Xray film hand rolled onto 120 backing paper: Kodak paper specifically is completely ruining the rolls but not ilford etc?

[MCB18]

One plausible reason could be that Kodak films don't have gelatine in the non-emulsion side whereas OP's film being a double sided emulsion has gelatine as noted in post #11. Now, with exposure to ambient moisture, the gelatine in the double-sided xray film could be locking up with some stuff in the backing paper.

I believe that most Kodak films do have at least coating on both sides for anti-curl and artistic layers

 

[mshchem]

Empirical, non-scientific, uncontrolled. Doesn't matter unless you roll your own, so to speak

 

[pentaxuser]

Kodak had to deal with all three/four types of films - 2 general types of black and white negative, colour negative and colour transparency when they had all their problems, and tried anything and everything they could to source new backing paper to replace the old stuff that they finally ran out of, and couldn't replicate with modern sources.
The stuff that Ilford had arrived at obviously didn't work for Kodak.
Earlier, Ilford had a much less complex problem to deal with when they made all their changes to deal with backing paper issues - just their range of black and white negative film.
It may well be that the more complex and likely more expensive solution that Kodak arrived at would work with the simpler Ilford films. But Eastman Kodak is protecting that tradecraft, because it is a valuable asset.

Thanks. What you say may well lead to the conclusions you have arrived at but to repeat my question are your conclusions based on actual evidence or are they based on what may be correct conclusions but one for which there is no actual evidence?

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

I have some background information about how difficult it was for Eastman Kodak, and about some of the many things they tried.
If the product supplied by Ilford's supplier had worked, Kodak would have leaped at the solution.
And Simon Galley posted about Ilford's challenges.

 

[MCB18]

I think @laser might have some relevant information on this topic, surpised no one has asked him yet.

 

[mshchem]

Also depends on what the specification is. Probably needs to pass a specific thermal cycle/accelerated life test.
Some companies have some pretty demanding requirements.

My guess is that the Xray film is fragile.

 

[MattKing]

I think @laser might have some relevant information on this topic, surpised no one has asked him yet.

He (@laser = Bob Shanebrook) had retired from Kodak before the relatively current issues reared their ugly heads.
And when he was involved, the printing and paper manufacturing businesses, and the technologies involved in them, were very different.
And by the time he retired, some of the film emulsions had had to go through a lot of changes due to unavailability of constituent components.

 

[Crimeo]

Empirical, non-scientific, uncontrolled. Doesn't matter unless you roll your own, so to speak

I didn't explain how I figured it out, but it was in fact empirical and controlled. I suspected it and then ran specific tests with everything controlled except backing paper, and it replicates exactly on that one and not the other one. Same shots same film cut from the same sheet at the same time stored identically etc except for the paper

One interesting detail i forgot to mention was that rolls underneath the messed up rolls physically in the tank (I use stand development for xray film) also get splashed with gunk from the top side a bit, a few mm down. So whatever the bad reaction is etc, it is not just stuck inside the gelatin, it's floating around and migrating slightly under gravity.

 

[MattKing]

(I use stand development for xray film

A whole bunch of additional variables here!

 

[Crimeo]

A whole bunch of additional variables here!

There's no more "variables" since I used it identically in all cases, for both types of backing paper. But obviously the problem overall may only happen in stand development, for example, sure.

 

[MattKing]

There's no more "variables" since I used it identically in all cases, for both types of backing paper. But obviously the problem overall may only happen in stand development, for example, sure.

It is Xray film, designed for use in very active developer - often at higher than 20C temperatures, and with more than usual agitation. And it is being pressed against paper, and exposed by light from the front, when It is actually designed to be pushed against film holders, and exposed (a little bit) by Xrays from the front, and (mostly) light from behind.
So every handling and exposure variable is out of spec for the film, and you are adding a further, inherently unpredictable variable in development.

 

[Crimeo]

It is Xray film, designed for use in very active developer - often at higher than 20C temperatures, and with more than usual agitation. And it is being pressed against paper, and exposed by light from the front, when It is actually designed to be pushed against film holders, and exposed (a little bit) by Xrays from the front, and (mostly) light from behind.
So every handling and exposure variable is out of spec for the film, and you are adding a further, inherently unpredictable variable in development.

Yes but none of those are variables for the main issue, because all that applied to the entire same process but with Ilford paper. Yet Ilford paper performs perfectly. So the only variable was Kodak vs Ilford paper materials.

 

[mshchem]

It's a moot point. Only a loonie (fanatic not the coin) would try to use Xray film in 120 rolls. Cut film sure.
The stand development thing is another huge variable.

Empirical results are akin to Chiropractic cures (invented by a quack from Iowa). Same percentage of people find relief even when an actor pretends to administer a chiropractic treatment.

 

[mshchem]

Oh loonie is a good thing. At least that's what my wife calls me when I make silver nitrate in the basement

 

[Crimeo]

Empirical results are akin to Chiropractic cures (invented by a quack from Iowa). Same percentage of people find relief even when an actor pretends to administer a chiropractic treatment.

You think... "measuring things" is a hoax? Wat

 

[MCB18]

It's a moot point. Only a loonie (fanatic not the coin) would try to use Xray film in 120 rolls. Cut film sure.

Well, if my shipment of x-ray film (that was supposedly new) wasn’t completely destroyed by the eBay seller, I might have more data for you regarding x-ray film in 120. Unfortunately, that was not meant to be.

It’s not an inherently stupid idea, and I believe that anyone who has ever looked at Washi or the FPP store could tell you that, considering that they sell X-ray in 120!

 

[mshchem]

Well, if my shipment of x-ray film (that was supposedly new) wasn’t completely destroyed by the eBay seller, I might have more data for you regarding x-ray film in 120. Unfortunately, that was not meant to be.

It’s not an inherently stupid idea, and I believe that anyone who has ever looked at Washi or the FPP store could tell you that, considering that they sell X-ray in 120!

Not anything I would spend my time on. Time is precious!

 

[mshchem]

I wonder if somewhere in a faroff land people are using 11x14 Tri-X to x-ray people's feet

 

[MattKing]

Obviously I can just avoid those papers, but I'd like to if possible know what on earth could be going on here. How is this not also affecting the original kodak films on those same rolls?

Isn't this your main issue?

I'm confused why it is that you can't see that each and all of the out of spec variables you are throwing at the wall here are part of "what is going on here".
All the backing papers and all the films are designed with each other in mind, as well as the intended uses and processes that they are matched to.
So when you make big changes, you can expect them all to respond unpredictably, in different ways.

 

[gbroadbridge]

Isn't this your main issue?

I'm confused why it is that you can't see that each and all of the out of spec variables you are throwing at the wall here are part of "what is going on here".
All the backing papers and all the films are designed with each other in mind, as well as the intended uses and processes that they are matched to.
So when you make big changes, you can expect them all to respond unpredictably, in different ways.

I believe that sometimes, folks who have been indoctrinated into a digital world do not understand that the analog world does not behave like a bunch of 0's and 1's.