Numbers on 120 backing paper not aligning with red window

[David A. Goldfarb]

Title updated.

 

[studiocarter]

Title updated.

Number does not align with red window. Two rows in each area have gone missing. Faint shmaint.

 

[NedL]

Whew! I was sitting here thinking that this will surely migrate to Tri-X... I'm not using it as much as I used to, but would hate to lose it as an option in 120.
Sounds like OP has one of the camera that uses the "extra" rows... very sorry to hear that.

So what about porta, is it true that it has only the center row for 6x6 format?

 

[Ian Grant]

I disagree with Gerald, I see a large number of 120 folding cameras being sold at camera fairs to people who will use them.

This isn't a new issue I struggle to use Ilford film with my folders and brought it up on this forum some time ago. The only films I know now that has folder friendly backing papers are Foma, I've not used the current current Adox 120 so can't comment about these Fotoimpex films.

My Gaoersi 6x17 has a clear frame so poses no issues by my Ikonta or Ensign 820 are almost impossible with Ilford films and it sounds like Kidak will now be the same.

Ian

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Number does not align with red window. Two rows in each area have gone missing. Faint shmaint.

OK, updated again.

 

[studiocarter]

OK, updated again.

Thank you

 

[pentaxuser]

Studiocarter, can you tell us what your camera is? It seems from shots of backing paper provided by posters here that Kodak still caters for 6x9(8 frames), 6x6(12 frames and 6x 4.5(16 frames)

What does Ilford backing paper provide that does align with your window that Kodak does not or is it simply that you can read the ilford numbers more easily?

This is not a challenge. I am simply looking for information which will be important for those of us who might want to use Kodak film in folders

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Michael L.]

The new faint backing paper frame numbers, very frustrating though they can be, are not the only source of chagrin for users of MF cameras with ruby frame counter windows. I occasionally use a Czech Flexaret Standard TLR camera (6x6), and shooting Fomapan Creative 200 with it has presented me with an annoying problem.
Just at the end of the last frame (the 12th) the black backing paper has a mysterious 7 mm hole through which a corresponding area approx. 1 cm from bottom part of the negative is invariably exposed to light (perhaps at the factory?) and consequently ruined.
I have never encountered this problem with other 120 films (Adox, Ilford, Kodak, (old) Orwo, Rollei etc.). With them, I can rely on the frame number in the ruby window showing the correct positioning of the film. With Foma 200/120, however, the film seems to be displaced or offset relative to the backing paper. So far, I have shot six Fomapan 120 films, and all of them exhibit the same defect. I can only count on getting 11 full frames per film.
Have other APUG users met with this or a similar problem? Of course I should also dearly like to know what earthly end the hole might serve.

 

[John Wiegerink]

The new faint backing paper frame numbers, very frustrating though they can be, are not the only source of chagrin for users of MF cameras with ruby frame counter windows. I occasionally use a Czech Flexaret Standard TLR camera (6x6), and shooting Fomapan Creative 200 with it has presented me with an annoying problem.
Just at the end of the last frame (the 12th) the black backing paper has a mysterious 7 mm hole through which a corresponding area approx. 1 cm from bottom part of the negative is invariably exposed to light (perhaps at the factory?) and consequently ruined.
I have never encountered this problem with other 120 films (Adox, Ilford, Kodak, (old) Orwo, Rollei etc.). With them, I can rely on the frame number in the ruby window showing the correct positioning of the film. With Foma 200/120, however, the film seems to be displaced or offset relative to the backing paper. So far, I have shot six Fomapan 120 films, and all of them exhibit the same defect. I can only count on getting 11 full frames per film.
Have other APUG users met with this or a similar problem? Of course I should also dearly like to know what earthly end the hole might serve.
View attachment 164746

I shot this film shortly after it came out, but don't remember any hole in the backing paper. I only tried two rolls I think, but my memory is a little cloudy so those holes could have been there and I just missed them.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I had a Certo Dolly Supersport [folding camera circa 1935] with a Zeiss lens which could use any 120 film when used 6x6 but I could find no films that I could use for 645.

 

[studiocarter]

Studiocarter, can you tell us what your camera is? It seems from shots of backing paper provided by posters here that Kodak still caters for 6x9(8 frames), 6x6(12 frames and 6x 4.5(16 frames)

What does Ilford backing paper provide that does align with your window that Kodak does not or is it simply that you can read the ilford numbers more easily?

This is not a challenge. I am simply looking for information which will be important for those of us who might want to use Kodak film in folders

Thanks

pentaxuser

I already posted what my camera is. #21. Voigtlander Bessa, f3.5, compurrapid 1/400
Dual format, 6x9 & 6x4.5, but without the mask. I'm not alone there. The red Windows are between the center and the edge, so the inner or third row of the 8 are needed.
Kodak now only has one row of numbers in each zone. Ilford's has three in each area.

 

[bdial]

For panchromatic films, I don't think there is anything special about having a red gel in the window. Has anyone tried out other colors that might have better contrast? Or perhaps no gel at all (assuming the camera has a cover for the window)?
For example, the older Hassleblad backs just have a hole with no filter.

 

[bsdunek]

Thanks for the info. Do need readable numbers for my Holga's!

 

[studiocarter]

My as yet unsaid concern was that the fainter numbering, if indeed lined up to the red window, would need to be seen in brighter light. That may expose the film under it.
I use a flap of tape to avoid exposing circles.

 

[Harry Stevens]

As a Rolleiflex user it's such a eye opener to see how you poorer people cope with your little red windows in 2016.............

 

[NedL]

My as yet unsaid concern was that the fainter numbering, if indeed lined up to the red window, would need to be seen in brighter light. That may expose the film under it.
I use a flap of tape to avoid exposing circles.

That could be a problem. I too use a flap of tape on my cameras that don't have a little sliding "shutter" over the red window. One camera has a sliding shutter but it's loose, so it has tape to keep it closed!

I looked around for some Adox backing paper, but I think I recycled it all.

 

[Wallendo]

The new faint backing paper frame numbers, very frustrating though they can be, are not the only source of chagrin for users of MF cameras with ruby frame counter windows. I occasionally use a Czech Flexaret Standard TLR camera (6x6), and shooting Fomapan Creative 200 with it has presented me with an annoying problem.
Just at the end of the last frame (the 12th) the black backing paper has a mysterious 7 mm hole through which a corresponding area approx. 1 cm from bottom part of the negative is invariably exposed to light (perhaps at the factory?) and consequently ruined.
I have never encountered this problem with other 120 films (Adox, Ilford, Kodak, (old) Orwo, Rollei etc.). With them, I can rely on the frame number in the ruby window showing the correct positioning of the film. With Foma 200/120, however, the film seems to be displaced or offset relative to the backing paper. So far, I have shot six Fomapan 120 films, and all of them exhibit the same defect. I can only count on getting 11 full frames per film.
Have other APUG users met with this or a similar problem? Of course I should also dearly like to know what earthly end the hole might serve.
View attachment 164746

I have never had problems with the hole in the Foma paper, but I don't have a 6x6 camera that uses a red window.

At one time, I thought that the Foma film was somehow offset from other films - I used to lose my first frame and end up with a clear frame at the end. I eventually tracked this problem down to an error on my part. My problem was that Foma film has the word "start" printed on the paper about 2 inches before the arrows to align the film. I thought the word "start" written across the film was the actual alignment area. I have never had the mysterious problem you have experienced (my only current "red window" camera is a Kodak Pocket 1a Junior, whose red window is set low on the frame, well away from the Foma hole).

It is hard for me to picture how the hole in the paper would cause the problem you experience. Any light that passes through the hole, presumably from the red window, should pass towards the shutter area, not film that has already been wound on to the takeup reel which has a solid backing paper present. Maybe you got a defective roll of some sort?

 

[John Wiegerink]

As a Rolleiflex user it's such a eye opener to see how you poorer people cope with your little red windows in 2016.............

Well, let's see you slip your Rolleiflex into your jacket pocket? My Bessa 66 slides in and out of my pocket like a slippery fish. Yes, poor folks can take very good picture too! That said, I have several Rolleiflex cameras, but they don't travel with me as much as my Super Ikonta cameras do. Why? Portability, that's why.

 

[Bill Burk]

The red Windows are between the center and the edge, so the inner or third row of the 8 are needed.
Kodak now only has one row of numbers in each zone. Ilford's has three in each area.

My Bessa II has the red window centered on 1/2 inch from the edge. I can see both numbers of the old backing paper as I wind... You know... Someone more interested in taking pictures with the camera instead of maintaining a collectible "could" replace red windows with clear. It's sort of silly anyway since we often shoot panchromatic film and the backing paper has practically complete opacity. (Just a thought. Let me know if this suggestion is dangerously wrong)

 

[R.Gould]

All foma 120 film has this hole, it is always after the last frame, at least with 66 or 645, and never causes me a problem, I use a lot of red window csmeras, the simple way to avoid the hole appearing on you negative is to make sure the red window is closed, either with some black tape or use the slide, after the last frame and before you wind the film to the end, also, the Rollei film I have used also has the hole in the backing psper, Rollei use the same backing paper as Foma, never, in many years of usinf Foma 200/400 in folders has the appearance of the hole interfeared with the final negative,

 

[Agulliver]

Count me as another occasional user of folding cameras. It might be insignificant but I do use a Zeiss-Ikon 520/16 from time to time and have a few box cameras that are occasionally used for fun. I tend to go with Ilford or Foma film but I did run a load of Tri-X last year and couldn't see any issues.

I find Ilford's backing paper to be very easy to see through the little red window, and the increasing circles are a good warning that one is approaching the next frame. I am guessing that Kodak doesn't have much money to invest in improved backing paper/ink if their best solution is to cut down the rows and lighten the ink.

 

[Michael L.]

The simple way to avoid the hole appearing on you negative is to make sure the red window is closed, either with some black tape or use the slide, after the last frame and before you wind the film to the end.

Thanks for your suggestion. Well, that is in fact my standard procedure: I always cover the ruby window with the slide immediately after winding on to next frame, including the last one. It would seem that the exposure through the hole takes place while I wind the film on to the '12' mark, and there is no way to avoid that as the ruby window is the only way I have to count frames.

After reading the suggestions from yourself and from Wallendo, I can only conclude that the batch of Foma rolls I was using was defective - the film appears to have been attached to the backing paper too far in from the start of the paper, the last frame thus extending past the hole at the end. This conclusion seems to be borne out by the fact that I get considerably more unexposed film ahead of the first frame than with other film brands I have used.

Does this explanation sound reasonable?

 

[R.Gould]

anything is possible, but in many years of using fomapan , both 200 and 400, it is not a problem I personally have seen, the hole is always beyond the last frame, at least in 66/645, maybe using 68 0r69 may make a difference, but I can't see how, there is always a lot of space between the last frame and hole, the only thing I would add is that the length of foma films 120 seems slightly shorter than Ilford, but that should not make any difference, and I have used many hundreds of rolls of foma 120, up until a year ago I was a professional using foma film exclusively for black and white, and I have yet to see a defective film or any QC problems, the explanation for more film before the first exposure using red window cameras is the slightly shorter length, but why you get the hole in a negative I can't fathom,

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the reply, studiocarter. I now grasp your problem and sympathise. If there is no way to see even a faint image of the number then this is a bummer.

I wonder if Kodak has any idea of the problem its change to the marking has caused?

pentaxuser

 

[studiocarter]

Thanks for the reply, studiocarter. I now grasp your problem and sympathise. If there is no way to see even a faint image of the number then this is a bummer.

I wonder if Kodak has any idea of the problem its change to the marking has caused?

pentaxuser

I can see the faint image, but only of a tiny part of some number as it is way out of frame. If they just printed all of the rows, three in each, all would be well.

So, I will now buy fp4+ and across since I cannot use Kodak anymore, with this camera anyway.