Numbers on 120 backing paper not aligning with red window

[tedr1]

Gerald Koch wrote: "You cannot expect a product manufactured more than half a century ago to be still supported."

If you were thinking of the film format rather than the camera, double that 50 year figure, 120 film was introduced in 1901 according to Wikipedia.

 

[removed account4]

maybe this is how they remedied the " ink transfering to the negative" problem they had? by putting 95%less ink on the paper. ...

 

[MattKing]

maybe this is how they remedied the " ink transfering to the negative" problem they had? by putting 95%less ink on the paper. ...

That is exactly what has happened.
It would be a service to both Kodak Alaris and the users of old folding 120 cameras worldwide if you would express your disappointment to Kodak Alaris: profilm@kodakalaris.com

Details of the camera involved and the location of the window would no doubt help.

 

[studiocarter]

Done

 

[pentaxuser]

Done

It will be interesting to me and no doubt to all the other posters if feel you can share with us Kodak's reply. Given that not so long ago it provided 3 numbers for each neg size to cater for different red windows it does seem difficult to imagine that in deciding to delete two of the three numbers no-one at Kodak failed to ask himself why there were 3 numbers originally and what the consequences might be of abandoning two of them when rivals Ilford and Fuji did not.

pentaxuser

 

[studiocarter]

No problem. I included my address and phone number so they would know that I'm not a crank. The link to the thread was also sent. I hope they read pentaxuser's last thread.

 

[Julie McLeod]

I'm glad you let us know about this problem since all three of my medium format cameras use the ruby window, at least to get the film to the first frame.

 

[faberryman]

[QUOTE="DWThomas, post: 1839236, member: 13374"... here's a before and after from my recent experience...[/QUOTE]

If they are worried about print-through, perhaps they don't need to print "Kodak" next to every frame number.

 

[Wallendo]

It makes sense that reducing the density of the numbers would reduce bleed-through. It is not clear to me how reducing the area of the ink would make a difference, since bleed-through should be a function of the concentration of ink at a given point.

 

[DWThomas]

[QUOTE="DWThomas, post: 1839236, member: 13374"... here's a before and after from my recent experience...

If they are worried about print-through, perhaps they don't need to print "Kodak" next to every frame number.[/QUOTE]

True, although I believe its intended purpose is a little advance hint "the number is almost here" as one is twisting the crank, a sort of marketing replacement for the rings of increasing size seen on the competition. (I suppose a ring or two phantomed on the cheek of a portrait subject would seem a little less tacky than "KODAK" as we've seen displayed here in some early threads on this problem. )

 

[DWThomas]

It makes sense that reducing the density of the numbers would reduce bleed-through. It is not clear to me how reducing the area of the ink would make a difference, since bleed-through should be a function of the concentration of ink at a given point.

Agreed, although I suppose since the original problem apparently occurred less than 100% of the time, the thought was to further reduce the probability. There have been a lot of changes in printing ink and process over the last decade or three in attempts to reduce undesirable chemicals scattered about. I suspect somewhere along the way that caught up with them. We still, as far as I know, have not heard what the exact mechanism was, whether it was physical ink/pigment deposited on the emulsion surface or some sort of emulsion alteration from outgassing or whatever. Years back -- even just a few years -- we didn't appear to be seeing this with way more darker print, something changed.

 

[studiocarter]

Kodak sent me an email. They say they are no, well, to quote: "
Dear Mr. Carter,

We are in the process of printing backing paper with an added frame number track for Voigtlander Bessa 6x9 cameras. See below. The very bottom track is the one we have added back.

Here is the photo of what they sent to me:

Here is a photo of paper, (PX125), with my window outlined, which I immediately sent back to them:

Are they adding the correct row or not? I specifically asked for the inner track in my initial inquiry.
What I wrote:
Hello,
New 400TMY no longer has 9 rows of numbers. I tried to use my Voigtlander Bessa 6x9 / 6x4.5 that has two red Windows in a line not on the edge and not in the center. No numbers could be seen. A piece of one was seen way out of frame. TX is the same.
Lightness of the ink is not the issue here. The numbers are gone entirely.
Please put them back.
Thank you.
1013 views at the time of writing this post.

 

[DWThomas]

Well if naught else, it's certainly encouraging that they are attempting to address the problem.

 

[Michael L.]

I certainly don't wish to hijack this thread by complaining about Foma 120, but rather than starting a new thread I venture to allow myself just one last remark about the annoying hole in the backing paper.
It appears that I'm not the only one to have encountered this particular problem:
https://twitter.com/berrange/status/631546776353243136

(And I still can't fathom the reason for the hole.)

 

[studiocarter]

What 100 speed Ilford (I think) B&W 120 Pan Film has black paper like the Foma without the hole?

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

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

Hi!
All foma 120 rolls have the same backing paper.
I use several; Zeiss Ikon folding cameras in the 6x4.5, 6x6 and 6x9. While the hole does appear at end of film, it isn't in the frame area.
So, I have no complaints with my present cameras.

 

[studiocarter]

What 100 speed Ilford (I think) B&W 120 Pan Film has black paper like the Foma without the hole?

Answer:
Arista EDU 100.

It happened to me, too in a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye 620 camera. I never saw the hole in the paper until just now.

 

[DWThomas]

Seems as though that hole in the paper might be some "crutch" to help anchor or align the assembly of film and backing paper, but maybe either the hole or the film/paper positioning is off for some reason. There's enough backing paper on most roll films to take 3 or 4 wraps around the exposed roll past the end, one wouldn't think the hole would be in the film area. (Maybe some bad batches are how the Arista folks got a deal on it!)

 

[Wallendo]

I know that Simon Galley once stated that there was only one remaining manufacturer of backing paper, but it seems that the black paper used by Foma looks and feels quite different from the Kodak backing. Does Foma just have a lot of old paper floating around?

 

[DWThomas]

I know that Simon Galley once stated that there was only one remaining manufacturer of backing paper, but it seems that the black paper used by Foma looks and feels quite different from the Kodak backing. Does Foma just have a lot of old paper floating around?

The surface finish on the Fuji Acros backing paper looks noticeably different from the Ilford and Kodak papers too. One wonders if it may be true there is only one manufacturer but they make the stuff to customer specification. And virtually every film supplier has different type styles and so on; is that printing done by the paper manufacturer or the film maker?

 

[MartinP]

I'd be somehow surprised if manufacturers in (at least) USA, UK, Czech Republic, Germany and China all used the same materials supplier.

At least some Flexarets (I have a VI) use a film-driven counter, so it is not essential to look at numbers. I do have both an Agfa Clack and an Isolette with red-windows and which are still usable, though it is much harder to see the numbers than it was 45 years ago with Verichrome Pan (not due to my eyesight in this case!).

 

[michr]

I wrote Kodak Alaris. They came back with the same statement about the 6x9 numbers for Voightlander Bessa cameras. I still don't know if that means every 6x9 with the red frame window or not.

 

[studiocarter]

Arista EDU 100 must be started sooner than the numbers in order to defeat the hole at the end. This is the row that lines up with the window in the Bessa without the number 1 that I have. If I used it in the Voigtlander Bessa I'd have to start counting at the first white square seen and not the number that follows.

I hope Kodak puts the correct row of numbers back on.

 

[Michael L.]

Arista EDU 100 must be started sooner than the numbers in order to defeat the hole at the end.

After six rolls, my own conclusion to a T, studiocarter. Thank you. My Flexaret Standard uses the middle row of numbers, and the Foma 200 (= Arista EDU 200?) must be started at the first of the three white squares ahead of the numbers to finish before the hole at the end is reached.
I think that post #67 conclusively shows that (a particular batch of) the film is to be blamed, not any particular cameras.

 

[pentaxuser]

Even if adding one line for the Voigtlander 6x9 is the answer and it seems not to be yet clear that Kodak will add the "right" line, it still prompts me to ask: What is the advantage to Kodak to do this in terms of money savings compared to simply restoring the "status quo ante" which Kodak knows will definitely solve the problem?

Given that Kodak like other 120 film manufacturers has the paper done for it then the only saving I can think of only occurs if Kodak does it own printing but unless it is expensive to reset the printing machine for 3 lines at the bottom as opposed to one then the saving in ink must be very marginal, surely?

If of course the printing is done for Kodak by the same third party that does Ilford and Fuji then the cost of requesting a full reset from the third party and a return to the status quo ante has to be very small, doesn't it?

pentaxuser