Very strange Kodak Numbers showing up inside actual negatives?! Pictures inside!

[moodlover]

I've never seen this problem before, there are large numbers on the actual negative inside the frame, for multiple frames of this T-MAX 400 film. I have tried to exaggerate it as much as possible, does anyone know what the hell is going on?!

T-MAX 400, D:76 1:1 9 minutes at 68F, TF-4 fixer 8 min

Why would these numbers be present?!

 

[ChristopherCoy]

That's a light leak in your camera. Light is coming through and exposing the numbers on the backing paper.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

You need to read this thread from start to finish:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Also take a specific look at post #123 on the very last page...

Ken

 

[DWThomas]

Hmmm - regrettably, you may want to (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

Edit: Whoops -- great minds in syncronization.

(And to think I just bought a few rolls to try!)

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Edit: Whoops -- great minds in syncronization.

 

[jsmithphoto1]

Think "chemical fog". I have seen something on a blog or facebook or something where this happened to someone else who shot with Kodak after their new backing and this same thing happened to their images. It's not a light leak. The ink itself had damaged the emulsion. And that was such a good portrait just to be ruined like that! My condolences

 

[moodlover]

That's a light leak in your camera. Light is coming through and exposing the numbers on the backing paper.

How could this be a light leak? There is absolutely no strange light leak marks on the outer rebate edges of the frame, or any organic light leak shapes anywhere. The numbers have been printed into the negative perfectly flat against the actual picture...the backing paper would prevent light from hitting the film, and the only way the numbers could burn into the negative at the time of shutter release is if the numbers were actual cutouts instead of ink, but they're not! They're ink!

Think "chemical fog". I have seen something on a blog or facebook or something where this happened to someone else who shot with Kodak after their new backing and this same thing happened to their images. It's not a light leak. The ink itself had damaged the emulsion. And that was such a good portrait just to be ruined like that! My condolences

Sorry not sure I understand. Chemical fog is related to the backing paper? This is the only time I've ever had this problem with T-MAX, what a shame because there are some really pretty portraits on this roll all watermarked by numbers I bought this at B&H, so weird how can Kodak allow this...

You need to read this thread from start to finish:

Film ruined by paper

Also take a specific look at post #123 on the very last page...

Ken

Hmmm - regrettably, you may want to read this thread.

Edit: Whoops -- great minds in syncronization.

(And to think I just bought a few rolls to try!)

Wow that's exactly what's happening to me, and I'm looking at another roll from the same exact session (but this one is Kodak 100TMX) and it's perfect, no watermarks or light leaks! Can't be my camera...

 

[Sirius Glass]

That's a light leak in your camera. Light is coming through and exposing the numbers on the backing paper.

You need to read this thread from start to finish:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Also take a specific look at post #123 on the very last page...

Ken

Hmmm - regrettably, you may want to (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

Edit: Whoops -- great minds in syncronization.

(And to think I just bought a few rolls to try!)

Here we go again ...

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Wow that's exactly what's happening to me, and I'm looking at another roll from the same exact session (but this one is Kodak 100TMX) and it's perfect, no watermarks or light leaks! Can't be my camera...

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

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Here we go again ...

Yes, but it's a new problem to him. And APUG is the expected best practices place to ask for such help. That we have already had in-depth discussions on the same problem only validates that expectation. It's why people come here in the first place.



Ken

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I don't think it is the paper itself (even though that phosphorescence is scary) but the ink. Lots of people have had problems over the years with the numbers showing up on many different films. My stash of Agfa APX400 was perfect for years, then the numbers started showing up on the last few. There are no other explanations for it than the ink used on the paper started breaking down with age or reacted with the emulsion over time.

It is pretty crazy to see this with Kodak. I guess that is what happens when corporations go belly up. They probably fired the guy who's job it was to study the ink.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I strongly suspect that the ink with the film rolled too tightly after being exposed is a likely cause. Siriusly.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

It's photographic roll film that is sensitive to light, with backing paper character shadowing, and a potential internal light source. I would never dismiss out-of-hand any possible cause-and-effect relationship combining those specific variables without first testing. Even with the visible characters manifesting as lighter on the positive rendition.

It may well be just the inks. Or it may well be only the light-emitting backing paper. Or it may well be a combination of the two. Or it may be none of the above. Or all of the above, but with a fourth, or even more, interrelated factors involved.

In failure analysis one should never eliminate possibilities without evidence. It's usually not the fault of variables one knows about. It's usually the fault of the variables one doesn't know about. Or never considered as valid candidate variables in the first place. The problem is a problem precisely because unexpected things happened, so best to look at everything before dismissing anything.



Ken

 

[Andre Noble]

I had same problem with Efke IR820 infrared film.

 

[DWThomas]

It may well be just the inks. Or it may well be only the light-emitting backing paper. Or it may well be a combination of the two. Or it may be none of the above. Or all of the above, but with a fourth, or even more, interrelated factors involved.

Yeah, I even had a thought about what if airport "safe" x-ray machines (which aren't necessarily just at airports) excite a glow from the ink (that's sorta how x-ray machines work -- phosphorescent internal coatings in the filmholder).

And then it could be time related, spool tension, pre-exposure, post-exposure -- cellphone carrier excitation . . .

In any event, it's pretty disappointing, at best. As the number of sources shrinks, fewer options exist to deal with product from one source being unreliable.

 

[jsmithphoto1]

I seriously think it's the chemicals in the ink fogging the paper. Has PE not weighed in on this yet?

 

[AgX]

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.

That would imply that a camera body is selectively translucent to UV light. Such body is very unlikely.

The transmittted UV radiation then must be too low in wavelenght or intensity to fog the film but intensive enough to activate a fluorescent dye in the print ink. The emmitted light then must be intensive enough to be transmitted through the backing paper and any back layers of the film.


The fluorescent backing paper hinted at above has its fluorescence in the paper, not the print ink.
Any effect then would be complementary to the one seen in the OP's artefact.

 

[railwayman3]

I seriously think it's the chemicals in the ink fogging the paper. Has PE not weighed in on this yet?

I agree...particularly remembering that the ink from the previous layer of the roll is in actual contact with the emulsion of the next layer. I recall mention from Simon, from Ilford, that consideration had to be given to using an inert ink and keeping the quantity of ink used at a minimum, while still giving a dark enough printed numbering to read through a red window on a camera.

 

[RattyMouse]

I really dont see how anyone can trust TMAX 400 film now. This happens far too frequently. A real, real shame as this was my go to film for 400 speed black and white.

 

[georg16nik]

If your MF film was stored in humid environment at the right temperature you might get pura basura!
Perhaps, Kodak don't shoot their films enough in real world and are unaware how the “Big Yellow” is more like WC style “Big Brown” in regards to MF T-max?

 

[RattyMouse]

That would imply that a camera body is selectively translucent to UV light. Such body is very unlikely.

That's not what Ken is saying at all. Read his post again and you'll see he is talking about before the film is loaded into the camera or after it has been unloaded.

 

[AgX]

That would imply that the UV radiation even penetrates several layers of base paper and film.
Base paper that is assumed to be UV absorbtive, even more than normal paper.
And that all without fogging the film.



And as said would it even then produce an artefact complementary to the one shown above.

 

[DWThomas]

So then (whilst stepping out of the shower this morning ...)

Questions mostly rhetorical ...

Why have we only seen this on Tmax 400 in Kodak films?
(Have we only seen it in Tmax 400 from Kodak?)
Haven't they presumably changed backing paper on the others by now?
Could there be something in the eye of newt or dandruff of batwing that makes Tmax 400 Tmax 400 that is sensitive to an ink component?
Was this one bad batch showing up in random spots (surely even today the rolls are cranked out in thousands or even ten thousands)?
(Does anybody track batch numbers -- are they on the box/foil/film?)
How long does it take for a batch to pretty much clear out thru the world?
Was it one bad batch of backing paper that got oversprayed with too much something or other?
(I seem to recall some printing processes do a spritz of a transparent coat to "fix" the printing.)
Could one truckload have spent three days in an Arizona warehouse in July?
Should I be afraid to stock up on 400TX?

As to AgX's comment, I was thinking of shorter wavelengths than UV, but a) don't know if the fluorescence would be triggered by such radiation; and b) am not sure where and how it might occur [thinking of the baggage scanning "won't hurt film" situations]
I believe brighteners used in paper do have some response to UV, but one would think (hope?) they are not wasting the money to use brighteners in paper for film backing. But then, is the white on the backing paper just the paper color -- or is it too printed or enhanced in some way.

<brain hurt> :confused:

 

[RattyMouse]

I am such a brain dead idiot. Once I finished my move to the US i restocked my film supply and what did I buy? You guessed it, TMAX 400. How could I not remember this issue? My last 5 rolls of film in China were all ruined by this number problem and what do I do? Buy into the problem all over again. I can't believe how stupid I am to have bought 20 rolls of TMAX 400.

 

[AgX]

As to AgX's comment, I was thinking of shorter wavelengths than UV, but a) don't know if the fluorescence would be triggered by such radiation; and b) am not sure where and how it might occur [thinking of the baggage scanning "won't hurt film" situations]
I believe brighteners used in paper do have some response to UV,
but one would think (hope?) they are not wasting the money to use brighteners in paper for film backing.

-) the shorter the wavelength the harder i´t gets for the Radiation to enter a material. Unless we get to X-Radiation.

-) optical brighteners rely just on UV Radiation

-) the effect in the test linked to above, indeed looks like fluorescence. But unless we know the lamp we cannot even be shure of that. It could be strong reflection of blue radiation due to high reflectivity of the paper base.