Then the problem is the backing paper, ink, film, environmental factors and retail & distribution and how they interact.
The problem is with all the above, and in particular with how they interact with each other, which itself isn't all that well understood.
Eastman Kodak manufactured their own backing paper until the steep decline of film sales. They used old techniques, old machinery, old inks.
When that decline happened they stopped making backing paper, and were left with several years of supply.
So they got rid of their production capacity.
In the meantime, the paper manufacturing and printing industry went through sea changes in technology and availability.
When Eastman Kodak finally ran out of backing paper that they had manufactured, they sought new stuff from the available manufacturers and printers.
And it turned out that the availability was really poor, and the single source that was able to supply something which met their expected requirements, ended up supplying product that met those requirements, but turned out to fail over time, on an unpredictable and never fully understood way.
But sometimes, unexpected things happen to components like backing paper, which always has been the source of a small amount of problems, and the incidence of those problems increases.
Yes, it was Eastman Kodak who was the source for the "single supplier" information.
I have read numerous statements taken from private correspondences with Ilford and Kodak in which the companies were very forthcoming about the backing paper issue and their desire to eliminate the problem. People on this forum have quoted or paraphrased such communications and posted them in context of threads similar to this one. So I don't think its accurate to say that neither Ilford nor Kodak "doesn't care" about this problem; evidence suggests the opposite.
If you read what I said, you would see I didn't say that they don't care about the problem. I said that by not communicating with the consumers who buy their goods and have a problem with their purchase gives the appearance of "not caring". Just replacing a bad roll of film is "NOT" communicating. It's called pacifying.
I did read what you said, and it insinuated that these companies don't care enough to meet your minimum requirements. So be it. I can assure you that my personal experience in corresponding with Kodak technicians has demonstrated that they very much do care about their product.
If the film market (well, the 120 film market) were really experiencing a resurgence as many are saying, Kodak and Ilford would invest in developing a backing material that would be immune to the current, sporadic problems.
Kodak has done exactly that recently: Developed a new backing paper. Fujifilm did not need it, as their backing paper has not been affected.
And Ilford is certainly also working on improvements.
But I think the problem with Ilford is overrated. Probably only 0.01% of the films are affected. But when it happens, the users report and it is going viral online........
And digital devices and their software never have problems? As my mother used to say, you're jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. The company where I worked had to spend a couple million dollars a year on average trying to keep the hardware and software up to date. Problems were constant, and I retired just a few weeks before they had to spend months replacing the entire system. I was there for forty years, and the era before computerization was a lot less complicated. During those same four decades, I had exactly two instances of flawed film, and my same cameras are still going strong. So what horse do you think I'd bet on?
Once a digital file has been processed, just like film, it can be read and printed by a myriad of programs--there is no need to update anything. I use digital cameras made 10 years ago regularly, and still work with files from 2002 with no issues. Most analog photographers don't retouch their photos. Why should a digital photographer think they need to edit their photos? I never printed analog color and never intend to, there are people with the skills I can depend on to do that. Same for digital, if it is critical.I won't argue with you Drew and I find some things completely over my head with software. Some of the editing software takes for longer to learn than I have to live.
I took my first photo with my very own camera in 1959 and slightly before that with my father's Kodak Target 616. Now you know where my passion dwells. Film! Still, I can get great results with my Sony A7RII and some simple software. Would I rather use film? Of course, but if it disappeared, I could get by fine. Also, if that said A7RII kept spitting out unacceptable shots, it would be gone also. I guess I'd go to painting landscapes then. Actually, about the only thing I can paint is my bedroom walls.
How do you know this is not the course they have decided would be best for them? If they came to your house and held your hand while you were sobbing over your ruined film, would that be a better solution? Maybe if you are a major customer. But there really aren't any major film customers any more. Film can get damaged by lab faults. Strobes fail to fire, cameras jam, dirt gets on the lens, negatives get scratched. And so it goes. On every box of film it states that the manufacturer's liability is for the roll of film, not the image. Part of shooting film is a little game of Russian roulette, after all.At least they could have a PR person type out a course of action and give us an update from time to time. That's called good business practice. If I keep getting bad Ilford stock, I'll switch to Kodak until it's resolved.
Kodak has done exactly that recently: Developed a new backing paper. Fujifilm did not need it, as their backing paper has not been affected.
And Ilford is certainly also working on improvements.
But I think the problem with Ilford is overrated. Probably only 0.01% of the films are affected. But when it happens, the users report and it is going viral online........
Hello Matt,
and it is very doubtful that Kodak knew really all other sources at that time. Especially concerning Fujifilm (who due to my sources always had their own source; and their 120 converting quality has been by far the best in the industry with the Easy-End-Seal, Easy-Loading and Barcode system).
And the (very different) backing paper of Chinese film at that time was certainly also from a different source.
Best regards,
Henning
Yes, Fujifilm does need it. About a year ago I experienced these mottling problems on both Ilford FP4+ and Fuji Neopan Acros. The backing papers on both types looked identical to me, only with a few extra Japanese signs on the Fuji paper.
That's because Ilford is involved in current Acros II production (therefore the "Made in UK" on the Acros II boxes), and Acros II is definitely converted and finished by Ilford. I remember well reading the discussions about that here on photrio after Acros II being introduced.
I stand with my original statement, but make it more precise: Fujifilm's own, original 120 converting (for their color films, done at their own factory) is perfect and don't need a change.
How do you know this is not the course they have decided would be best for them? If they came to your house and held your hand while you were sobbing over your ruined film, would that be a better solution? Maybe if you are a major customer. But there really aren't any major film customers any more. Film can get damaged by lab faults. Strobes fail to fire, cameras jam, dirt gets on the lens, negatives get scratched. And so it goes. On every box of film it states that the manufacturer's liability is for the roll of film, not the image. Part of shooting film is a little game of Russian roulette, after all.
But sometimes, unexpected things happen to components like backing paper, which always has been the source of a small amount of problems, and the incidence of those problems increases.
That's why I always think 220 films should not be overlooked.
With 220, the paper is only used at the leading and trailing end, reducing the problems that you get when every bit of film is touched by backing paper.
That's why I always think 220 films should not be overlooked.
With 220, the paper is only used at the leading and trailing end, reducing the problems that you get when every bit of film is touched by backing paper.
Oh my. All of this is so terrifying. So why do I keep shooting 120 film when I have other format gear too, especially with respect to sheet film? Because it's fun, convenient, relatively quite affordable, and I keep getting clean frames without any problems. Maybe that's because I obtained all my roll film from reputable dealers who promptly removed and returned any suspect batch numbers from their shelves once a problem was identified. Perhaps it's because I hold my film reserves in a freezer until time of use. Perhaps when I order light sensitive materials for shipping, it's never during the hot season inland, or else it promptly arrives air shipment. I dunno. Luck maybe. But something has been consistently working for me.
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?