I've been waiting for the TMY2 bleed problem to disappear completely before I order more, but now, if the numbers have truly disappeared, I will be ordering no more TMY2. Many of my cameras have the "ruby window" and that means Delta 100 and Delta 400 are now going to totally replace Kodak for me. Not a problem since I like both of the Delta's, but still think TMY2 was the "Gold Standard" when it comes to ISO 400.Never noticed... is this an attempt by Kodak to cut ink costs?
Are there really no numbers on the Kodak 120 backing papers now?
If so, that's just another example of Kodak shooting themselves in the foot. Sad.
Jerry,Just how far must Kodak go in accommodating people who still use folders. There can't be that many maybe a few hundred. Things change and a company's bottom line adjusts. We may not like it but it is the reality of the marketplace.
I really hope you're right on the "quick fix" theory. I really don't understand why Kodak Alaris would even want to lose a few hundred of us. Although I really think there are a lot more than just a few hundred. That kind of thinking never moves a company forward. They should be trying to generate more customers and not less. Yes, I respool for my Kodak Medalist cameras and my exceptionally fine picture taking Kodak Monitor 620.I find it difficult to believe Kodak would print paper for Tri-X differently from the others, but at any rate, here's a before and after from my recent experience:
View attachment 164738
I can think of two other possibilities -- 1) maybe they just ditched printing on a batch or two as a quick fix (admittedly scary) or 2) perhaps the OP's camera uses one of the non-centered number rows that has disappeared? I have no idea what cameras used those alternatives, my impression is they may be ancient. The new stuff works in my Perkeo II and Ercona II.
And yes, besides folders there are box cameras -- Brownie Hawkeyes are all over everywhere.
Have you looked at the backing paper?Forget about using 400-TMY T-Max 120 film in an old folder. There are no numbers on the paper backing. The little red window cannot be used to wind the film. Grrrrrr!
Are there any other surprises?
From memory of Simon Galley's posts, Ilford went through the process of making their numbers more faint some considerable amount of time ago, also due to problems with "wrapper offset".OP here. Sorry, not no numbers, just faint numbers that go unseen in low wattage incandescent light through the red window. I had a look at the papers from another box of the same film that I'd processed already. There ARE three rows just very faint. I will load a paper and see if they can be seen in daylight.
From memory of Simon Galley's posts, Ilford went through the process of making their numbers more faint some considerable amount of time ago, also due to problems with "wrapper offset".
I wonder if anyone on APUG is in a position to compare the "readability" of the current Ilford backing paper numbers with the current Kodak backing paper numbers.
Jerry,
I think you would be greatly surprised at how many folks use older roll-film cameras and carry them along side both digital and newer film cameras. A Zeiss Ikonta or Voigtlander Bessa 66 are very easy to carry and deliver the goods as well as any camera made today. My two main medium format systems are Hasselblad and Pentax 67, but I shoot just as much, if not more, film in my Zeiss Super Ikonta's, Agfa and Voigtlander folding cameras. You are right about one thing and that is things change. And since they do, I'll be changing over to the Delta films. I personally think this is just a sloppy way of taking the easy way out of a problem that should have never existed in the first place, but that's just my opinion and my opinion usually doesn't count for much.
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?