I disagree
Starting with the basics, how about we tighten and tidy up composition a bit?
This is I think where the concern should be. A lot of wasted asphalt, blank featureless blue sky and large swathes of stucco
This is your vision not his. Neither are wrong.Starting with the basics, how about we tighten and tidy up composition a bit?
This is I think where the concern should be. A lot of wasted asphalt, blank featureless blue sky and large swathes of stucco.
View attachment 170062
<<Some with knowledge ... opined that the problem may be>> that sounds strange to me, and not very reliable. If they are not sure, it seems that my questions (misguided assumptions if you prefer), even though unanswered, are at the same level, (and sorry to say, with the same strenght).
<<The ink appears to be>>, again with the same reliability. Of course numbers, words and guidelines interact but they do as a space reservation "added" (acting as a mask) to that protective second skin, and therefore at the moment of exposure the Light integration treat both (skin & skin/ink) differently.
You're right about the composition but that's kinda not the point of this thread...Starting with the basics, how about we tighten and tidy up composition a bit?
This is I think where the concern should be. A lot of wasted asphalt, blank featureless blue sky and large swathes of stucco.
View attachment 170062
Interesting assertion. I must ponder that. Because I suppose a digital image which has no mass nor physicality is merely technical magic. I'm not sure it would show up in a print, unless it was printed in such a way as to torture the colors and saturation.I cannot see the 6 nor the Kodak on my screen. All that counts is what is on a print, because if you cannot hold a print or slide, it is not a photograph.
This is your vision not his. Neither are wrong.
I had this same problem with portra 160 in 120 that expired in 2015. The film was developed and scanned by Richard Photo Lab. I was pretty annoyed/saddened to see this. I wonder if fresh portra 400 has this problem?
Anyway, I may switch to digital...
You're right about the composition but that's kinda not the point of this thread...
Interesting assertion. I must ponder that. Because I suppose a digital image which has no mass nor physicality is merely technical magic. I'm not sure it would show up in a print, unless it was printed in such a way as to torture the colors and saturation.
[...]
And i'm switching FROM digital.
Gerald:If anyone remembers the actual backing paper problem the numbers were quite large and easy to see. certainly not the case in this post. I have no idea what caused the problem that the OP saw but it was not from the backing paper. If there is any doubt compare the backing paper with the artifacts to see if they are in the right places.
Quite so. And the suggestion was made in good faith.
But it deftly fixed a perceived problem!
Also, if the alleged imprint is not visible in printed form (rather than on a computer screen!), again it is a non-issue.
If you this backing paper issue is replicated over several frames and you also find it on another roll, the sensible action to take is to make contact with the dealer where you bought the film, noting the batch number and expiry of the film, and take the exposed and processed film to the dealer for inspection. But the burden of proof of a fault existing with the backing paper is yours, not that of the dealer or Kodak in the absence of knowing the film's history! Many things can happen to film over time, very much so film that is expired, improperly stored, subject to extreme sustained heat and very high or very low humidity.
Backing paper used in all films comes from just one manufacturer, and problems with poor visual identification of numbers in specific circumstances is but one of a litany that cannot be put down to a film manufacturer — it could also be the photographer and/or the camera(s)! It is no good poking an accusing finger at Kodak when they had no choice, save for the possibility (unproven) of improper storage or preparation on Kodak's part (again, how do you prove this?). It is worth noting that the backing paper transfer glitch at one time popped up on Fuji ACROS 100 but was never seen again. I have certainly not experienced that with my own ACROS use.
Print. The. Image. Then make a determination. Don't rely on computers for critical inspection.
If anyone remembers the actual backing paper problem the numbers were quite large and easy to see. certainly not the case in this post. I have no idea what caused the problem that the OP saw but it was not from the backing paper. If there is any doubt compare the backing paper with the artifacts to see if they are in the right places.
because I know Kodak black and white film had been recalled
From the perspective of a consumer who shoots color film every once in a blue moon, as opposed to once in a grayscale moon, it's a non-issue for me personally as I don't plan to do anything with these negatives but scan them and throw them into Photoshop, play with them a little and if I want to print one I'll send it to my pro lab that does all my digital printing for my professional work.
Recalled ?
That's news to me.
Kodak was made acutely aware of the problem some time ago and acknowledged this (in TMax emulsions by batch) in a separate, long and tedious thread here on APUG in 2015-2016). A problem existed with the backing paper, possibly through improper storage prior to delivery, maybe too some other things. Some photographers had very serious proven problems with backing paper numbers (bigger, bolder and much more glaringly obvious) right up to print production, never mind about what is/was seen on-screen. Thus it was a simple arrangement to return the blighted films to the dealer and let the dealer and Kodak sort it out. As I have mentioned from previous experience, I was offered 4 replacement new batch TMax rolls in addition to 2 rolls of Rollei CR200.
Isolated cases of numbers etc appearing on film can be put down to many circumstances e.g. the post earlier about Portra 160. One roll out of ... how many successively?? Roll after roll after roll after roll constitutes a problem. Isolated frames over a roll could mean anything!!
The 'fault' in the digital scan is far too faint to be of a serious concern in your images. Others here have pointed out how difficult it is to see anything, and it requires a damned hard and strained look to pick out anything at all! I can see myriad dust spots; therefore, deal with those first.
Summarily, it is most likely not the fault that has been iterated at great length in separate threads on the subject.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. What I was trying to indicate is that the problem isn't one where the ink is transferring to the film and blocking the light. That would result in the numbers and word being un-reversed but darker in a print. Nor is it one where the light is going through the paper, leaving a ghost image of the numbers and word. That would result in the numbers and word being both reversed and darker in a print. Instead it is one where the ink is causing the film to be more sensitive to light - thus giving us numbers and word being both un-reversed and lighter in a print.
From the perspective of someone who works in a highly technical field, if I were the manufacturer I would want to know if one of my customers has weird things happening with my product, so as to be able to catch any manufacturing or handling irregularities before they become widespread and become a real problem. As such, I would take all such inquiries seriously and try to figure out what happened. If it requires the batch number and expiry date, great. If not, great as well. If it's caused by mishandling of the film somewhere in the supply chain, or by the consumer, or by the selling agent, then as best as possible identify what caused it and let the consumer know. Most customers who shoot 120 color film, I would imagine, can give a basic rundown of how the film was handled after purchase, though I doubt they could give times and temperatures and barometric pressure readings at altitude and exact geocoordinates of where the frames were shot and all that stuff.
I don't keep records of that stuff. I can figure out by my bank card transaction records exactly when it was purchased, and I know the retailer, but unless the retailer pays attention to that information and records it, there's no way to pull it out so that part of it is a dead end. And anyway, as I have said, to me it doesn't matter. But it may well matter to the manufacturer, which is why I sent them an e-mail.
I can see these markings on at least one other frame, and possibly more than that but I will have to examine them more closely in order to really confirm some of them. .
I don't get the backing paper back when I have color film developed. Do you? Maybe I should start asking the develop lab to save it for me and mark which neg strips came from which rolls?
Quite so. And the suggestion was made in good faith.
But it deftly fixed a perceived problem!
Can we see the original negative lined up at the side of the backing paper to prove that the supposed "6" and the "Kodak" (I can't see the latter) are actually some kind of print-through from the backing. I'd then be more convinced that there is an issue.
Anyway, I may switch to digital...
That’s it, you are right! but bear in mind this, If I were the manufacturer (or even a simple user) I would be interested in all the information you can supply so as to be taken into account as an issue ... to help them, you and the rest, right?
If you have had (seen) a problem with one exposure, I am almost completely sure that the whole roll (paper) is affected (I say "almost" because there is the possibility - though much more strange - of a partial paper damage), but another thing is that you can be able to see them all, because of the different light conditions (and the degree of light ink-fixing with it) at the time of the exposure (…and also as you’ve already said, because some of thems are too busy to appreciate it)
Excuse me my trespass on your concerns, if I can answer that question, in my case, everytime I have sent film to a lab I asked them to return “everything” with it, and when it is a 120 type, that includes spool and paper.
It is a good question about whether the very faint 6 we can see corresponds to the film frame in front of the backing paper that has the number 6 but even if the backing paper has gone then doesn't the frame number on the film correspond to the backing paper i.e. the film and paper are joined in such a way that the film frame 6 is in front of the backing paper number 6?
Just a thought
pentaxuser
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?