Recurrent black smearing / streaking on last frames of Kodak 35 mm films (since ~2020)

[Joerg Bergs]

Hello everyone,

I would like to report a recurring issue that I have been observing for several years now and would like to know whether others have seen something similar.

Observation:
On virtually all Kodak 35 mm films I have used since approximately 2020 – color negative and black & white alike – I see dark smearing or streak-like marks on the last frames of the roll, typically frames 37–39.
The marks are always located near the end of the film, i.e. the section that sits closest to the spool core when fully wound.

Key characteristics:

• Appears on almost every Kodak 35 mm film, regardless of emulsion (Portra, Tri-X, T-Max, etc.)
• Always limited to the final frames of the roll on the emulsion side
• The pattern looks like black smearing or streaking, not typical light leaks. There is no silver visible on the emulsion
• Consistent position relative to the film end

What can be ruled out:
This issue is independent of development method.
It occurs with hanger development, dip-and-dunk or transport systems, and in JOBO tanks.
It occurs with different developers, chemistries, agitation styles.

Because of this, it does not appear to be a development or processing artifact.

It is also not camera-specific and appears across different cameras and workflows.

Hypothesis and open questions:
Given that the marks only affect the film end, appear regardless of processing, and are consistent across Kodak 35 mm films, I suspect a mechanical or material-related cause.
Possible factors could include film base or backing layer behavior near the spool core, pressure, friction, or adhesion at the film end, or changes in Kodak’s 35 mm film manufacturing, backing, or attachment to the spool core in recent years.

Questions to the community:

• Has anyone else observed similar marks on recent Kodak 35 mm films?
• Are there known changes in Kodak’s 35 mm cassette, film base, or backing since around 2020?

I am deliberately not drawing conclusions and would appreciate any shared observations or technical insights.

Thank you very much.

 

[koraks]

This is a wild guess, but it may be emulsion damage incurred during confectioning / spooling the film into the cassettes. Since it's significantly beyond the part of the film that's typically used, Kodak may simply not care.

 

[runswithsizzers]

You say, "black smearing" but you mean black on the inverted (positive), right? If it is black on the negative film emulsion, then I would expect it to show up as white on the inverted image.

What does the film look like in good light, up close with a loupe? Can you see physical damage to the emusion?

Are you buying the film in factory cassettes or are you loading from bulk?

When you have removed the film from the cassette, and when you get to the end where it attaches to the spool, do you remove the tape from the end of the film? Or do you cut the tape and leave some tape attached to the film?

This is a wild guess, but it may be emulsion damage incurred during confectioning / spooling the film into the cassettes. Since it's significantly beyond the part of the film that's typically used, Kodak may simply not care.

Usually, when someone gets more than 36 frames from a roll of 135 film, don't the extra frames come from the start of the roll, and not the spool end?

 

[snusmumriken]

Are the marks on just a single frame on each roll, or more than one frame?

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

If your camera winds the film emulsion side out on the take-up spool then this may be caused by the emulsion scraping against the body of the camera.

 

[brbo]

Usually, when someone gets more than 36 frames from a roll of 135 film, don't the extra frames come from the start of the roll, and not the spool end?

I've heard of people rewinding film after 36exp. And even cameras that do that automatically. They obviously have reasons. None that make sense to me, but hey...

I take great pleasure squeezing 39 frames (and sometimes 40) out of a 36exp roll, but have never observed this on my films.

 

[pentaxuser]

Photrio is not of course the whole population that uses film but it seems strange that nobody here has observed this problem or commented on it, so I have doubts that this is a manufacturing problem that has affected all Kodak films

pentaxuser

 

[runswithsizzers]

I've heard of people rewinding film after 36exp. And even cameras that do that automatically. They obviously have reasons. None that make sense to me, but hey...

I take great pleasure squeezing 39 frames (and sometimes 40) out of a 36exp roll, but have never observed this on my films.

I get 37 or sometimes 38 by taking the first exposure before the film counter gets to "0" That is, I use the leader at the start of the roll to add one or two frames. Once the film advance lever stops, I am done. I don't know of any way to force extra frames at the end of the roll.

One other minor factor that might get an extra frame with some cameras is how much space there is between the frames. If camera A adds a 3mm space between frames, and camera B adds only 2mm, then camera B is going to have an extra 36mm at the end of a 36 exposure roll.

And cameras which have shorter spacing between the film cartridge and the takeup spool will have shorter leaders, and therfore possibly an extra frame(?)

But if @Joerg Bergs is routinely getting "37–39" frames on different cameras, then that makes me think maybe he is winding his film from bulk, and loading a little long? If so, then his marks may be related to the way he loads the cassettes?

 

[koraks]

Usually, when someone gets more than 36 frames from a roll of 135 film, don't the extra frames come from the start of the roll, and not the spool end?

Depends I guess. I don't know how much excess Kodak spools up at the end.

But if @Joerg Bergs is routinely getting "37–39" frames on different cameras, then that makes me think maybe he is winding his film from bulk

37 frames or more is pretty feasible on normal 36exp rolls depending on how frugally you load the film.

 

[pentaxuser]

But if @Joerg Bergs is routinely getting "37–39" frames on different cameras, then that makes me think maybe he is winding his film from bulk, and loading a little long? If so, then his marks may be related to the way he loads the cassettes?

While the above cannot be dismissed, you'd imagine that if all his Kodak films are loaded from bulk he'd have said so and to have all those films as bulk and only from bulk since 2020 does sound unlikely

pentaxuser

 

[brbo]

I don't know of any way to force extra frames at the end of the roll.

Neither do I. All I said is that I regularly get 39 frames on cameras where you have control on how many film the camera wastes at the start of the roll. I regularly get 40 on a smaller camera like Contax T. That's with day-loading the film (not in a dark bag).

That was all just to make a point that more often than not I take the last frame very close to the end of the roll (as I'm sure most of us do) but have never observed the defects that OP has been noticing on virtually all of his Kodak rolls in the last 5 years and is very sure it's not tied to development or handling of the film.

 

[calebarchie]

Yes, see it all the time - apparently a Kodak issue, I don't think they care.

 

[MattKing]

Show us a backlit digital image of the negatives themselves, so we can see where the issue is in relation to the frame numbering.
If it is a long way past the 36A frame number - Kodak probably doesn't take steps to prevent such an occurrence.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Looks like something I'd get with Aviphot films and pressure sensitisation. Would make some sense too if pressure-sensitive dyes are used - first bend of the film creates a pressure point for the first overlapping frames (very last of the roll).

Have experienced this with hand-rolled Aviphot - especially the portion where tape was attached.

 

[koraks]

Would make some sense too if pressure-sensitive dyes are used

Note that silver halides in a gelatin emulsion are already sensitive to (intense) pressure; no dyes need to be involved. You can create density easily by marring the emulsion with e.g. your fingernail (followed by chemical development). And indeed no specifically pressure-sensitive dyes are involved a regular photographic film, including Aviphot.

 

[foc]

I know that without seeing what the negative looks like, it is hard to detect the problem.

My first reaction was, could it be residue from the tape Kodak use to attach the film to the cassette spool?

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Note that silver halides in a gelatin emulsion are already sensitive to (intense) pressure; no dyes need to be involved. You can create density easily by marring the emulsion with e.g. your fingernail (followed by chemical development). And indeed no specifically pressure-sensitive dyes are involved a regular photographic film, including Aviphot.

Oh, ok - good to know then!

 

[Joerg Bergs]

I am the operator of MeinFilmLab. Since around 2019, we have had well over 10,000 rolls, all from Kodak, of all types, with this problem. These are not self-wound rolls, but rolls from normal sales. On the negative here, you can see that the emulsion is missing in these areas. Only Kodak films, no Ilford films.

 

[koraks]

@Joerg Bergs thanks for this illustration; it's super interesting especially because this evidently affects an area of the film that can be normally expected to be used for image-making.
I wonder if there's a relationship with Eastman Kodak's expansion of confectioning capacity in recent years.

 

[brbo]

Is it always on the frame 36?

I only checked the very last frames of my recent Kodak films which is not frame 36 in my case... I'll have a look at my frames 36 when I get home, but I'm quite sure I'd have noticed such a thing.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Thanks for posting the negative. At the size shown, it is difficult to see the defect in sufficient detail. If you look at the defect closely with a 5x-10x loupe, can you see physical damage? By that, I mean is there a crater or scratch in the emulsion (emulsion missing) -- or is the emulsion smooth and undamaged?

 

[Joerg Bergs]

Thanks for posting the negative. At the size shown, it is difficult to see the defect in sufficient detail. If you look at the defect closely with a 5x-10x loupe, can you see physical damage? By that, I mean is there a crater or scratch in the emulsion (emulsion missing) -- or is the emulsion smooth and undamaged?

As mentioned in my first post, close inspection with a loupe confirms physical damage: the emulsion is missing. On many many Kodak Films after the no. 36. Color and BW.

 

[runswithsizzers]

As mentioned in my first post, close inspection with a loupe confirms physical damage: the emulsion is missing. On many many Kodak Films after the no. 36. Color and BW.

Actually, your first post says, "There is no silver visible on the emulsion," which to me, suggests the emulsion is intact, but somehow blank. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[MattKing]

Is the damage at exactly the same place every time. If so, that may lead to the possibility that it is somehow related to the combination of the film and how it is being handled at your end.
This sort of reminds me of a story shared by my Dad, who was Customer Service manager at a Kodak Canada Kodachrome processing lab for over three decades. They started seeing some recurring small damage on some of the customer film. It turned out to be due to a change of routine implemented by one of the several women who worked in the pre-splice area - handling individual customer rolls and attending to splicing them on to the single roll that went through the machines. Many differences of course with your situation.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I just looked at my negatives going back to 2020. I was suprised by how little 35mm Kodak film I have shot in the past 5 years -- only about 6 rolls. (I have been shooting more 120 film, and other brands in 135.)

Out of my 6 rolls of Kodak film, I saw emulsion damage on the last frame of only one roll -- which was Kodak Double X branded as Flic Film XX 250. So made by Kodak, but probably confectioned elsewhere? The emulsion damage on my Flic Film Double X does not look exactly like the damage shown in this thread, so it may be due to an unrelated cause?