LUCKY C200 120

ChrisGalway · 2026-04-18T06:30:38-0400

MattKing said:
The frame number problems that Kodak struggled with were particularly strange, because the effect that users had to deal with was that the ink pressed into the emulsion caused the emulsion to be sensitized, resulting in more density in that part of the negative image.
So one ended up with lighter toned numbers and letters in the skies and other parts of the image on the prints.
Film emulsions are designed to be very, very sensitive!

I understand that, but one might have thought that Kodak, with >125 years of roll film experience (1899 for 616), would have cracked this by now. Ilford have only had about 100 years!

We can see from Fujifilm's products, the issue can be solved, or least a much longer shelf life can be obtained for bold printed numbers before any "print-through" effect is visible (well past the normal expiry date). Fuji's 120 spools are also better designed than either Ilford's or Kodak's. I think at some point in history they put some R&D effort into the whole roll film packaging process, which is a little different than spooling 35mm cassettes.

gbroadbridge · 2026-04-18T06:45:57-0400

ChrisGalway said:
I understand that, but one might have thought that Kodak, with >125 years of roll film experience (1899 for 616), would have cracked this by now.

They probably did but perhaps those the materials are no longer available.

They possibly cause cancer for folks in California.

Prest_400 · 2026-04-18T06:53:12-0400

To be frank, I haven't had print through issues the latest years with either Ilford or Kodak as long as the film is fresh and well stored. (Expiration after 2024)
It's mostly been mottling with Ilford's, it it has been in hot and humid conditions and/or expired a while. Foma does it also.

Fuji had some great improvements in 120. IIRC they barcoded it, which their automatic cameras could read, then have the EZ load catch system. As a "larger medium format" user aka 6x9, 220 would be lovely for travel and such uses.

I might try Lucky C200 if it becomes locally available. Looking forward to the rumored C400 that might be in the works. Exciting times!

Agulliver · 2026-04-18T09:14:09-0400

Oh that Kodak backing paper looks better than the stuff I currently have. Maybe they have further improved the backing paper or tweaked the emulsion to permit darker numbers.

Still, the Lucky is even better....as strongly inked as Foma and Lomography 120 films.

lightfundove · 2026-04-18T09:36:14-0400

gbroadbridge said:
They probably did but perhaps those the materials are no longer available.

They possibly cause cancer for folks in California.

I don't know anyone from California, and I don't want people from California to take drugs over a few rolls of film.

lightfundove · 2026-04-18T09:39:38-0400

Prest_400 said:
To be frank, I haven't had print through issues the latest years with either Ilford or Kodak as long as the film is fresh and well stored. (Expiration after 2024)
It's mostly been mottling with Ilford's, it it has been in hot and humid conditions and/or expired a while. Foma does it also.

Fuji had some great improvements in 120. IIRC they barcoded it, which their automatic cameras could read, then have the EZ load catch system. As a "larger medium format" user aka 6x9, 220 would be lovely for travel and such uses.

I might try Lucky C200 if it becomes locally available. Looking forward to the rumored C400 that might be in the works. Exciting times!

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,"

LUCKY C200 120

ChrisGalway

gbroadbridge

Prest_400

Agulliver

lightfundove

lightfundove

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency