froyd
Veteran
I recently bought a pro pack of Portra 400 in 120 to use on vacation. When I loaded the first roll, I noticed the backing paper has been replaced with a substrate that seems to have a glossy lamination on it. Not sure how long ago this change occurred but the last time I bought Porta in 120 was probably 8 months ago and the backing was the same as it always had been.
Unfortunately, the new material is not working well with my Rolleiflex. Out of 4 rolls shot, two of them "lost" the gummed tape used to seal the roll after it's finished. The gummed tape got caught in the upper rollers and became detached from the glossy light-blocking paper at the end of the film strip. Fortunately I had some packing tape on hand to seal the rolls myself.
Anyone else had any issues?
Unfortunately, the new material is not working well with my Rolleiflex. Out of 4 rolls shot, two of them "lost" the gummed tape used to seal the roll after it's finished. The gummed tape got caught in the upper rollers and became detached from the glossy light-blocking paper at the end of the film strip. Fortunately I had some packing tape on hand to seal the rolls myself.
Anyone else had any issues?
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
How strange - yes I have. In my case it was Portra 800 with the new backing in my Rolleiflex 3.5F. I noticed the film advance was exceptionally hard to wind - nothing like that before, and I've stopped after two frames as I fear some damage. So I haven't got to the end like you, but it's the first problem I've ever had with that camera.
EarlJam
Established
About a year ago, the guys at my local shop mentioned that the new backing material on Kodak TMAX 120 is causing problems for some Rolleiflexes. The backing appears to be a Mylar-like plastic. With some Rollei's, customers reported:
- film just winds through without triggering the auto counter
- film advances but camera freezes on frame 1; using the "multiple exposure" backwards-wind doesn't clear it
- film advances OK, but frame spacing becomes progressively greater, yielding only 11 frames on the roll
One thing that comes to mind is that the new backing may be slightly thinner than the paper, and in conjunction with modern, thin film bases there's not enough thickness for the automatic trigger to function properly, particularly on cameras where the trigger is worn or just outside of adjustment tolerance.
- film just winds through without triggering the auto counter
- film advances but camera freezes on frame 1; using the "multiple exposure" backwards-wind doesn't clear it
- film advances OK, but frame spacing becomes progressively greater, yielding only 11 frames on the roll
One thing that comes to mind is that the new backing may be slightly thinner than the paper, and in conjunction with modern, thin film bases there's not enough thickness for the automatic trigger to function properly, particularly on cameras where the trigger is worn or just outside of adjustment tolerance.
Mackinaw
Think Different
The folks over at FPP interviewed a Kodak rep about the new 120 backing a few months back. As many recall, Kodak had a problem with numbers bleeding through the paper backing to the negative on some of their films. To stop this, Kodak added a new type of coating to the same paper base. It’s not plastic or mylar.
Jim B.
charjohncarter
Veteran
It seems to be a simple fix, but I guess it isn't. I've used Kodak film with paper backing since the late fifties, and now they can't do backing right.
EarlJam
Established
Thanks! That's good to know. I only had a brief opportunity with the new backing material; "mylar-like" was a touch impression. I still have some "old" Kodak 120 in the freezer, so have not yet had the opportunity to run any of the new material through my Rollei.
Mackinaw
Think Different
I gotta say, I've used scads of Tri-X 120 with the new paper coating in my Yashica 124G and Rollei 6006 with no problems.
Jim B.
Corran
Well-known
I have also used a new roll of Tri-X in my Rolleicord, though a very old one with no automatic film counter/spacing. I immediately noticed the glossiness.
I just got in 40 rolls of T-Max 100, fresh, so we'll see. I plan to use them mostly in my 6x9 Horseman roll back, but do occasionally use my Flex/Cord, Bessa II, and other vintage cameras.
I just got in 40 rolls of T-Max 100, fresh, so we'll see. I plan to use them mostly in my 6x9 Horseman roll back, but do occasionally use my Flex/Cord, Bessa II, and other vintage cameras.
stompyq
Well-known
Never had a problem on both my 3.5F and 2.8E. I've shot a lot of portra 400 and ektar 100.
froyd
Veteran
I haven't had the film developed yet, but I'll keep an eye out for spacing problems. I was able to get 12 frames on each roll, however.
froyd
Veteran
Just got a reply from Kodak Alaris to my inquiry regarding this issue. Their tip to put back pressure on the loading spool to avoid the problems I was having might be the reason why two of my rolls loaded well, and two had the "missing sealing label" problem. I probably applied more pressure on some and less on the others.
Here is what they wrote:
In 2015- 2016 we experienced incidents of frame numbers appearing on 120-format film negatives. We’ve made a series of modifications to our backing paper in order to eliminate this issue. The most recent change was to add a primer layer beneath the lacquer overcoat of the paper. The primer coat in combination with the lacquer overcoat adds some glossiness. The paper itself is the same, and the overcoat is the same. The backing paper stiffness has increased slightly, which requires a bit more force to get a good initial cinch on the take-up spool.
Note: Without a good initial cinch, an air gap forms on the first couple convolutions of the rewind spool which does not go away as the remainder of the film is wound on the spool. This can cause a soft roll. Suggest you try putting a little back pressure on the unwind spool with your thumb while making the initial cinch on the rewind spool. That way the first few convolutions will be tight. If a good initial cinch is made with a couple convolutions of paper on the rewind spool, the remainder of the film will wind up without issue.
This may be the reason for the “after-exposure” sealing label becoming detached (i.e. it is catching somewhere in the camera because the roll is a bit loose)
Additionally, we’ve also made some improvements to the label itself, including removing the blue adhesive and replacing it with one that is more aggressive . You should find the new labels seal much better.
Thank you for shooting Kodak film, and for the feedback.
Here is what they wrote:
In 2015- 2016 we experienced incidents of frame numbers appearing on 120-format film negatives. We’ve made a series of modifications to our backing paper in order to eliminate this issue. The most recent change was to add a primer layer beneath the lacquer overcoat of the paper. The primer coat in combination with the lacquer overcoat adds some glossiness. The paper itself is the same, and the overcoat is the same. The backing paper stiffness has increased slightly, which requires a bit more force to get a good initial cinch on the take-up spool.
Note: Without a good initial cinch, an air gap forms on the first couple convolutions of the rewind spool which does not go away as the remainder of the film is wound on the spool. This can cause a soft roll. Suggest you try putting a little back pressure on the unwind spool with your thumb while making the initial cinch on the rewind spool. That way the first few convolutions will be tight. If a good initial cinch is made with a couple convolutions of paper on the rewind spool, the remainder of the film will wind up without issue.
This may be the reason for the “after-exposure” sealing label becoming detached (i.e. it is catching somewhere in the camera because the roll is a bit loose)
Additionally, we’ve also made some improvements to the label itself, including removing the blue adhesive and replacing it with one that is more aggressive . You should find the new labels seal much better.
Thank you for shooting Kodak film, and for the feedback.
giulio stucchi
Well-known
FYI, I put a fresh roll of T-max 400 in my Perkeo II a week ago.
I also noticed the different paper on the roll and I might say at least on my Perkeo the new paper seems to help for a smoother advance of the film.
Regards
Giulio
I also noticed the different paper on the roll and I might say at least on my Perkeo the new paper seems to help for a smoother advance of the film.
Regards
Giulio
NY_Dan
Well-known
I've noticed for years that Kodak's 120 stick'em on the strip at the end isn't that dependable, and that other manufacturer's is better. Price goes up and quality goes down. They got it right almost a century ago...
Skiff
Well-known
Not so far, fortunately. But the Kodak 120 stock I have is still the one with the former backing paper version.
As much as I like TMY-2 or Portra 160 in 120, I really appreciate the unsurpassed medium format converting / finishing quality of Fujifilm. I have never ever had an issue with them. And no other manufacturer offers this outstanding 120 converting quality level with the easy loading system, easy end seal, barcode system and the whole precision of production.
Jamie123
Veteran
I don't really mind the new backing paper but the new blue adhesive is quite annoying. It leaves a blue residue on my finger, not to mention my tongue, whenever I seal a roll.
Steve M.
Veteran
I had the same problem that Jamie had. Fixed it by putting a couple of rubber bands in my pocket. Never trusted the stickum anyway.
Jamie123
Veteran
I have to add, though, that I only have a problem with the color of the new adhesive, not so much it's reliability. I shot 50 rolls over the last week on vacation and so far haven't had a problem with any of the stickers not sticking.
Moto-Uno
Moto-Uno
Maybe I'm just lucky , but it's been no problem on my Kowa Six , Pentacon six or Bronica Etrs 
. This has been with Portra 160 and 400 . Peter
. This has been with Portra 160 and 400 . Peternickthetasmaniac
Veteran
Fingers crossed but no issues yet. I've run maybe 4-5 rolls of Portra400 with the glossy back through my Hassy A12 backs (500CM and SWC/M) without any problems.
froyd
Veteran
Please see the note from Kodak on post 11. The second to last paragraph mentioned chances to the blue adhesive.