Author Topic: Backing paper superimposed onto 120 film? (Read 9500 times)

Abdul Hye · « **on:** March 12, 2015, 09:43:01 PM »

Under what circumstance would the backing paper be superimposed onto the film as seen in the picture?

jharr · « **Reply #1 on:** March 12, 2015, 09:50:45 PM »

Is it consistent through the entire roll? It looks like a combination of cheap backing paper and exposure to bright light. It could also be actual light leaks in the camera. This is a pretty common sight in Holga pics. Take a look at this thread.

http://www.filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=7679.msg100828#msg100828

Abdul Hye · « **Reply #2 on:** March 12, 2015, 10:20:51 PM »

It was shot on a Bronica SQ-A. I have two backs. Out of four rolls only one is usable. I shot a colour roll and when I went to collect it the person at the shop said they were unable to print them or scan them. He suggested that I shot on the same roll twice, which didn't, as there was overlapping frames and they were over exposed (which may have been my fault). The third film looks like there was a light leak from not being rolled up tight enough.

Bryan · « **Reply #3 on:** March 12, 2015, 11:11:02 PM »

Isn't the film side of the backing paper opaque black so that doesn't happen? I would think something would have been printed on the wrong side of the paper or the paper was installed backward.

Abdul Hye · « **Reply #4 on:** March 12, 2015, 11:28:59 PM »

Once rolled wouldn’t the printed side make contact with the film? Someone on Flickr suggested the film might have been heated or got damp. I had another look at the film and I can see the tissue paper texture of the lomo backing paper printed across the six frames. Those frames would have been on the outside of the roll once it was exposed.

Terry · « **Reply #5 on:** March 12, 2015, 11:37:29 PM »

This looks exactly like the classic problem people (myself included) have seen with Shanghai GP3. This is the reason I never shoot that stuff anymore. What was the brand? Lomo? Maybe they've been buying from Shanghai!

In the case of Shanghai, it seemed to be cheap paper and cheap ink contaminating the emulsion. (The emulsion does contact the back--i.e., the printed side--of the paper. The black side of the paper is to discourage halation when the film is exposed.)

Abdul Hye · « **Reply #6 on:** March 13, 2015, 12:14:19 AM »

A lot of Lomo films are rebranded Shanghai film. Well, I've learnt my lesson now.

mcduff · « **Reply #7 on:** March 13, 2015, 02:09:17 AM »

I remember SLVR havjng that problem with one of the lomo 120 films.

Ezzie · « **Reply #8 on:** March 13, 2015, 06:55:42 AM »

I've had it on Shanghai GP3. A lot of people have. Not all batches mind you. Thought it was a thing of the past, recent past maybe, but not on current batches.

jojonas~ · « **Reply #9 on:** March 13, 2015, 08:35:04 AM »

yes. Shanghai GP3 backing paper seem to need a very controlled environment to not let the print transfer to the film.

I know iso 100 bw 120 film by lomo is shanghai and I've seen recently that they've started using the same backing paper for some of their color negative films...

tkmedia · « **Reply #10 on:** March 13, 2015, 08:50:37 AM »

shanghai

05SMF201403 by Studioesper, on Flickr

charles binns · « **Reply #11 on:** March 13, 2015, 09:45:01 AM »

This happens with holgas if you leave the red window uncovered when exposing the film (with any type of film, not just the cheap stuff). It can also occur when you load infra red film in daylight.

it is a sign that the film has been exposed to bright light behind the film.

Most probably there is either a light leak in the camera or the film wasn't loaded properly. I suspect the latter.

It could also be that light is reflecting off the back of your film backs - you might want to check these.

JoeV · « **Reply #12 on:** March 13, 2015, 11:39:48 PM »

I've had this happen on multiple 120 cameras that otherwise work fine with namebrand film like Kodak Ektar or Portra. And it only happens to me only using Lomo color negative film. So it's obviously the film, not the camera.

With the increased cost of color film processing and prints, life's too short to waste on cheap, poorly manufactured film. From now on, it's namebrand film only.

~Joe

Verian · « **Reply #13 on:** March 14, 2015, 10:22:16 AM »

Lomo 120 film. Happens a lot unfortunately. The 35mm is ok but once I run out of the 120 rolls I have I will not be using any of their 120 again.

Francois · « **Reply #14 on:** March 14, 2015, 01:44:59 PM »

On the other hand, some people would spend a lot of time in Photoshop to get the same effect

moominsean · « **Reply #15 on:** March 14, 2015, 01:54:47 PM »

i also think it happens because the ink from the backing transfers/sticks to the film, and then it washes off when you develop leaving the unexposed ghost arrows and numbers...

SLVR · « **Reply #16 on:** March 14, 2015, 03:00:25 PM »

Ive seen the same effect of these. I think Sean is right. It has to be a dye thing. Even when cameras are loaded in backs like in the SQ which have no windows, the markings still appear.

Terry · « **Reply #17 on:** March 14, 2015, 03:34:05 PM »

When I first had a roll of Shanghai with the backing paper numbers appearing on the negs, I took an unexposed roll and developed it straight out of the box. The numbers and dots were there even though it had never been in a camera. Clearly some sort of ink or dye contamination.

Francois · « **Reply #18 on:** March 14, 2015, 07:30:05 PM »

I really thought they had this problem fixed!

I don't know if their ink is water soluble?
If its the case, then the problem will be directly related to the humidity level... the more humidity the worst the issue.

jojonas~ · « **Reply #19 on:** March 14, 2015, 10:11:15 PM »

Quote from: Francois on March 14, 2015, 07:30:05 PM

I really thought they had this problem fixed!

I don't know if their ink is water soluble?
If its the case, then the problem will be directly related to the humidity level... the more humidity the worst the issue.

I heard of some people having success with getting rid of the shanghai numbers with some good prewash before the dev. I've tried but it didn't sort it out completely

oh, and lightleak induced framenumbers on your negs can look a bit different

Toilet a la Holga by Mr Lunatic Fringe, on Flickr

Untitled by PhotoDu.de / CreativeDomainPhotography.com, on Flickr

notice the flares that come from the side and that it's just a few of the numbers

Terry · « **Reply #20 on:** March 14, 2015, 11:08:39 PM »

Francois, the humidity theory makes sense. The print-through problem seems to be intermittent; maybe it's because a particular shipment was exposed to high humidity. My last order of six rolls of Shanghai was all ruined but the previous two were OK.

The frustrating thing is that their film is pretty good; I've been quite pleased with some photos I've taken with their 5x7 sheet film. But the backing paper and inks on their 120 film seem to be of very very poor quality.

Francois · « **Reply #21 on:** March 15, 2015, 01:48:40 PM »

The problem with gelatin is that it becomes quite porous when damp and will capture and hold pretty much anything.

limr · « **Reply #22 on:** March 17, 2015, 03:50:07 AM »

I remember posting this soon after I joined Filmwasters and having it "diagnosed" as Shanghai (I'd bought it as Arista):

ambaker · « **Reply #23 on:** March 17, 2015, 04:07:55 AM »

Supposedly the 2016 expiration date shanghai stuff is OK. Mine was October 2014, and every roll was the same. None of it was shot in a red window camera. The problem was the ink used for printing on the backing paper. I got the same results from a Hasselblad, a Pentax 67, and a Mamiya 645. Now I use it for testing spacing on new-to-me cameras.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Author Topic: Backing paper superimposed onto 120 film? (Read 9500 times)

Terry

Terry

Terry