Dunn
Well-known
Hello all,
So, I recently purchased a Fuji GF670 and I love it. I took a few rolls on it, they looked fine. Then I went on a cross-country road trip spending most of my time in the western United States. I then sent the film to the FIND lab in Utah. They did a good job and had great customer service. They also offer feedback and mentioned on of my frames that had visible frame numbers from the backing in the image. They said this could happen from moisture or loosely rolled film. I didn't think too much of it since it was just one frame. But then when I began editing the images I noticed it in more and on different rolls. I don't think moisture is the issue since I was shooting in very dry environments. Am I not loading the film correctly or could something else be going on, ie. camera? I only really noticed it in blue skies and some of them are very faint to the point I almost didn't see it, but once I began looking for it I noticed it in several frames and rolls.
Can anyone help me with this and keep this from happening in the future?
I shot only on Ektar 100 and Portra 400.
Example:
https://flic.kr/p/BHhaAF
So, I recently purchased a Fuji GF670 and I love it. I took a few rolls on it, they looked fine. Then I went on a cross-country road trip spending most of my time in the western United States. I then sent the film to the FIND lab in Utah. They did a good job and had great customer service. They also offer feedback and mentioned on of my frames that had visible frame numbers from the backing in the image. They said this could happen from moisture or loosely rolled film. I didn't think too much of it since it was just one frame. But then when I began editing the images I noticed it in more and on different rolls. I don't think moisture is the issue since I was shooting in very dry environments. Am I not loading the film correctly or could something else be going on, ie. camera? I only really noticed it in blue skies and some of them are very faint to the point I almost didn't see it, but once I began looking for it I noticed it in several frames and rolls.
Can anyone help me with this and keep this from happening in the future?
I shot only on Ektar 100 and Portra 400.
Example:
https://flic.kr/p/BHhaAF
Pablito
coco frío
Did it happen on both the Ektar and the Portra? I assume this was all 120 and not 220?
Loosely rolled film makes no sense, tightly rolled film plus humidity might make sense. If all the affected film is one type and from one batch, perhaps the inks used to print the numbers on the backing paper are affecting the emulsion somehow. Very odd. Have not seen this in thousands of rolls of 120 film over 40 years...
This is not a light leak.
Loosely rolled film makes no sense, tightly rolled film plus humidity might make sense. If all the affected film is one type and from one batch, perhaps the inks used to print the numbers on the backing paper are affecting the emulsion somehow. Very odd. Have not seen this in thousands of rolls of 120 film over 40 years...
This is not a light leak.
Pioneer
Veteran
Those certainly are frame numbers. How that would occur on the Fuji GF670 I have not a clue.
A loose roll would show light streaks but not frame numbers. I have personally run into that problem one or twice.
I would not think that moisture would allow a frame number to imprint itself through the black paper backing onto the film.
It will be interesting to hear what people think.
A loose roll would show light streaks but not frame numbers. I have personally run into that problem one or twice.
I would not think that moisture would allow a frame number to imprint itself through the black paper backing onto the film.
It will be interesting to hear what people think.
KM-25
Well-known
Interesting, same problem with the same camera as this guy on APUG:
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/144427-film-ruined-paper.html
Also, Kodak changed backing paper, might want to drop them a line too. I just ordered a bunch of TMY2 in 120, hopefully it is fine.
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/144427-film-ruined-paper.html
Also, Kodak changed backing paper, might want to drop them a line too. I just ordered a bunch of TMY2 in 120, hopefully it is fine.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
How old was the film? How was it stored?
Dampness can cause this "ink print through" so poor fridge storage or loading too soon after defreezing or indeed doing that at all can cause it.
If it is through the roll that is most likely, if more pronounced at the beginning (doesn't look like as we are on 15 here) it can be loading/unloading in strong light.
The store is wrong it is tight rolling that is bad, the ink is pressed against the film.
Dampness can cause this "ink print through" so poor fridge storage or loading too soon after defreezing or indeed doing that at all can cause it.
If it is through the roll that is most likely, if more pronounced at the beginning (doesn't look like as we are on 15 here) it can be loading/unloading in strong light.
The store is wrong it is tight rolling that is bad, the ink is pressed against the film.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Backing print print-through - which is not all that uncommon. Probably a humidity related problem - you exposed that frame in cold conditions, I've had it on film exposed in tropical conditions, both share moisture and condensation issues.
But I have no idea whether it is a direct effect, the backing paper getting so moist that the print dyes chemically fog (or otherwise affect) the emulsion, or indirect, with the partially print-covered paper creating a uneven moisture distribution which in its turn affects sensitivity. The former is overall more likely, but it is a poor explanation for the instances where I've had it happen on single frames without affecting the rest of a film.
But I have no idea whether it is a direct effect, the backing paper getting so moist that the print dyes chemically fog (or otherwise affect) the emulsion, or indirect, with the partially print-covered paper creating a uneven moisture distribution which in its turn affects sensitivity. The former is overall more likely, but it is a poor explanation for the instances where I've had it happen on single frames without affecting the rest of a film.
Dunn
Well-known
I checked this also and it is on both types of film.
This worries me as I am currently in Indonesia and brought along about 70 rolls of Kodak 120...
Film conditions from purchase to development:
Purchased new from BH, shipped to me in North Carolina. Maybe a week or two later I fly to California. I have the film hand checked as I always do just to eliminate any possibility of x-ray fogging. Leave California via car. This is August, btw. Film is stored in zip-locks still in foil wrapper. Travel to Yosemite then down to Death Valley, Zion in Utah, down to north rim of Grand Canyon, back up to Utah (Canyonlands), then into Colorado, then drive back to North Carolina. Mainly shooting in California, Utah, Arizona and Colorado. Very dry, hot temps. It was 118F when I was in Death Valley. We camped a lot of nights which means the film was stored in the car... possibly the heat effected it? Some nights in a hotel. Once home I shipped the film via USPS to FIND lab in Utah. They scanned it and mentioned the topic at hand.
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
impossible on 220, as there is no backing paper. are you certain? if yes, the cause must be a different one.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Printing ink can take a long, long time to dry and would be in contact with the film's emulsion as rolled up in the factory...
Humidity could, of course, re-activate or dampen the ink; the test would be a damp bit of backing paper that someone reading this must have in his/her WPB and could test for us?
Regards, David
Printing ink can take a long, long time to dry and would be in contact with the film's emulsion as rolled up in the factory...
Humidity could, of course, re-activate or dampen the ink; the test would be a damp bit of backing paper that someone reading this must have in his/her WPB and could test for us?
Regards, David
Pablito
coco frío
Sounds like this is related to the very hot temperatures you mention in post #7. Especially if you left the film in the closed car during the day.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
Dunn, Thanks for the comprehensive history.
I agree with Pablito, it was probably the heat that accelerated the ink print through.
It is not strictly ink print through, the ink affects the emulsion altering its sensitivity so the numbers are visible. Ilford receive complaints because the numbers on their backing paper are faint, that's why, it helps prevent the issue.
It is officially called wrapper offset. Temperature, humidity and static contribute.
It is most common in old red window roll film bodies. The windows were made to block the light to the less sensitive emulsions of their day and now should really be taped up for security with modern emulsions.
The Chinese GP3 film is notorious for it, I've had that myself with a the whole backing contributing to the image!!
I agree with Pablito, it was probably the heat that accelerated the ink print through.
It is not strictly ink print through, the ink affects the emulsion altering its sensitivity so the numbers are visible. Ilford receive complaints because the numbers on their backing paper are faint, that's why, it helps prevent the issue.
It is officially called wrapper offset. Temperature, humidity and static contribute.
It is most common in old red window roll film bodies. The windows were made to block the light to the less sensitive emulsions of their day and now should really be taped up for security with modern emulsions.
The Chinese GP3 film is notorious for it, I've had that myself with a the whole backing contributing to the image!!
Bill Clark
Veteran
Hot and humid out?
Many moons ago, when I used film for my business, during the summer, even here in Minnesota I kept my film in a cooler when working a gig.
Many moons ago, when I used film for my business, during the summer, even here in Minnesota I kept my film in a cooler when working a gig.
Huss
Veteran
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
FWIW, I don't think it prints through the backing paper as the emulsion will be in direct contact with the ink on the back of the backing paper. So offset, as printers call it and as ChrisLivsey says.
Regards, David
FWIW, I don't think it prints through the backing paper as the emulsion will be in direct contact with the ink on the back of the backing paper. So offset, as printers call it and as ChrisLivsey says.
Regards, David
Dunn
Well-known
I wanted to revitalize this topic to get a little more feedback.
So, I've just had some more Ektar and Portra developed with more bleeding from the backing paper. The FIND Lab says it's "humidity/water." While they are correct that most of my images were taken in very humid environments (Indonesia/Thailand) and could totally be my fault, I'm not so certain that it's 100% because of this. It's hard for me to compare because I just recently moved to medium format and this leaving a bad taste in my mouth. I never had issues with 35mm (obviously no backing paper), but for those of you that have shot 120 more, is it really that sensitive?
About storage: Film was never refrigerated. Stored in ziplock bags with one silica gel pack (maybe I need more). Hand checked in airports. Not expired film.
Another reason I want some more feedback is I read some threads on APUG with this happening on TMAX 400 from, what I can tell, someone who has shot with it a while and never experienced this problem.
Also, I am currently in Indonesia again. Yes, it is very humid.
But, one odd thing I noticed recently when loading film: I open a fresh one from the foil and begin to load then I notice some black smudges as I get it to the 'start' position. I touch it and it smudges like wet ink... So, is it screwed before I even shoot it? If the ink is becoming wet and smudgy before I even shoot it. How has any ever shot medium in a hot/humid environment? I thought film was a little more hardy than this. Should I just stop even trying?
Thoughts?
So, I've just had some more Ektar and Portra developed with more bleeding from the backing paper. The FIND Lab says it's "humidity/water." While they are correct that most of my images were taken in very humid environments (Indonesia/Thailand) and could totally be my fault, I'm not so certain that it's 100% because of this. It's hard for me to compare because I just recently moved to medium format and this leaving a bad taste in my mouth. I never had issues with 35mm (obviously no backing paper), but for those of you that have shot 120 more, is it really that sensitive?
About storage: Film was never refrigerated. Stored in ziplock bags with one silica gel pack (maybe I need more). Hand checked in airports. Not expired film.
Another reason I want some more feedback is I read some threads on APUG with this happening on TMAX 400 from, what I can tell, someone who has shot with it a while and never experienced this problem.
Also, I am currently in Indonesia again. Yes, it is very humid.
But, one odd thing I noticed recently when loading film: I open a fresh one from the foil and begin to load then I notice some black smudges as I get it to the 'start' position. I touch it and it smudges like wet ink... So, is it screwed before I even shoot it? If the ink is becoming wet and smudgy before I even shoot it. How has any ever shot medium in a hot/humid environment? I thought film was a little more hardy than this. Should I just stop even trying?
Thoughts?
sara
Well-known
I agree.
A friend of mine had travelled to the Phillipines and she said she would never leave a roll of 120 in her camera overnight. If she shot 10 frames for the day, she would "waste" the last 2 because of this numbers imprint problem. She was using a Mamiyaflex.
Has not happened to me yet (touch wood) with my Hasselblad, but then again I had realised that I had never left a roll of 120 in the camera - I would finish the roll, so I have not tested it myself.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
How old is this film?
Kodak had issues with the ink transferring from the backing paper to the emulsion - which they have since fixed by printing the numbers much lighter. Which has created the new problem that the numbers are very difficult to see when using the new batches with cameras that rely on the red window for indexing frames.
I shot many rolls of Ektar on my visit to Okinawa last year, and shoot many rolls here in Texas, and have had no issues with the ink transferring to the film despite the heat and humidity.
Kodak had issues with the ink transferring from the backing paper to the emulsion - which they have since fixed by printing the numbers much lighter. Which has created the new problem that the numbers are very difficult to see when using the new batches with cameras that rely on the red window for indexing frames.
I shot many rolls of Ektar on my visit to Okinawa last year, and shoot many rolls here in Texas, and have had no issues with the ink transferring to the film despite the heat and humidity.
Arbitrarium
Well-known
Crikey... sounds like your film was destroyed before you started.
Joao
Negativistic forever
Sugestion: Sacrifice an unexposed roll and have it developed. If the marks are there, you have the answer
Good luck
Joao
css9450
Veteran
Glad its not just me with that problem. I have to use a flashlight to see the frame numbers through the red window - its either that, or hold the camera in the sunlight so I can see the numbers, which just seems like its asking for trouble.