I was told by a senior Kodak manager that the problem of the backing occurred in transport. Could be heat but also radiation in scanning film in transport. Paper backing image like a watermark. They know of the problem and will replace the film.
I was told by a senior Kodak manager that the problem of the backing occurred in transport. Could be heat but also radiation in scanning film in transport. Paper backing image like a watermark. They know of the problem and will replace the film.From previous threads my impression is that the company which makes the backing paper really calls the shots. Kodak and Ilford have managed to get the printing lightened on the paper but little else. What can the user do ? Buy fresh film from a reputable source, keep it cool and use it promptly. The problem seems to be caused by heat. This is certainly plausible as heat would increase the diffusion of chemicals in the ink to the film. Remember that the ink is in direct contact with the film emulsion.
Processing film without exposing ! or only exposing some images. one image on B(overexposed ) everything indoors.If post #123 is correct, and that UV discovery looks mighty promising as a potential contributing factor, then the character shadowing would be occurring after the roll is unwrapped but before it's loaded, or after it's removed from the camera but before it's processed. Your closed camera, opaque to UV light, would not be the cause.
If backing paper fluorescence is contributing to the problem, for an opened but unexposed roll one would expect to see a more pronounced shadowing effect in the earlier frames (lower numbered). But for an exposed roll, one would expect the opposite where the later frames (higher numbered) would be more pronounced. Or more likely, both cases might be visible to varying degrees.
Perhaps you could check your character shadows and their corresponding frame numbers for any recurring patterns.
A test might be to open a new 120 roll in total darkness (changing bag or darkroom), load your camera in total darkness, expose that roll normally in your camera, then remove and process the film in total darkness. If external UV light is causing the backing paper to fluoresce and shadow characters, eliminating the UV light should eliminate those artifacts.
[Edit: Performing such a test it would also be wise to load, expose, unload, and process a second identical roll normally (not in total darkness) to serve as a control against which to compare the final results.]
Ken
Radiation from Outside-Nuclear plant-accident or Radon in their facility.I was told by a senior Kodak manager that the problem of the backing occurred in transport. Could be heat but also radiation in scanning film in transport. Paper backing image like a watermark. They know of the problem and will replace the film.
I am living in Auckland, New Zealand. I have just seen this and it has been my first encounter with this problem. The exposures with the problem were long exposures. Between 6 minutes to 15 minutes. Film I used was Kodak Ektar 100.
Welcome to Apug, Alex!
We have been discussing both the nature of this issue and Kodak Alaris' silence on it since 2015 on hudreds of pages.
At the end of 2018 Alaris made their first public statement on this, saying that they solved the problem:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...-statement-on-the-backing-paper-issue.162710/
When and where did you buy that film?
Thanks, good to be here, glad there is some information on this. I bought the film about 6 weeks ago and to my knowledge it was not expired. I thought it may have something to do with the length of exposure time being quite long ?Welcome to Apug, Alex!
We have been discussing both the nature of this issue and Kodak Alaris' silence on it since 2015 on hudreds of pages.
At the end of 2018 Alaris made their first public statement on this, saying that they solved the problem:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...-statement-on-the-backing-paper-issue.162710/
When and where did you buy that film?
AWelcome to Apug, Alex!
We have been discussing both the nature of this issue and Kodak Alaris' silence on it since 2015 on hudreds of pages.
At the end of 2018 Alaris made their first public statement on this, saying that they solved the problem:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...-statement-on-the-backing-paper-issue.162710/
When and where did you buy that film?
Thanks for the help. I have contacted the store who I have bought the film off. They are looking into it. I hope I don't have to run into this problem again.The artefact is caused by interaction of the backing paper and the emulsion of the adjacent layer, when the fillm is in spooled state.
There is no hint of the exposure being part of the issue.
Kodak Alaris either had no knowledge of certain batches being affected or did not bother. All it seems is that all films from that period went into retail without being called back. Some films showed the artefact, others not.
This policy of Alaris may be the cause that affected film is still in retail.
Or the problem returned.
The weird thing is, another attached image doesn't show the same problem. It was on the same roll, frame 9 of 10 I believe.The artefact is caused by interaction of the backing paper and the emulsion of the adjacent layer, when the fillm is in spooled state.
There is no hint of the exposure being part of the issue.
Kodak Alaris either had no knowledge of certain batches being affected or did not bother. All it seems is that all films from that period went into retail without being called back. Some films showed the artefact, others not.
This policy of Alaris may be the cause that affected film is still in retail.
Or the problem returned.
I do not have the packet that it came in or the box. I can just go off what I can see on the negatives.The problem is complex, there are several reasons for this different behaviour other than exposure time.
Can you give us the emulsion number and expiry date of the affected Ektar 100 ?
Hey. Cool. I found some letters. A1291011Look for really tiny letters and numbers in amongst the edge printing near the end of the film.
Yeah I have contacted them. Will wait til they get back from holidays to see what they say. Yes I did put a lot of effort in for these ones. Oh well. More thirst for the next shoot. Thanks for the responseDefinitely contact Kodak Alaris. These days transportation is so much more of a variable, smaller shipments longer transit times. Kodak Alaris has been quite good about responding to technical issues. I shoot a lot of Kodak 120, I always order in the cooler months and refrigerate until use. I've been very lucky as a few years back this was happening to a Lot of folks.
It may be present in certain frames but obscured. Too bad looks like you put a lot of effort into your shots.
You may be right but I had a long look at the portrait shot and couldn't even see as much as a slight hint that the numbers were there.The likely reason you're not seeing the offset on some frames is greater exposure in those frames. The less dense the image, the more visible and noticeable the imprint will be -- but it's still there, just like the stars are still in the sky at noon -- but obscured by the sun's light and the blue sky.
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?