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

[Liese]

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.

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.

 

[europanorama]

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

Processing film without exposing ! or only exposing some images. one image on B(overexposed ) everything indoors.

 

[europanorama]

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.

Radiation from Outside-Nuclear plant-accident or Radon in their facility.

 

[Alex Lindesay]

Hi there

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. I have attached some examples. Pretty keen to get to the bottom of it

Thanks

Alex

 

[Donald Qualls]

Aaah. Another victim of the wrapper offset. Contact your national Kodak Alaris rep and they should replace all the film you have from the same batch.

Short version: this has been a known problem for some time, with something in the printing on the backing paper reacting with the emulsion. Obviously, only 120 is affected, and it's already been fixed (at least, last I heard).

 

[Bill Burk]

Check first if the film was not expired. My affected film is expired now. This issue was resolved far enough in the past that you might not have it if the film was fresh.

TMAX400 120 watermark defect - current status?

 

[Donald Qualls]

These color images were clearly not on TMax 400 -- but I seem to recall that Kodak had unified their 120 backing -- all film stocks get the same paper -- as a cost control measure after having to switch backing suppliers.

Yes, the longer the film is in the roll, the more likely it is to show wrapper offset -- and Kodak is technically off the hook once the film is expired, but (presumably because this was a known, admitted defect) I read they had honored the warranty for these films as recently as earlier this year.

 

[AgX]

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?

 

[MattKing]

The email address to use is profilm@kodakalaris.com. Past practice has been that you will be referred to a local contact, although there hasn't been a lot of recent reports of this.
I wonder if Kodak Alaris will continue to replace severely expired film suffering from this problem - particularly if bought "used".

 

[Alex Lindesay]

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?

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 ?

 

[AgX]

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.

 

[Alex Lindesay]

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?

A

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.

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.

 

[Alex Lindesay]

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.

 

[AgX]

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 ?

 

[Alex Lindesay]

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 ?

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.

 

[MattKing]

Look for really tiny letters and numbers in amongst the edge printing near the end of the film.

 

[Bill Burk]

Yes the negatives should have a batch number “engraved” rather than exposed, in one place on the edge (that way even if there was complete failure to develop you can still read the number).

You may be able to deduce whether the issue happened before you shot, vs after you shot. That’s because the numbers are rolled against a different spot on the “fresh” side vs the “rolled through the camera“ side

 

[Alex Lindesay]

Look for really tiny letters and numbers in amongst the edge printing near the end of the film.

Hey. Cool. I found some letters. A1291011

 

[MattKing]

Send those to Kodak Alaris please.

 

[mshchem]

Definitely 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.

 

[MattKing]

It won't be any consolation, but backing paper interaction problems seen to be showing up more and more, on 120 film produced by other manufacturers as well.
There were similar problems in the past, but they tended to be obscured by the much higher volumes of film usage.

 

[Alex Lindesay]

Definitely 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.

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 response

 

[Donald Qualls]

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.

 

[pentaxuser]

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.

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.

OP do you have a fairly high powered loupe with which you can examine the neg of the portrait on a light box or against a thin white piece of paper on a window and see if there is any hint of backing paper numbers?

Do you have any other shots that are similar to the portrait shot to look at for signs?

Not wishing to set hares running but if the film is fresh and bought form a source that you have used before for Kodak colour in recent times without issue it raises questions of whether we are seeing a another re-run of the backing paper problem

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Dusty Negative]

I just went through this, unfortunately. The eventual outcome was pleasant enough thanks to Alaris in Ca.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/why-is-kodak-stamped-on-my-film.174236/