When the film numbers show through onto the developed film roll it is called ' wrapper offset '
This is more common than people imagine.
Fundamentally its down to the quality of the film, its sensitivity (speed) and the quality of the wrapper used ( high quality 120 Film wrapper is a very special and expensive product ) It can happen with just about any film, yes, it can be caused by loading in bright light, something none of us ever do of course! and red window camera's are more prone obviously, but it can happen in any camera.
To lessen the risk, especially with red window camera's, always try and avoid loading a camera days or weeks before exposing the film, always use the window cover ( if it has one ) avoid elevated temperatures, and store the loaded camera somewhere dry, cool and dark. Once the film is exposed, remove it immediately and process promptly, if it is not possible to process promptly, remove teh film from the camera and store the exposed film somewhere dry, dark and cool.
Finally......many have commented ( complained ) on the lightness of the printing of the frame exposure numbers on ILFORD 120 film, this reduced print density helps significantly lessen the risk of wrapper offset on our products....by reducing the contrast between printed and unprinted areas on the wrapper it means less chance of the offset 'print out' on the film itself.
Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :
Good catch! Your eyes are better than mine. Even now knowing that they are there I cannot see them clearly.
Originally Posted by Athiril
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.
~Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Originally Posted by Simon R Galley
1) I loaded the film in bright light, because I wasn't sure how it worked and needed to see where everything fits;
2) I merrily kept the film in my camera in my car boot for over a week;
3) Singapore is anything but dry with high humidty all year round and
4) our temperatures even at night is well over 23 deg celcius
guess I broke every rule there was :-).
Thankfully, this was a cheap and experimental roll !
You are not the first...and will not be the last, as you say nothing spoilt.....
Thanks to Rick, here's the result of my second test roll
Firstly, I'll like to thank everybody for the many helpful advice that I've received on this thread, especially Rick, who provided me with his workflow.
Originally Posted by Simon R Galley
My second test roll was a success, by my standards. I've attached a sample so that all of you can see the difference as a result of the change in workflow. With Rick's workflow, I can happily say that this looks so much better :-)
I can also conclude that "light leak" was not a cause of the imprinting of the numbers since I did not have that problem here. It's more likely caused by the reasons pointed out by Simon.
Once again, many thanks to all and I'll post a "real" shot soon :-)
Last edited by toledosun; 08-25-2011 at 09:13 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: file upload failed the first time
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Apologies for the long post but I thought I should document my adventure with GP3, just in case it happens to anybody else. Once again, thanks to all who offered me valuable advice on this thread, I learnt a lot :-)
Just to wrap up, I celebrated too soon... subsequent attempts came out a disaster (see 1st pic "test-2"), especially in the darker areas. The dark tones came out "blotchy", light tones fared much better. Most shots had the numbers/dots imprinted into the film.
Anyway, I tried five rolls before I finally realized... it wasn't me, it was the film !!!! My friend passed me these rolls and he had them for about a year. He shot two rolls and one had the same problem as I did.
It turns out that GP3 really doesn't store well in hot, humid climates like Singapore. This problem was also mentioned in another site:
So, for the benefit of others who may face a similar problem, poor storage (in our case, film was kept for about a year, under tropical conditions, in a non-airconditioned room) may lead to the film looking a) blotchy in the dark areas; b) imprinting of numbering on the film and c ) film comes out looking "underdeveloped", as per my initial shot.
Anyway, I've shot a roll from a another batch and this time, 16 mins with agitation every 4 mins works fine (see 2nd pic "symmetry"). No numbers imprinted on the negatives, and no blotchy dark tones..
Rest of the roll can be viewed here
p.s. for those who are stuck with lots of GP3 with this problem and don't want to throw it away, you can try extending the development time (in my case, I went as far as 24 mins with 5 secs agitation every 4 mins) and you can improve the image quality somewhat, even though the numbers will still be imprinted on the film (see 3rd and 4th pic "scan 1" and "scan 2").
Maybe the film had been heat transferred by pre-owner or distributor, so the white marks on backing paper transferred into the emulsion before you develop. I have tried develop with none-exposure rolls as attachment https://www.flickr.com/photos/268637.../15572125002/; hope it will help someone has such backing issues on 120/220. My experience there is almost no fog in normal GP3 film, base desity is 0.05-0.06 only.
Last edited by Teri-twn; 10-19-2014 at 09:24 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Worth adding I think now this thread has been resurrected that many posts here attest to the batch variation in the film. Consensus being that the 2016 expiry is more consistent and of higher quality. Not from personal experience although I have a block due hence my research.
Yes, the new stuff "2016" is in a different league and that's from experience. Let us know what you think of it when you get a chance to use it. John W
Originally Posted by Chris Livsey
I was wondering the same thing as to "heat transfer" of the numbers and the fogging too. A nice, dark brown, green, black shipping container sitting on top-deck of a freighter might do it. One long trip in the hot sun would fog and bake those number in to the film. Or it could be inspection X-rays, but I doubt that. Whatever it was I hope that it doesn't happen again 'cause this is a pretty decent film at a fair price. John W
Originally Posted by Teri-twn