Moving seemlessly over to Ilfotec HC from HC-110

[Lachlan Young]

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.

I think it was an offsetting problem caused by out of spec environmental conditions in transport or retail/ user storage. An out of spec temperature/ humidity combination is likely - which was probably fine (or at least required longer exposure to such conditions for it to occur) with solvent inks, but not with the Nexfinity/ Indigo type of ink/ toner that is (in Kodak's technology) temporarily liquefied on-press via heat & pressure & is intended to sink into paper fibres. As far as I remember, the areas it affected were visible because it added density. I think that RH problems from people downstream of the factory badly refrigerating/ freezing film are responsible for a lot of the wrapper offset issues.

 

[pentaxuser]

I think it was an offsetting problem caused by out of spec environmental conditions in transport or retail/ user storage. An out of spec temperature/ humidity combination is likely - which was probably fine (or at least required longer exposure to such conditions for it to occur) with solvent inks, but not with the Nexfinity/ Indigo type of ink/ toner that is (in Kodak's technology) temporarily liquefied on-press via heat & pressure & is intended to sink into paper fibres. As far as I remember, the areas it affected were visible because it added density. I think that RH problems from people downstream of the factory badly refrigerating/ freezing film are responsible for a lot of the wrapper offset issues.

So if EK could have guaranteed proper handling and storage then no action would have been required from it? If that was EK's conclusion but it believes itself to have solved the problem then I assume it has done so by doing something or somethings that ensure that poor handling ex factory no longer is able to create the problem.

From what is being said here on Photrio this appears to be lighter printing on the backing paper. Does anyone know what the actual link is between this and solving the problem? Is the solution simply a consequence of just using less and this lighter-in-appearance ink or is the ink lighter as a consequence of chemical changes necessary within the ink that stops it imprinting on the film when subject to less than ideal storage

Was there a change in the backing paper as well and if so what percentage of the solution did this provide?

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

There is a lot less ink on the backing paper now, and it appears to have a protective overcoat on top of it as well.

 

[pentaxuser]

There is a lot less ink on the backing paper now, and it appears to have a protective overcoat on top of it as well.

Thanks Matt, so it sounds as if the cure is less ink thus lighter in appearance and a protective overcoat. Unless there are signs of this combination not working then as sure as we can ever be of anything it would look as if the cure has been enough to ensure that the normal incidence of poor handling and storage ex factory no longer will create the wrapper offset problem.

pentaxuser

 

[Wayne]

top to bottom 120 backings, HP5+, Kodak Ektar 100, Foma 400

The second one with the flash overkill gives a good approximation of what I see in my Mamiya 6 frame window with Kodak films in bright sunlight. Almost nothing. Lame. And they don't even give you the little warning spots like Foma and Ilford do so you know the number is coming. Double lame, especially since I bought this camera specifically to use with Portra 400. (which I assume is the same as Ektar, but I couldnt find a Portra backing paper because I've been sending color out lately.)

 

[MattKing]

Its unfortunate Wayne that you are amongst the subset of users who both rely on a rear window to keep track of frames and have a camera and/or eyesight that makes that particularly difficult.
I have a couple of cameras that still use the window. I find it a bit more difficult than it once was, but I can still use them reasonably easily.
I really like the front part of the films I use - particularly the T-Max emulsions. I am prepared to accept the reduced visibility of the numbers in order to continue to use the films, without the greatly increased risk of wrapper offset.
I'm sorry that the changes that Kodak was forced to make to keep their films in production make it more difficult for you to use.

 

[Wayne]

Its unfortunate Wayne that you are amongst the subset of users who both rely on a rear window to keep track of frames and have a camera and/or eyesight that makes that particularly difficult.
I have a couple of cameras that still use the window. I find it a bit more difficult than it once was, but I can still use them reasonably easily.
I really like the front part of the films I use - particularly the T-Max emulsions. I am prepared to accept the reduced visibility of the numbers in order to continue to use the films, without the greatly increased risk of wrapper offset.
I'm sorry that the changes that Kodak was forced to make to keep their films in production make it more difficult for you to use.

My eyesight is fine Matt. If you want to accept inferior product from your former employer and carry a flashlight everywhere you go to compensate for their failings that's up to you, but the pictures I posted above don't lie. If Foma and Ilford can do it, so can Kodak. Ilford's is fairly faint, but at least its still functional. Kodak's is inferior to these much smaller companies.

 

[MattKing]

Wayne,
I've never worked for Kodak or any subsidiary or affiliate of same. I have never owned any stock in Kodak either.
I have and had both friends and relatives who worked for Kodak Canada in the long ago past. I also currently have some contact with people who work either for Eastman Kodak, Kodak Alaris or Sino Promise.
I have worked for companies that dealt with a lot of Kodak product, and I have used a lot of that product for decades. Many years ago, when working in retail, I sold a lot of Kodak product to customers - along with product made by Kodak's competitors. I also used Kodak product when I worked as a photographer and sold photographs to customers.
It is unfortunate that Kodak found it necessary to change their product in a way that protected the qualities of their film, at the expense of the readability of the numbers, but I'm glad they made that decision rather than the decision to replace their various film emulsions. I'm sorry that doesn't meet your needs, or the needs of some others, but I think that based on the choices they were faced with, they made the right one.

 

[MattKing]

And Wayne, the realities of 120 backing paper economics mean that Kodak can't afford to buy different backing paper for different emulsions. They are the only ones, other than the much larger Fuji, who have to worry about both colour slide and colour negative films, along with black and white films. The backing paper they choose has to work with all three.

 

[pentaxuser]

View attachment 269541 View attachment 269542

top to bottom 120 backings, HP5+, Kodak Ektar 100, Foma 400

)

So each picture shows the 3 sets of backing paper and the second set is the same three sets in bright sunlight?

If this is correct then the Foma looks to be in a different league I wonder how it manages this without wrapper offset? I'd be surprised if EK did not at least make inquiries of Foma but then again I have no idea if there is any form of discussion like this between these companies - perhaps not A pity if there isn't in cases like these

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

They are the only ones, other than the much larger Fuji, who have to worry about both colour slide and colour negative films, along with black and white films. The backing paper they choose has to work with all three.

Does Ilford chromogenic XP2 Super come into the same category as colour negative for the purposes of backing paper because if not them based on Wayne's example even Ilford has something to learn from Foma or so it would appear?

pentaxuser

 

[Wayne]

So each picture shows the 3 sets of backing paper and the second set is the same three sets in bright sunlight?

If this is correct then the Foma looks to be in a different league I wonder how it manages this without wrapper offset? I'd be surprised if EK did not at least make inquiries of Foma but then again I have no idea if there is any form of discussion like this between these companies - perhaps not A pity if there isn't in cases like these

pentaxuser

These are all indoors, the 2nd image just has more direct flash that I think simulates what its like reading the Kodak numbers in bright sunlight. Its literally almost impossible on my Mamiya 6, unless I bring the film plane towards the window after every shot, then its just more difficult than it should be. It may be easier with fixed film plane cameras, but I don't have one to test it on.

I've never worked for Kodak or any subsidiary or affiliate of same. I have never owned any stock in Kodak either.

I apologize then, I thought you said you worked for them at one time. You should see if they need a PR guy in BC then.
My goal isnt to bash Kodak, its only to point out a problem that they should and can fix.

 

[MattKing]

I apologize then, I thought you said you worked for them at one time. You should see if they need a PR guy in BC then.
My goal isnt to bash Kodak, its only to point out a problem that they should and can fix.

No apology necessary.
I have a lot of loyalty to Kodak - indirectly they fed, clothed, educated and sheltered me for all my formative years.
The problem with wrapper offset taxed Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris' resources. PE posted a few times about what the insiders were willing to share with him. If they could have solved the problem that you are having they would have.
What they can't afford to do is try a bunch of new solutions for that problem, because each such attempt will force them to buy an additional run of backing paper, and that is horribly expensive - they don't have that much capital.

Does Ilford chromogenic XP2 Super come into the same category as colour negative for the purposes of backing paper because if not them based on Wayne's example even Ilford has something to learn from Foma or so it would appear?
pentaxuser

It is not an issue of categories. It is an issue of the interaction between the films that each manufacturer makes, and the backing paper available to them. The Kodak films are different than Ilford and Foma films, and one of the consequences of those differences is that they are susceptible in different ways to wrapper offset.
Ilford's current problems with mottling are also a version of wrapper offset - the problems manifest the way they do, instead of the way they manifested with the Kodak product, because both the films and the backing paper are different than the Kodak product.
The Ilford (and presumably Foma) coating lines, for one, are considerably different than the Kodak line. And those differences manifest themselves in different ways.

 

[Auer]

Foma's markings are by far the best and very easy to see even in a dim old scratchy window like my Isolette II.
Kodak took some time to get used to for sure, Ilford is not bad at all.

That said, something with a counter and stop like my Bessa 46 makes all the difference.
You shouldnt have to look at your camera just to advance film...

I've had issues with Foma and Ilford as far as emulsions (Foma 200) and mottling (Ilford).

 

[russell_w_b]

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

It's easier to see the numbers (Ilford and Kodak) through the red window on a 6x9 folder than a 6x6 one. They're bigger, for a start. Why can't similar size numbers be used in the middle of the roll?

 

[Wayne]

Its not the size really, its the very faint ink.

 

[pentaxuser]

Based on what Matt has said it would look as if Foma may have a fortunate film emulsion that happens, by chance it would seem, to allow it to use darker ink and that both Kodak's and Ilford's problem are variations on the same theme

I may have misread the ambience of Matt's statement but was there a hint that short of the kind of massive investment that Kodak can no longer afford the spectre of a backing paper problem may be with is for some time to come?

Just thinking allowed here but if the problem is the interaction of ink with the paper and then film could it be solved if all that was on the backing paper was the start line where there is no film?

Most MF cameras apart from the older window varieties do not in fact need markings other than a start line and it may be that unless there is a permanent solution to the problem then there may come a point when it is easier to delete the backing numbers. This then makes the window cameras difficult to wind on accurately but in the past 127 and other kinds of film were abandoned by maker's despite there still being some serviceable 127 cameras in use?

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

I may have misread the ambience of Matt's statement but was there a hint that short of the kind of massive investment that Kodak can no longer afford the spectre of a backing paper problem may be with is for some time to come?

Wrapper offset has always been an issue with films that use backing paper - it just became statistically much more prevalent around 2015 with Kodak (and earlier for Ilford).
Prior to when Kodak stopped producing their own backing paper (2005?) they had the ability to control the production of the backing paper. Small test runs were possible, as was the possibility of trying things and allowing the trials to age, to see if problems would emerge over time.
The 2015 problems didn't show up when the film was still in Kodak's hands. They showed up over time, unpredictably, with not all rolls in the same batches affected. Many photographers had multiple rolls from the same batch that were purchased together and stored together, but only some of the rolls suffered from the problem.
Now, if Kodak wants a change to the backing paper, they are forced to order a very expensive minimum order complete run of the revised backing paper at one time if they want to use it to test it to see if the combination of the revised paper with existing (or new) emulsions has increased susceptibility to wrapper offset problems.
Some of the same concern applies to new emulsions, except that there are no minimum order quantities for Kodak's internally produced test emulsions - they are able to test those new emulsions with the existing backing paper that is currently working well with the other films (excepting the issues with faint numbering).
At the time when Ilford switched over to one single backing paper for all their films (because of the minimum order quantities) they indicated that it cost more to buy that backing paper than it did to make the film used with it. I wonder what percentage of the wholesale cost of a roll of Kodak 120 film comes from the cost to Kodak of the backing paper they use.

 

[Wayne]

So if you don't and didn't work for Kodak, how do you know all the fine, intricate details of their manufacturing materials and processes?

 

[Tom Kershaw]

So if you don't and didn't work for Kodak, how do you know all the fine, intricate details of their manufacturing materials and processes?

I'm not Matt but many of these details have been public knowledge. Especially with regard to ILFORD Photo, a former member here Simon R Galley gave out a good deal of information, when he was one of the directors at Harman Technology.

 

[MattKing]

There is a fair bit of reliable info here.
I do know a couple of people who still work there, and have shared some information about the challenges they have to deal with.
And I definitely know how difficult it is to deal with minimum order sourcing issues, and the difficulties inherent in using a product that is available from one source only.
Bob Shanebrook's book "Making Kodak Film" is very useful as well.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks, Matt. So yes it does sound as if Kodak's lack of resources and it not being by definition the company it once was has resulted in difficulties that once upon a time may never have surfaced as Kodak had control over everything which it no longer has

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Wayne]

I do know a couple of people who still work there, .

Ok, in addition to the long familial connection I better understand the apparent bias that presents itself in many of your Kodak postings. That's perhaps understandable because of your connections but as a mere consumer with no connection to Kodak or any other company or corporation, I'm not in the habit of feeling much corporate sympathy. Either they make products that I'm happy with or they don't. I'm happy with Foma's product, as it pertains to the backing (too soon to tell on the emulsions), and I'm happy with Ilford's in every way. I sure like Kodak's color negative emulsions, other than the cost, and would sure like them to be more usable in the camera I bought specifically to use with them. I believe they can surely fix this issue. I pay a lot of money for their product . A LOT. Too much really. Its more expensive than any other films I use, and its OK to expect better from such expensive product.

I also believe this is way off topic and didn't mean to derail the OP's thread, which I would like to see coninue on as an HC to HC discussion. I'm going to ask mods if this other business can be moved to its own thread.