Protection paper problem with the Lucky SHD100?

Bernd_P · 2006-04-26T14:17:28+00:00

Hallo zusammen, ich habe auf meinem ersten Lucky-Testfilm (NEW SHD100) durchscheinende Nummern und Quadrate vom Schutzpapier - über die gesamte Filmbreite u...

Bernd_P

Hello everyone, On my first roll of Lucky test film (NEW SHD100), I’ve got numbers and squares from the protective paper showing through – across the entire width of the film and probably the entire length as well (at least negatives 4–12). :angry: The camera doesn’t have a red window (Weltaflex) and there are no signs of light leak. So the only explanation I can think of is a packaging or storage fault – but even that doesn’t quite add up. I’m ruling out a processing fault for now, as I developed an Efke 100 at the same time (using the same changing bag, canister, etc.) and that one is flawless. The protective paper itself actually has quite high density, at least when held up to a 150W halogen lamp. Could it be that the ink has bled through onto the emulsion....?? :P :blink: Or does anyone else have any ideas? The emulsion number was 4110017, by the way, expiring in May 2007. Regards Bernd

Gast

It’s likely that what you suspect is true: the production of protective paper in China meets the same quality standards as under Mao Zedong, because until recently, Lucky Import also used protective paper. Film factories around the world are having to muddle through again, just like in a Stalinist planned economy – and things are set to get much worse.

AntiLynd

Hi Bernd, To add one more option to the ones you mentioned: it does sometimes happen that the chemicals in the carrier ink and those in the film conspire against the unsuspecting user. They react with each other (don’t ask me exactly how), and leave their mark on the film. Not in the sense that the ink bleeds through and eats into the emulsion, but rather through evaporation. This tends to happen particularly when the film has been stored incorrectly (i.e., too warm) and/or for too long. I had exactly the same thing recently with an Ektachrome. It was older than me and, in addition to the predictably dreadful image, also featured the usual numbers, arrows, etc. Looks funny. I’ve still got a few left, if anyone here needs them :P Now, your Lucky wasn’t 30 years old, of course, so that’s a different story, but I could well imagine that it’s the same old story. With Luckies, you never know... Best regards Nils.

Renate

Hello, I’m also familiar with this problem, though in the case of Ilford roll films. In my case, the transfer from the paper to the film only occurred on hot, humid days. None of the images from the same roll of film that I exposed later show any transfer from the paper. The transfer didn’t happen during exposure, but apparently on the reel that winds the film back up. There, the reverse side of the paper comes into contact with the film surface. The only possible explanation is chemical transfer. I bought the films in question about 10 years ago, so before any of the crises in paper production. I have subjected many films from the same batch to exposure, where the problem did not occur, even after prolonged storage. Best regards, Renate

MirkoBoeddecker

It may also be that the film is wound loosely onto the take-up spool and light leaks in from the side, either whilst in the camera or when it is being removed. As the backing paper is usually white and the numbers are black, the white reflects the light inwards and it is only absorbed at the numbers, so it does not shine onto the film. As a result, the numbers appear lighter on the negative than the rest of the film. However, the film must be grey for this to be the cause. All in all, this demonstrates once again just how complex the issue with the protective paper is (see my comments on why we cannot simply produce 220 films on a whim). The worst thing is always when a fault occurs under certain circumstances but not otherwise. It often takes years to identify the specific circumstance. I could bet (without having tested it) that thousands of other Lucky films from the same batch do not show this effect.... That is why the old Microsoft critics’ principle applies throughout the entire photographic industry: “Never change a running system”. :P Best regards, Mirko

Gast

Hello, and thank you for your replies on this vexing topic.

As the protective paper is usually white and the numbers are black, the white reflects the light inwards and it is only absorbed at the numbers, so it does not shine onto the film. Consequently, the numbers appear lighter on the negative than the rest of the film. However, the film must be grey for this to be the cause.

The numbers are indeed brighter than the rest of the film. However, I rule out a light leak, as the film was wound tightly and the film spools and the gaps between the frames are completely unexposed. I still have one ‘lucky film’ left from that batch; I’m giving it one last chance... I’m curious to see how it turns out. Bernd