I understand what you are saying. But, as I said above, I've used 120 film since schoolboy days and never had any problem of this type. At that time there was no thought of refrigerating film, films were bought from anywhere...the local pharmacy who kept a selection of them in a sunny shop window, the local Woolworths toy counter, etc., they were left in cameras from one Christmas to another, on the beach in the sun, in the car in case we needed a spare film. We had no idea that they were a "fragile product"
Something must have changed.
Same issue here in Switzerland with T-max 100 (five rolls affected out of the same box)
I will try to return the films next week and get new ones from Kodak Switzerland. Just recognized the issue this week.
As I understand it from some of Simon Galley's posts, the answer is there is just one left.
My thought is that it is "just paper". This isn't a high tech hard to make product. Kodak and Ilford and Fuji all know what it takes to make it.
My thought is that it is "just paper". This isn't a high tech hard to make product. Kodak and Ilford and Fuji all know what it takes to make it.
I put some diffrient edition of back papers under utraviolet light
I found that the new Kodak Tmax400 has Fluorescent agents
Have a look of the picture,I doubt if this cause the problem.....
We’ve changed the look of our 120 roll film backing paper graphics. See before and after pictures below. This change will have no impact on product performance.
Also, if you know that's the problem why would you drag your knuckles on fixing the damn problem.
My thought is that it is "just paper". This isn't a high tech hard to make product. Kodak and Ilford and Fuji all know what it takes to make it.
Same issue here in Switzerland with T-max 100 (five rolls affected out of the same box)
I have seen evidence here on APUG of a small number (less than 6?) of unfortunate people who have experienced this problem. There seems to be no consistent similarities between their experiences. There is similar evidence that a large number of people have had no problems with same film. That leads me to conclude that the problem isn't with the film its general distribution, but rather with other not yet identified commonality between the circumstances of those who have experienced those problems.
This merits repeating.
"I have seen evidence here on APUG of a small number (less than 6?) of unfortunate people who have experienced this problem. There seems to be no consistent similarities between their experiences. There is similar evidence that a large number of people have had no problems with same film. That leads me to conclude that the problem isn't with the film its general distribution, but rather with other not yet identified commonality between the circumstances of those who have experienced those problems."
It's my understanding that backing paper is far from being 'just paper'. As manufactured at Kodak, it WAS a high tech product that involved multiple passes on a paper machine (which no longer exists) to get the desired properties
120 is a popular film format for still photography introduced by Kodak for their Brownie No. 2 in 1901. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_film
I have no doubt that the process for making the backing paper became more modern over the years but...
If they could mass produce a good and reliable backing in 1901, it stands to reason that it would not be that tough today.
Here are a few companies that might want Kodak's or Ilford's business, I'd bet there are more.
http://onyxpapers.com/services/
http://voith.com/en/markets-industries/industries/paper/paper-grades/specialty-papers--12788.html
http://mpm.com/products-and-capabilities/custom/
It might just be that UV glow that's posted above?
That tells me that the problem is far from widespread.
There is some combination of relatively rare circumstances that leads to this.
Same issue here in Switzerland with T-max 100 (five rolls affected out of the same box)
F It would be illegal (anti-competition legislation) for Kodak to exercise control over who is entitled to retail the product.
May be the OP should just stop storing his cameras and film in the glove box.
May be the OP should just stop storing his cameras and film in the glove box.
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?