Jump to content

Some important information regarding Kodak Tri-X 120 format


A miller

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Taken from an email I rec'd:

 

"IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR USERS OF 120 FORMAT KODAK PROFESSIONAL FILMS- PLEASE READ

As many readers are likely aware, I have used Kodak Professional film continuously for more than four decades. Over the years I have found Kodak film to be of the highest possible quality and consistency. However, anomalies can occur from time to time. There have been recent reports that appear to be associated with certain batches of 120 format Kodak Professional film. 

The problem can easily be seen in the photograph below recently made by William Wetmore. I appreciate William allowing me to share this example with readers. You will notice the word Kodak clearly appears in the sky, along with frame number '13' multiple times. I first became aware of this situation a few months ago when a former workshop participant brought some online discussions on this topic to my attention. Unfortunately, as time has passed, I have encountered a number of students, colleagues, and friends who have experienced this exact problem.

 

Wetmore_T-Max_400_Backing_6S.jpg

©2016 William Wetmore. All rights reserved.

I have spoken at length with Thomas J. Mooney, Film Capture Business Manager at Kodak Alaris about this phenomenon. He told me "Kodak Alaris has had a limited number of inquiries for similar problems, and that the affected film may have seen some abnormal keeping after it left the factory (e.g. sat in a truck over a hot weekend, etc.). That said, we are taking this issue very seriously and have recently made modifications to the backing paper which we believe should minimize the potential for this type of blemish going forward."

Mr. Mooney has supplied me with the emulsion numbers - which I have listed below – where this latent image print issue could potentially be seen. If you have experienced problems, or have questions or concerns, you should email Profilm@Kodakalaris.com. This email address goes directly to Mr. Mooney, who will be able to answer your questions, address your concerns, and replace any problematic film you might have on hand or have used.

If you purchase new film you should make sure that the emulsion number, printed on the box as well as the individual foil packages, is higher than the suspect emulsion numbers listed below. All photographers can imagine the disappointment and frustration any of us would feel if this happened to any of our negatives. Please pass this important news on to your photographic friends. 

Emulsion numbers that may exhibit the above problem only in Kodak 120 format roll film:
(Emulsion numbers can be found on the film box, the foil wrapper, and printed on the clear edge of processed film near frame number 11.

Kodak T-Max 400
Emulsion 0148 004 through 0152

Kodak T-Max 100
Emulsion 0961 through 0981

Kodak Tri-X
Emulsion 0871 though 0931"

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is extremely - strange!

 

So first, it must be from the paper the film faces when rolled up. (not the paper actually backing the affected negative, which is just solid semi-matte black). I wonder if it is an image transfer (black ink pigment getting into the gelatin) or a chemical fogging (outgassing of an ink solvent that reacts with the silver - the "hot truck" hypothesis).

Edited by adan
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a great way to prove the images were made on film and not with a digital camera... good move Kodak Alaris.

 

I can't see how ink on the yellow side of the backing paper could affect the emulsion. However if someone printed the ink onto the black side of the paper by mistake, then reprinted onto the yellow side of paper, there would be ink in position to transfer to the film itself to cause an image like this. 

 

Perhaps there is another way that ink can get transferred onto the black side of the paper, but without  seeing  the manufacturing  process I can't  picture  how.

 

I'd look for a simple explanation like this first. Is it on the entire length  of film or just in a few places? Is it consistent?  Does it line up with the printing on the back or is the placement  different?

 

The hot truck idea seems stupid unless it very evenly heated the ink on many rolls enough to cause the transfer. But the ink would have to first be on the side of the paper that shouldn't have any ink. And how hot would that truck be?

 

Is there ink on the film itself that can be chemically removed or is this an image of the number and words in the actual silver grains?

Edited by AlanG
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see how ink on the yellow side of the backing paper could affect the emulsion. 

When the film is rolled up on the roll, the emulsion is in direct contact with the printed back side of the next turn or layer, is it not?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep! And it is white paper these days with black ink - the Kodak Yellow now only covers the first foot or so (just past the start-alignment arrow across the paper). <------>

 

Someone on APUG demonstrated the white ink has optical brighteners and fluoresces under UV - but that would cause everything to fog EXCEPT the black numbers. Plus how do you get UV light (and not visible) inside a tight roll?

 

Just for the record I've shot about 60 rolls of 120 TMax 400 in the past year - and NOT had the problem. But there it is....obviously I didn't get the affected batches.

Edited by adan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When the film is rolled up on the roll, the emulsion is in direct contact with the printed back side of the next turn or layer, is it not?

Yes I guess it was late and I was tired when thinking about this assuming it is on the emulsion side and not the base side. So what we don't know is... is this a transfer of ink or is the film exposed?  Maybe they changed ink or had a bad batch of ink somehow. No way for us to know.

Edited by AlanG
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to invert and rotate the image to feel at home.

 

Judging from the numbers which are for 6x4.5cm this frame (6x7cm) appears to be about about 5 inches from the end. I don't see numbers for 6x9cm, and 6x6cm.

 

The printing is dark on the film and had to be touching the emulsion. Right? I'm baffled!

 

 

tmp.jpg

Edited by pico
Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify my scattered questions... I don't think anyone can answer this who is not familiar with the manufacturing procedure.

 

At minimum these questions need to be answered:

 

1. Is this ink on the film?

 

2. If so is it on the emulsion or the base side?

 

3. If it is ink is it consistent and continuous on the entire length of the film?

 

4. Does it line up with the backing paper that the film is attached to?

 

5. If there is no ink on the film is this an image formed on the emulsion?

 

6. If it is an image, how could it be possible for that to happen?

 

7. Can heat (hot truck for instance) cause the ink to melt and transfer? That should be easy to test.

 

8. If it is ink on the film, is there any way to remove it?

Edited by AlanG
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Uncertain. It is not a random pattern - it reproduces the black ink pattern (numbers and KODAK lettering). So the ink is causing the tonal marking, but whether it is actually dark ink embedding into the emulsion, or a chemical reaction to the ink (chemical fogging**), is not clear.

2. From the left-right orientation, it is on/in the emulsion

 

This image shows that the film emulsion in roll film (yellow-brown) is always pressed right up against the lettering on the backing paper of the "next layer in" of the wrapped film: http://www.brownie-camera.com/respool/respool07.jpg

 

3. This I have not seen evidence of, one way or the other - all that has been shown are cut single frames, so it could be on every frame, fade in and out, or be continuous on all images.

4. Comparing my backing paper to the sample images - yes.

5. See (1)

6. See (1)

7. I'll let Kodak test that - I assume they have, are, and will.

 

Direct offset of the ink is the "easiest" to imagine, especially since this seems to be contemporaneous with Kodak ceasing to print the entire back of the paper yellow. It is possible the plain white coating now used does not "take" the black ink as firmly as the yellow coating/ink did, allowing some black ink to print onto the film emulsion. In effect, an inadvertent "dye transfer" - http://www.dyetransfer.org/images/dt6.jpg

 

Anyone who has accidentally put paper into an inkjet printer backwards, knows that ink does NOT stick to all surfaces equally. On the wrong type of surface, it won't adhere tightly and can rub off onto another surface.

 

OTOH - I would expect ink on the film to wash off in the normal processing. Which is why I consider chemical fogging from chemicals in the ink to still be a possibility.

 

** for those who don't realize it, chemicals can "expose" the silver in film. This is how the E6 process "reverses" film to a positive slide - a reversing bath exposes or fogs the film after first development, to then be developed to form the positive dyes.

Edited by adan
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My thought is the ink could transfer and not wash out of the emulsion because it has become encapsulated. You can print on glossy inkjet paper that encapsulates the ink and it will not wash off easily. But the same ink on plain paper can be easily removed in a quick rinse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...