Moving seemlessly over to Ilfotec HC from HC-110

[MattKing]

Kodak Alaris only sells to distributors. And as far as I know, they don't warehouse product - the distributors get it from Rochester.
It is the distributors and the retailers that are determining the final price.

 

[relistan]

It's not just the UK. Kodak stuff in Europe is just bonkers expensive. A 120 roll of HP5 is about 60% of the cost of Tri-X. Admittedly Ilford film is actually on the inexpensive side these days.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

It's not just the UK. Kodak stuff in Europe is just bonkers expensive. A 120 roll of HP5 is about 60% of the cost of Tri-X. Admittedly Ilford film is actually on the inexpensive side these days.

I'm cautious of ILFORD film in 120 at the moment due to the backing paper issues. I've had no problem with the "luxury gloss" backed 120 Kodak film.

 

[relistan]

I'm cautious of ILFORD film in 120 at the moment due to the backing paper issues. I've had no problem with the "luxury gloss" backed 120 Kodak film.

Ironically I've not had any issues with Ilford film but did get bitten by Kodak backing paper in the last non-gloss batch and lost a role of some pretty great photos (by my standard for my own work).

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Ironically I've not had any issues with Ilford film but did get bitten by Kodak backing paper in the last non-gloss batch and lost a role of some pretty great photos (by my standard for my own work).

I somehow managed to skip the backing paper issues with Kodak and went from the older product, which I guess was 100% Kodak production to the new gloss paper backed film.

 

[Wayne]

If only you could read the damn frame numbers on Kodak backing paper. I guess they are trying to save on ink.

 

[Dusty Negative]

I'm cautious of ILFORD film in 120 at the moment due to the backing paper issues. I've had no problem with the "luxury gloss" backed 120 Kodak film.

I’ve also had the exact opposite problem with Tri-X, and (thus far) never with Ilford.

 

[MattKing]

If only you could read the damn frame numbers on Kodak backing paper. I guess they are trying to save on ink.

No, they are trying to avoid a re-occurrence of the wrapper offset problem that probably came close to ending all Kodak 120 film production.
Ilford did the same "reduction of visibility" change a few years earlier.

 

[Wayne]

We can put people on the moon, I think they can find a way to make numbers you can read. But I guess all the smart people left Kodak a long time ago. I haven't had any problem with Ilford or Foma

 

[MattKing]

We can put people on the moon, I think they can find a way to make numbers you can read.

The numbers remained readable on Kodak backing paper long after the US lost the ability/equipment to put people on the moon.
But films changed, and the technology of ink and printing changed, and suddenly the old inks and printing technologies were gone, and the new ones didn't work with the new films.
Not to mention the fact that a lot of the photographers who have red window cameras don't have the eyes that they used to!
I find that a low powered Dollar store LED flashlight permits me to use the films I like in the red window cameras I use.

 

[Wayne]

The numbers remained readable on Kodak backing paper long after the US lost the ability/equipment to put people on the moon.
But films changed, and the technology of ink and printing changed, and suddenly the old inks and printing technologies were gone, and the new ones didn't work with the new films.
Not to mention the fact that a lot of the photographers who have red window cameras don't have the eyes that they used to!
I find that a low powered Dollar store LED flashlight permits me to use the films I like in the red window cameras I use.

You take their excuses too readily. How does Foma manage it with (I'd imagine) a fraction of Kodak's resources?

 

[MattKing]

You take their excuses too readily. How does Foma manage it with (I'd imagine) a fraction of Kodak's resources?

Foma has different film emulsions, which don't react the same way with the ink.
And of course Ilford did the same thing as Kodak did, they radically reduced the amount of ink. Ilford had to deal with it several years before Kodak.
And of course neither Ilford nor Foma have had to deal with the problem with colour films - it is actually the problem with colour films that was most dangerous to Kodak's participation in the 120 market.
We might have never seen it happening with Kodak if they didn't have huge inventory of backing paper left over after film sales crashed into near nothingness.
In the interregnum, Kodak shut down its backing paper manufacturing and printing capabilities and made (some) changes to its film.
At the same time, the paper making and printing industry changed radically. When Kodak was finally at a point where they had to start buying backing paper, everything had changed a lot!

 

[grat]

I wonder if laser printing would make more sense... They'd need a substantial investment in a new production line to do it, but if the 120 manufacturers found an independent manufacturer they'd all benefit.

 

[MattKing]

As I understand it, Kodak struggled mightily to solve the problem. The experience they had with dealing with wrapper offset is something they refer to as an experience they "never want to go through again".
I would think that the carbon from a laser printer might be the last thing you would want pressed into a film emulsion!

 

[pentaxuser]

As I understand it, Kodak struggled mightily to solve the problem. The experience they had with dealing with wrapper offset is something they refer to as an experience they "never want to go through again".

Matt when companies utter that sentiment it usually means that it has taken steps to ensure there is no recurrence. Let's hope so. Another film problem is the last thing Kodak needs

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Matt when companies utter that sentiment it usually means that it has taken steps to ensure there is no recurrence. Let's hope so. Another film problem is the last thing Kodak needs

pentaxuser

Generally speaking, I don't know that you can ever count on there never being a recurrence of a surprising and inexplicable problem like this was.
All of the players in the film world are totally dependent on suppliers. Any time there are changes outside of the control of the film manufacturers, they are vulnerable to being surprised.
I don't know that Kodak ever determined the exact mechanism of how and why the wrapper offset problem suddenly became so prevalent. They found a solution to prevent it instead.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I wonder if laser printing would make more sense...

Or it may have actually played a role in causing the problem (at least going by what I've seen about changes in the wrapper finishing procedures over the years).

 

[grat]

Possible, but that would suggest either the black side of the paper isn't really laser friendly, or they're using too much heat. The toner shouldn't bleed through, and if anything, should block light-- although come to think of it, that could actually cause a shadow on the film, if "some" light is getting through the black side of the paper.

None of the spools I have appears to have been laser printed, but I've been fortunate to avoid the issue so far. All I've encountered is a faint trace of mottling in the shadows on a roll of Bergger Pancro, and I don't know if that's film, or operator error.

 

[Wayne]

Matt when companies utter that sentiment it usually means that it has taken steps to ensure there is no recurrence. Let's hope so. Another film problem is the last thing Kodak needs

pentaxuser

Define "problem." I consider having to refocus after every shot on my Mamiya 6 because I can't see the freaking frame number on Kodak film unless I bring the film plane all the way back "a problem". Its not insurmountable, but its a pain and its kind of stupid.

 

[MattKing]

Possible, but that would suggest either the black side of the paper isn't really laser friendly, or they're using too much heat. The toner shouldn't bleed through, and if anything, should block light-- although come to think of it, that could actually cause a shadow on the film, if "some" light is getting through the black side of the paper.

None of the spools I have appears to have been laser printed, but I've been fortunate to avoid the issue so far. All I've encountered is a faint trace of mottling in the shadows on a roll of Bergger Pancro, and I don't know if that's film, or operator error.

The wrapper offset problem comes from the fact that the printing on one side of the paper is pressed hard against the chemically sensitive emulsion side of the next layer of film. You need something that won't physically or chemically affect something that is designed to suspend in gelatin components that are designed be affected by the tiniest amount of light.
The 2015 problems were ones where the wrapper offset caused the emulsion sensitivity to be increased wherever the inked numbers and letters were in contact with the emulsion.
When Kodak switched to third party suppliers in 2015 or so, the suppliers who were capable of both manufacturing and printing the backing paper, were using technology that didn't exist when the films were designed. And there was no-one around who still used the technology that Kodak had been using before the film industry collapsed, leaving them with years of backing paper inventory and serious financial issues.
In particular, the industry wide transition to soy based inks made for an entirely different environment.
The backing paper and printing is complex

 

[grat]

Got it. So raised printing would be terrible.

I was thinking the black surface would be the important one, but actually, it's the surface the writing is on.

That explains why my Portra 400 roll, for instance, appears to have all the printing under a clear-coat layer.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Kodak Alaris only sells to distributors. And as far as I know, they don't warehouse product - the distributors get it from Rochester.
It is the distributors and the retailers that are determining the final price.

They also ship from Colorado. I think they have a shipping center/warehouse there. A bunch of film I got from one of my suppliers had stickers on the box that showed that they got it originally from an address in CO. I've also seen boxes from the shipping department in Rochester.

 

[Danner]

Due to variability (unreliability) of the Kodak supply chain, I have switched to all Ilford products (film, paper & chemical) for B&W. Except, XTOL (or EcoPro), because XTOL works so well for me.

 

[pentaxuser]

Well those sentiments might be PR and only attempting to indicate a dogged determination to ensure that what Kodak knows was a problem that caused anger and despondency in its customers, was one that has had all Kodak's efforts applied to it. However I was giving Kodak the benefit of the doubt here that it really does think it has solved the problem once and for all and has done everything in its power to do so

My objective was as simple as that

pentaxuser

 

[Wayne]

I don't see how disfunctional numbering solves the numbering problem. It trades one numbering problem for another. Unlike some people I don't want Kodak to fail, I want them to succeed. This is the sort of thing that will not contribute to their success.