "normal" writing on the back...

Some numbering schemes were eliminated by the ANSI standard due to their being obsolete. That, at least, is my understanding. And, new ones were added for the newer formats.

PE

Do not blame Kodak for the change in the ANSI numbering standard. Kodak must follow the standard.

Interestingly enough, your camera was the very first camera to ever be made for the then new film designated as "120" film.
As I understand it, after Kodak removed a bunch of the numbers from the backing paper to deal with the problems they were encountering, they did end up having to add back at least one row, due to users having the problem you are having. What is the "develop before" date on your film? There is at least a possibility that the backing paper you have has since been updated for the better.
You can ask Kodak Alaris directly at profilm@kodakalaris.com. Please do so, and report back on what Mr. Mooney or his staff say about current numbering. It wouldn't be unfair to ask for replacement film if there is one with numbering that would work.
Kodak Alaris is the company that actually markets still film of the Kodak brand. Eastman Kodak got out of everything except manufacture of the film as part of their bankruptcy.

I'm already on the case Mattking I have an Email on it's way to Kodak and have emailed Ilford for suitable film. As for changing the backing paper that only works if you have more backing paper and am I likely to go to the hassle of doing that when I can just put my money elsewhere and have it work straight away.I must admit I have recently (I only started a couple of months ago) used a lot of Kodak 135 film having liked Kodaks story and film quality but this has left a bad taste in my mouth. I will post any replies up to my emails for you all to see. The develop by date by the way is 12/2018.

BADGER.BRAD said:

hassle of doing that when I can just put my money elsewhere and have it work straight away

Click to expand...

You may find with Ilford backing paper that while there may be a row of numbers that lines up with the window, that you will unfortunately have great difficulty actually seeing them through the red window.
Ilford had their problems with wrapper offset earlier than Kodak did, and as a result they switched to much fainter and hard to read numbers several years before Kodak was forced to do so. When Ilford made that switch, many with red window cameras switched to other brands of film.
As your camera could be anywhere between 82 and 116 years old, it is kind of fascinating to me that:
1) one can actually still get film that is usable in it; and
2) people seem to assume that there wouldn't be any changes in the usability of 120 film in 116 years.

I don't know whether the 2000, 1991 or 1982 revisions of ISO 732 (the ISO standard for 120 film) mandate a number that will line up with your red window. By 2000 (or 1982 or 1991), I don't know if there were any film cameras or film backs being manufactured that used 120 film, and used a 2 1/4" x 3 1/4" format, and made use of a red window.

I definitely understand your being disappointed. I was disappointed when I realized that production of the 616 film that works in my 1930s vintage Kodak Six-16 ceased in 1995. But I can't say I had a bad taste from it.

Even if you can't read the numbers through the window, there are several work arounds.

I have this Six-20 Brownie D on ebay.

That I fully disassembled, cleaned, lubed, reassembled and tested with a roll of Arista EDU Ultra 400 (Foma rebadged?) and a roll of Ilford Delta 100 .
The Arista was a light leak test that passed but my judgeing close distances with the portrait lens engaged and the 1/45 fixed shutter speed in my shaky hands is not presentable but this shot off the Ilford is.
Scanned on a V700 at 1200 dpi and reduced to fit here with no software enhancements by the scan software of post processing.
Backing paper numbers lined up center of the ruby window and spacing is near perfect stopping with the number centered in the ruby window. I have some of that green box fudge stuff that came Across the Pacific and I expect its backing paper numbering to line up perfectly also.
Yes, I respooled 120 film to use in this and other Six-20 cameras that I have and will dispose of in the near future. Vigilant 620 loaded at the moment, Tourist to follow and if I'm lucky a Billy Record.
THIS IS NOT A FUR SAIL AD MODERATOR!

Matt,
I agree with much of what you say, but you have to remember the all of us taste things differently. As far as PE talking about the ANSI change? I'm sorry, I think that is hogwash. An ANSI change would not dictate exactly what a company like Kodak could have printed on their backing paper as long as it pertained to using the film properly. I was always devoted to Kodak and Kodak products also and didn't have a father or anyone else for that matter, that worked for the company. I, like you, started getting the bad taste when my loved 620 disappeared and made life rough for me and my Medalist II. Luckily the width allowed me to at least respool. Not so with my other favorite 116 film for my Kodak 1A with RR lens. I had taken some of the best portraits of my wife when were first married with that camera. And yes, I shed a tear for 616 also as my Vigilant 616 was an excellent camera also. I wondered back then why Kodak at least didn't do "Special" season runs of those formats once a year like Ilford does now. I used to work as a slitter operator and printer in a corrugated carton division of a company when first married so I know its just a matter of obtaining the proper backing paper and changing the slitter cutter wheels. Not an impossible task and we would do it six or seven times a day at least. I know there had to be thousands of 620 that were still in use when Kodak announced the withdrawal of 620. The part that really bother me about the 620 film fiasco was the fact that 620 film was Kodaks brain child scheme to undermined the German/European 120 film sales and possibly drive 120 film into nonexistence so Kodak could have sole procession of that size format. Well, it didn't work and we, the user s of 620, paid the ultimate price for Kodaks blundered venture. Those the bitter taste started for me. I don't know how George would have handle this situation, but I think it would have been done differently by him. He was a cut throat business man, but he also knew damn good and well where his money came from and it wasn't shareholders or investors. Yes, Ilords numbers are now a little harder to see, but at least they are there to see. Ilford didn't take the easy way out of the bleed through problem like Big Yellow. Why was that I wonder? They could have very easily went the same route as Big Yellow, but they didn't. Why? Beause they thought of all the customers who use their products and they never really made a camera or a professional one at least. I salute Ilford for the yearly run of special film sizes since it's the only was I can use my Kodak 3A. Now I'm not really giving Kodak the Eagle salute, but I am very disappointed in their not-so-wise business decisions of the past and near present and I only see bad things ahead for Kodak and Kodak Ala.ris Now some folks here would say good to Kodak Alaris paying the ultimate price for all their blunders like the recent pricing of their best B&W films, but I warn folks that vengeance isn't the answer here. If Kodak Alaris goes under it benefits absolutely none of us. Having said that I'm watching, with great expectation, the Ferrania Film Company that is just getting up and running. They are talking about running discontinued films like 127 and others. They are also working on color as well. This process will be slow to develop and I might be do the "big photo shoot in the sky" bfore these formats appear, but at least there is hope. Something that I don't see much of with Kodak at the present. So, when I say it doesn't benefit anyone that maybe it does with a company coming up like Ferrania. Time will tell I guess. It usually doe anyway. Enough doom and gloom. Time to hit the darkroom.

John (and Brad):
I would point out that historically there were many, many different film formats, and that almost all of them have been discontinued, and George Eastman was around for many of those discontinuations.
I have no doubt that if Eastman Kodak could produce/put together trouble-free 120 film with all the old numbers, and make it available to Kodak Alaris for sale at a price that would make sense in the market, you would see it in a heartbeat.
The ULF special run by Ilford is a wonderful thing, but it is simply an excellent use of Harman's very flexible infrastructure. With the exception of, ironically, the backing paper they make available in quantity at that time only, Harman produces everything that they sell as part of that program. Relatively speaking, Harman's production machinery is tiny compared to Eastman Kodak's. The advantage of that is flexibility - thus the ULF program - but if Harman needs to produce anything in high volume, their per unit costs are huge compared to Eastman Kodak's. Eastman Kodak will do exactly the same thing for you (prepare film in your desired large size), except that the size of their machinery means that they have minimum order quantities that would be ridiculous for all but high volume commercial users.
The other irony is that that backing paper that Ilford makes available during the ULF run probably does not include numbers.
It wasn't too many years ago that Simon Galley reached out to us here on APUG to ask about a change that circumstances had forced upon Harman. Traditionally, the backing papers for Ilford 120 roll films were custom printed for each film - the paper for FP4+ was printed with FP4+ on it, the paper for HP5+ was printed with HP5+ on it, etc., etc. Unfortunately, the sources for backing paper were reduced to a single source, and the minimum order requirements from that source were such that if Harman continued to order backing paper that way, they would be forced to either greatly reduce the variety of 120 film, or order several years supply (for at least some of the films) at any one time - which they couldn't afford to do.
As a result, all Ilford 120 backing paper is now "generic", in that the only references to the film it is attached to are at the beginning and end, and they are added later.
Fortunately, any wrapper offset adjustments that Ilford had been required to make to their films to adjust to the materials produced by their backing paper supplier had already been made at that time, so the current backing paper and ink works for them.
I bring this up, because it illustrates how the economies of scale and new volume realities force decisions that in the past would never have happened. None of the remaining manufacturers of film have anything like the resources they once had to respond to problems, or offer new alternatives to customers. Where once they had the ability to make changes, and the volume to pay for those changes, they are now squeezed between financial and market realities.
I expect that the machinery that Eastman Kodak used to have to make their own backing paper was scrapped, after the volumes required sunk so much as to make it uneconomic to use, and because outside of the production of backing paper for photographic film, it had no commercial use. That is something to give you a bad taste, but it is simply reality.
One final irony: if Eastman Kodak hadn't had so much backing paper on hand, they probably would have encountered the wrapper offset problem with the outsourced product earlier, when they would have had greater resources available and a much greater ability to adjust the films to deal with it. Those resources aren't there now.

An ANSI standard is a standard, but not a requirement. You can make anything you want as long as it sells - and as pointed out, is economical.

PE

hi matt
i totally understand what you are saying, and i know there were many different formats and roll films,
kodak had a different roll film format for every box camera it seems ... but that wasn't my point. my point was
that it was suggested that dropping the 3rd number was some sort of ansi - thing and i was suggesting that if was an ansi-thing
then every other manufacturer would/could have dropped the 3rd number as well. i haven't bought new roll film in IDK 20 years, so i don't know
if they did or didn't, but the last rolls i processed that might be a couple of years out of date still had the 3rd string of numbers. i also realize that
all the paper comes from one place. it seems that if other sellers of roll film still use the 3rd row then it IS a kodak thing, seeing their
rolls don't have the #s. and as i mentioned to the OP it really is no big deal to tape the film onto another backing paper if someone wants to use kodak film ,, it is just one more new reality that
roll film shooters have to think about when they use a roll film camera .. or just get one that has a mechanical advance or figure out some sort of system to know how many winds
it takes to get to the next frame and don't do anything ...