LUCKY C200 120

[ChrisGalway]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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,"