Ultrafine 120 film: I can see the numbers and guide marks on my exposures!

[John Wiegerink]

Yes, a little confusing, but think of how the roll is when you open the wrapper. Yes, it is wound rather tight isn't it? That means the film emulsion is tight up against the number printed on the backing paper from the frame or several frames before it. That means it the ink used for numbers is might chemically release some sort of harmful vapor to the emulsion or if the ink/paint is still damp it might leave it's imprint on the emulsion. If you have a negative with the edge frame number of 10 and the shadow number is 10 then I'd say it's a red window problem. If it is frame 10 and you have some other number then I'd say you have a transfer problem. Mine with Efke was a window problem, but like Simon Says don't leave the window uncovered for any length of time of in very bright light, use tape. I left my camera unused and exposed to light many days before I finished the roll. On some frames there was nothing since I advanced the film for several shots rather quickly and light didn't have time to penetrate the backing paper. I always use tape now since one of the shots on the Efke was of a very good friend who has since passed on and just above his head, in the sky, is the number 6 or 9 whichever way you want to look at it. Lesson learned, as usual, the hard way. JohnW

 

[Steve Smith]

The terms don't cross the pond very well. Two cultures separated by a common language and all that.

They didn't make much sense this side either!

If you have a negative with the edge frame number of 10 and the shadow number is 10 then I'd say it's a red window problem. If it is frame 10 and you have some other number then I'd say you have a transfer problem.

With a transfer, it will only be offset by one rotation of the roll around the spool so it's likely to be the correct number for the frame but offset by between 3/4" and 1 1/2".


Steve.

 

[John Wiegerink]

They didn't make much sense this side either!



With a transfer, it will only be offset by one rotation of the roll around the spool so it's likely to be the correct number for the frame but offset by between 3/4" and 1 1/2".


Steve.

True Steve! I'm just locked in the 2 1/4" sq. mode at the moment and if it's transfer then the numbers, either way, won't be in the middle of the frame. Just going back to the OP first thread and example it does seem to be transfer if he's getting all the guide marks he's indicating. JohnW

 

[Steve Smith]

Yes. I think he said that he is seeing all the marks, not just those pertinent to his frame size which would be the only set behind the window.


Steve.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I have never had a problem with light coming in through a red window. I suspect it's the ink transfer rather than light.


Steve.

I agree.

 

[Jimski]

I have used this film a lot in past years and really liked it but the latest batch I got is really terrible. It has the print through problem with a Rolleicord, no red window, all over the image, plus very bad dappling of the negative. So it's pretty much not usable. The rolls are undated so might be quite old, or perhaps were not stored properly for a while. Not all the rolls in the package of ten are that way, some are fine. Gonna have to find another favorite methinks.

Jimski

 

[Jimski]

On second thought....After shooting eight of the ten rolls I had it was clear only my old Rolleicord was having the problem, not the Yashica or Richoflex. A further web search found someone who said the problem is caused by not having enough tension in the film. I don't really see the connection but it was easy to bend the little tension tab harder against the supply reel to increase film tension. I shot another roll thus with the Rolleicord and, bingo!, no more print through. Don't understand it but it worked. Try it.

Jimski

 

[Jeff Searust]

On the ultra fine film, it's the ink on the backing, and it looks like it might be the black part of the backing, as where the white numbers are seems to look better.

I used multiple cameras, multiple backs, multiple exposures and 10 rolls of film from different boxes purchased on 2 different orders, and all of them have the issue. I also tried a different developer when I saw how bad the first few rolls were looking. So this has nothing to do with red windows in cameras. This film is junk pure and simple. I did 2 days of shooting with the stuff. I used it in a shoot where I should have known better than to use the cheap stuff but I had it and used it.

 

[John Wiegerink]

On the ultra fine film, it's the ink on the backing, and it looks like it might be the black part of the backing, as where the white numbers are seems to look better.

I used multiple cameras, multiple backs, multiple exposures and 10 rolls of film from different boxes purchased on 2 different orders, and all of them have the issue. I also tried a different developer when I saw how bad the first few rolls were looking. So this has nothing to do with red windows in cameras. This film is junk pure and simple. I did 2 days of shooting with the stuff. I used it in a shoot where I should have known better than to use the cheap stuff but I had it and used it.

For me the real killer to this film was not the number transfer problem, but mottled emulsion. Take a loupe and look at, say the sky or even lit area of the negative and you'll see the pattern. I only use it to test a new camera or one I've repaired.
JohnW