Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
I've experienced the transfer issues, with disastrous results. I do not find myself sympathetic to the plight of folders because for the rest of us that use cameras with mechanical counters, this backprinting provides zero benefit and only the hazard of wrecking important pictures.
But guys - let's get real. Kodak fully supported the 120 film size with ruby windows for 115 years (it was introduced in 1901 and is the longest running rollfilm format).
The move away from ruby windows to mechanical frame counters began prior to WWII with Super-Ikontas and Rolleiflexes and was pretty much complete by the mid-1960s. If you have this "I can't see the numbers" issue, you may be using:
- A camera that is more than 50 years old
- A cheap Chinese back or homebrew panoramic camera
- A Lomo or Holga
Even among these, I'm sure that some can see the Kodak numbers. There have also been reports from late last year that a second bottom track of 6x9 frame numbers are coming back for the 6x9 Bessas.
Dante
Corran
Well-known
How about a Shen-Hao 617 that is about $3k with lens?
I really like T-Max 100, but haven't been able to shoot it since early summer last year. Or I should say BUY it, because it has been back-ordered and completely off production for almost a year now, due to the print-through of numbers on the paper.
If the solution for Kodak is to remove the frame numbers that work with my 617, then they've lost my business in 120. I've been shooting Acros and while I'm not as fond of it, I can live with it.
If Ilford can fix the problem and provide plenty of frame numbers, why can't Kodak??
PMCC
Late adopter.
Ooh, harsh. Particularly on a forum populated by many who
- May enjoy using retro and vintage cameras
- May resent sneering at Chinese or home-brew gear
- May enjoy dallying with toy cameras (perhaps not your taste, but it's a thing, check it out)
But you fail to address the root of the problem, that Kodak has apparently changed something that makes its film problematic for some. If they intended to abandon red window camera users, they could have eliminated the numbers entirely.
The OP and others want to use Tri-X on ancient folders. Can't blame the man for that, nor is there a need to practice gear-upmanship at the expense of others.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
And for 114 years Kodak managed to make the numbers readable, and their competition still makes the numbers readable.
It's certain that exponentially more cameras have been produced with a red window on the back than have been produced with automatic film transport mechanisms. So would it necessarily be wise for a company to cater to the relatively tiny number of cameras without red windows, over those with?
If their competition can do it right, and they used to be able to do it right, and their consumers use large numbers of cameras with red windows... why make excuses to justify a defect in the product?
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Has anyone contacted Kodak? I just did. Profilm@Kodakalaris.com
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Greetings everyone - the frame numbers will soon be reappearing on the back of Kodak 120 film in more than one location. I don't know whether or not they'll be the same light gray - but hopefully there will be a set to line up with the ruby red window of a 6x9 MF folder.
Below is the reply that I received from Kodak's film rep.
***********************************************
Below is the reply that I received from Kodak's film rep.
***********************************************
Dear Mr. Yue,
All of our backing papers now include all three (3) tracks of 6x9 format frame numbers.
May take some time to work through the system.
Regards,
Thomas J. Mooney | Film Capture Business Manager
Kodak Alaris Inc., 2400 Mount Read Blvd., Rochester, NY 14615-03020
All of our backing papers now include all three (3) tracks of 6x9 format frame numbers.
May take some time to work through the system.
Regards,
Thomas J. Mooney | Film Capture Business Manager
Kodak Alaris Inc., 2400 Mount Read Blvd., Rochester, NY 14615-03020
charjohncarter
Veteran
Good but I have a roll in my 6x6 camera and will check to see if I could have used it in my 6x9.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
Do you have a source for that information I have not seen referenced elsewhere?
HHPhoto
Well-known
I've got that info from Ilford reps at Photokina. We've discussed that topic. They also told the paper itself is not the problem, it is the quality of the ink and the printing process.
Fujifilm is also making it by themselves, therefore their films are fine, too.
Cheers, Jan
Steve M.
Veteran
If you shoot B&W, as a last resort you might be able to carefully pop the red window plastic out, place a piece of black electrical tape over the hole on the back, and lift it in the shade when you advance the film, then stick it back down. I've done this a lot on folders that the red plastic was missing in the back.
If you shoot colour, you are screwed.
If you shoot colour, you are screwed.
Skiff
Well-known
No, not at all.
Just shoot Fujifilm color film and you will get perfect results.
I've never ever had a single problem shooting Fujifilm's color films in my folders.
I also like their "easy loading system" and "easy end seal".
Photographers with the dedicated cameras will further benefit from their 'barcode system'.
The converting quality of Fujifilm's roll films is by far the best in the industry. Better than all competitors.
Thanks to them for innovating in a format more than 100 years old.
Sal Santamaura
Member
Ilford backing paper is not made in house. The paper comes from an outside supplier, just like Kodak's does.
HARMAN Technical Services confirmed that information this morning, stating in a reply to my inquiry that Mobberley has "...an in house capability and manufactures all its own wrappers, this includes printing and slitting. It doesn't make the paper however, which is made to specification by a third party."
Whether Kodak purchases complete wrappers or performs its own slitting and printing is unclear at this point. Also not certain is whether the paper itself can contribute to wrapper offset or if fault lies completely with ink and/or the printing process.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
I had missed that, thank you for the detail, but note a later post as I thought it very unlikely paper making to the required quality was possible nor feasible for the volume required, too small and no specialised skills at Mobberley for that.
I assume the German machine was for slitting or perhaps printing although I understand that the paper is not even in depth across the 120 frame being thicker at the edges which makes slitting more difficult?
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
The paper is even in strength - the pressure plate and/or film gate make up for the difference (hence the switchable pressure plates for 120/220 film on e.g. Fuji and Mamiya cameras).
KingRollei
Newbie
I purchased some new Kodak Tri-X 120 for my Bessa I folder and the backing paper numbers do not show up in the Bessa’s 6x9 window! I had been using Fuji Acros and Ilford film before with no issues. I had to take the Tri-X out of the camera in a dark bag and later reuse it in my Pentax 645N. Below is a comparison of Acros backing paper on top and Tri-X below. The Acros numbers for 6x9 cover a much larger range than the Tri-X ones, so do the Ilford ones. Is this new for Tri-X or have they always been this way? I guess it is another reason not to use Kodak.
I had the same problem yesterday with Tri-X in my Bessa I...
HHPhoto
Well-known
Sal, that is no contradiction to the info I've got from them. As I've written above, the paper itself is not the main problem, and of course Harman has no own paper mill.
Prodction of roll film backing paper means making / having the right ink, print it the right way, cut it etc. And that they are now doing by themselves.
Ink and printing are essential, and they told me that is not trivial (we see the problems which can occur at Kodak).
The ink has to be very special.
Cheers, Jan
Moto-Uno
Moto-Uno
You'd of thought that since Kodak invented this format over a century ago , the problem is not Kodak , but all the camera makers that felt it necessary to put their own twist on the format ! Peter
Spavinaw
Well-known
Has anyone besides me noticed that on 120 film the numbers for square negatives run down the middle of the paper with the rectangular numbers on the side while on 127 film the numbers for square negatives run down the side with the rectangular numbers down the middle?? Go figure. Hope this doesn't keep you up at night. 
PMCC
Late adopter.
Has anyone besides me noticed that on 120 film the numbers for square negatives run down the middle of the paper with the rectangular numbers on the side while on 127 film the numbers for square negatives run down the side with the rectangular numbers down the middle?? Go figure. Hope this doesn't keep you up at night.
Those losing sleep over this are the orphaned 127 users who struggle with slitting 120 down to 127 size. Respooling requires slitting the backing paper to size as well. A particularly masochistic subset of such loyalists are the devotees of red window cameras, who face the issue of where to place the numbers, or how to slit the 120 paper so that a usable row of existing numbers lines up with the red window. The published ISO standard that sets forth the specs for 127 and 120 roll film is useful for this exercise, but regrettably the last iteration that still contained the 127 spec is no longer current and thus harder to find. But let's not overthink this, gents. Those of us in this category are aristocrats (what Diane Arbus said about her subjects).
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Has anyone besides me noticed that on 120 film the numbers for square negatives run down the middle of the paper with the rectangular numbers on the side while on 127 film the numbers for square negatives run down the side with the rectangular numbers down the middle?? Go figure. Hope this doesn't keep you up at night.
It's probably because Kodak realized that putting the red window right near the edge of the backing paper was stupid as it caused light leaks. So when 127 came out they centered it. But then the 4x4 became popular and the edge was the only place left for the next row of numbers...
Unless I'm mistaken though, 4x4 and 645 have numbers on the same edge.