And the backing paper plague hits Bergger...

NortheastPhotographic said:

I am actually pretty forgiving of this kind of thing,. People were way to harsh swearing off Kodak during that time. There just needs to be some truth and reconciliation. I better get replacement rolls is all I'm saying. I'm definitely not getting a repeat of that day.

Click to expand...

you can repeat for the NEXT marriage!!

fs999 said:

I have 20 rolls of unusable Rollei R80S with the shadow of the prints (dots and numbers) and the vendor don't want to take them back

Click to expand...

Please name the vendor.

AgX said:

I would not call it bashing...

Click to expand...

I would and do. And on it goes...

AgX said:

...we do not even know whether the suppy chain was the culprit...

Click to expand...

Yes, we do. Kodak's backing paper problem manifested after it stopped being its own supplier of that component.

Carry on...

NB23 said:

Next time develop without the backing paper

Click to expand...

No, you do not get it. With 120 film, the film is separated from the backing paper in the darkroom. Only the film is placed in the developing tank, and most people throw out the backing paper.

Kodachromeguy said:

No, you do not get it. With 120 film, the film is separated from the backing paper in the darkroom. Only the film is placed in the developing tank, and most people throw out the backing paper.

Click to expand...

NB23 may well have said this with his tongue firmly attached to the side of his cheek. A kind of wry smile humour with a hint of blackness e.g. Last Christmas the wife invited the Mother-in-law for dinner and I knew it was her as soon as I heard the knock on the door. It wasn't that I could see her but I know it was her because the mice all started to throw themselves onto the traps.

pentaxuser

Sal Santamaura said:

Kodak's backing paper problem manifested after it stopped being its own supplier of that component.

Click to expand...

Well; i had understood your hint at supply as meaning the shipping beyond the factory.

But yes, I can go on. You overlook the legal implications. There was/is the attempt of a legal case against Kodak, as an attempt of commercial photographers to gain more damages than just a refund of the film, due to the veiling by Kodak.
The current case of VW shows that firms no longer can allow themselves that much as in the past.

pentaxuser said:

Last Christmas the wife invited the Mother-in-law for dinner and I knew it was her as soon as I heard the knock on the door. It wasn't that I could see her but I know it was her because the mice all started to throw themselves onto the traps.

Click to expand...

My goodness, pure Les Dawson.......please continue with a bit of Cissy and Ada.

pentaxuser said:

NB23 may well have said this with his tongue firmly attached to the side of his cheek. A kind of wry smile humour with a hint of blackness e.g. Last Christmas the wife invited the Mother-in-law for dinner and I knew it was her as soon as I heard the knock on the door. It wasn't that I could see her but I know it was her because the mice all started to throw themselves onto the traps.

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Outstanding!

NortheastPhotographic said:

They made a statement recently confirming this is a factory issue. This is fresh film stored in the packaging. There were not extreme temp swings or improper conditions.

Click to expand...

Looks way too uniform to be a condensation issue. It almost looks like it's been textured, like being embossed. Heck of a note. I've managed to dodge the Kodak issue, I shoot a lot of 120. Sorry this happened, if it helps you have WAY MORE hair than I did when I got married. .
It would be interesting to have NASA get this stuff under a electron microscope .

AgX said:

...You overlook the legal implications. There was/is the attempt of a legal case against Kodak, as an attempt of commercial photographers to gain more damages than just a refund of the film, due to the veiling by Kodak.
The current case of VW shows that firms no longer can allow themselves that much as in the past.

Click to expand...

Volkswagen intentionally committed fraud. It deserves all the penalties governments assign to it, and more.

Eastman Kodak / Kodak Alaris did not intentionally suffer wrapper offset on 120 film. Photographers have always been subject to the same liability disclaimer that Kodak asserts for its film, namely, recovery is limited to replacement cost of the sensitized product.

I suspect plaintiffs would have a substantial legal hurdle to clear if asserting that Eastman Kodak / Kodak Alaris is liable for higher damages. Many attorneys, however, seek potentially lucrative class actions to pursue. I'm not sure how German courts view frivolous lawsuits, but such a case would probably be thrown out in the U.S.

I hereby predict that the law on matters of this nature will differ between the US and Germany!
And no matter which jurisdictionis involved, if you think the law on contracts of adhesion and the interface between local consumer protection legislation and contractual limitation of liability clauses is simple and straight-forward, I'm afraid you will be disappointed.

Sal Santamaura said:

...I'm not sure how German courts view frivolous lawsuits, but such a case would probably be thrown out in the U.S.

Click to expand...

MattKing said:

I hereby predict that the law on matters of this nature will differ between the US and Germany!...

Click to expand...

Yup, thus my uncertainty.

MattKing said:

...if you think the law on contracts of adhesion and the interface between local consumer protection legislation and contractual limitation of liability clauses is simple and straight-forward, I'm afraid you will be disappointed.

Click to expand...

No disappointment here. I don't suffer from that illusion.

I fear that Kodak tends to be a "visceral" thing in terms of how some of us view its conduct. What surprises me is how much any film company is cut as much slack as it is. There is always a tendency for any company when it has a problem to act "in denial " initially. What happens afterwards and how this happens can determine how consumers then view that company's behaviour..

I think that most of us probably do not necessarily believe that all companies act in a way that is completely designed with the consumer in mind. Indeed there are many examples of this such as the declaration by senior management of a tobacco company or was that several that it is not addictive but somehow some here seem to believe that film companies be they Kodak, Fuji, Ilford etc are uniquely composed of a set of people whose genes ensure that they always act with the best of intentions and any mistakes they make are due to circumstances beyond their control.

It may be that the U.S. psyche is different on such matters but I doubt this. Some advisors on consumer matters have made a very good living telling people that for instance in energy matters such as utilities who supply electricity and warmth for our homes that these energy companies are not necessarily our friends. This rings true with most consumers and we now in the U.K. have the famous switch companies routine which seem to work and yet on matters film and related products there seems to be a suspension of the truth of this

Were Fuji, Kodak or llford nicer companies in terms of their treatment of consumers in 2007 when we were able to buy their products at what were clearly lower prices in real terms? I doubt it. We were charged what the market would bear and this tendency hasn't changed, has it? Fuel has got a lot lower in price in recent times thankfully but if we suddenly were returned to the 1974 OPEC days(anyone remember Sheikh Yamani?) when we were deliberately "squeezed" I wonder how many of us would say we are lucky that we get any fuel at all and as long as fuel is continued to be produced then the price of it hardly matters? Yet there is tendency or even outright statements from some that in the case of film they remain grateful that it is produced at all. Price either doesn't matter at all or hardly matters in the case of film. This might be a seriously disadvantageous attitude for we consumers to take.

If we cease to be bothered to question why any company takes action that adversely affects our disposable income or satisfaction as consumers then we diminish our power as consumers and usually suffer the consequences .

My money spent on film or any other hobby has repercussions on what else it is spent on and in most cases those repercussions adversely affect others.

This does in fact apply even to millionaires or Russian oligarchs but I accept that in their case the effect on others is so marginal as to be non existent. Anybody here fall into that category?

pentaxuser

Sal Santamaura said:

Volkswagen intentionally committed fraud. It deserves all the penalties governments assign to it, and more.

Eastman Kodak / Kodak Alaris did not intentionally suffer wrapper offset on 120 film. Photographers have always been subject to the same liability disclaimer that Kodak asserts for its film, namely, recovery is limited to replacement cost of the sensitized product.

I suspect plaintiffs would have a substantial legal hurdle to clear if asserting that Eastman Kodak / Kodak Alaris is liable for higher damages. Many attorneys, however, seek potentially lucrative class actions to pursue. I'm not sure how German courts view frivolous lawsuits, but such a case would probably be thrown out in the U.S.

Click to expand...

Today there was a verdict by german Highcourt against VW. It was, surprisingly NOT considered fraud, but still a behaviour against customers not to be tolerated, and customers have right on damage.
In case Kodak sold deliberately film knowing that their film was not up to the standard declared, and not informing about that, there would be a similar situation.
The legal case I referred to above was not tried to start as far as we know by a lawyer, but by a commercial photographer.

pentaxuser said:

NB23 may well have said this with his tongue firmly attached to the side of his cheek. A kind of wry smile humour with a hint of blackness e.g. Last Christmas the wife invited the Mother-in-law for dinner and I knew it was her as soon as I heard the knock on the door. It wasn't that I could see her but I know it was her because the mice all started to throw themselves onto the traps.

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Yes, I’m like that sometimes. I’m smiling but you cannot see it.

AgX said:

...The legal case I referred to above was not tried to start as far as we know by a lawyer, but by a commercial photographer.

Click to expand...

Unless he has a fool for a client, the photographer is not representing himself in that case.

Man I'm not at all happy with the damn oligarchs, Russian or any other flavor! I hate those guys!

AgX said:

Today there was a verdict by german Highcourt against VW. It was, surprisingly NOT considered fraud, but still a behaviour against customers not to be tolerated, and customers have right on damage.

Click to expand...

Fraud ("Betrug") is a criminal law offence and the case in question was a civil court action. However, BGH determined VWs actions as "arglistige Täuschung" (malicious deceit), which in my understanding is a civil law aspect of the criminal action of fraud.

Sorry for the OT post.

Sal Santamaura said:

Unless he has a fool for a client, the photographer is not representing himself in that case.

Click to expand...

I do not understand why you are joking about one of the very few commercial photographer who still use film and claims to have his job spoiled by bad film.

mnemosyne said:

Fraud ("Betrug") is a criminal law offence and the case in question was a civil court action.

Click to expand...

In Germany a contract is not valid if it has been made on the base of a fraud. Thus a civil court action can indeed be based on a criminal offence.

In Germany as in other countries investigation on criminal offences in the VW case are going on. In the USA even a jail sentance was the result.

AgX said:

In Germany a contract is not valid if it has been made on the base of a fraud. Thus a civil court action can indeed be based on a criminal offence.

Click to expand...

Yes. But in my understanding it's not a civil courts job to decide whether a party is guilty of (or a partys action constitutes) a criminal offence. Thus, it is not surprising at all that the BGH civil court did not rule VWs behaviour "fraud" (= a crime). It would have been beyond their competence. Whether the "malicious deceit" committed by VW qualifies as fraud will have to be determined by criminal court.

No, but if someone is sentenced, or if a it has been proven that a fraud has happened but no-one could be sentenced, then that would be the base for a civil case.

Concerning guilt there would be a wide range from negligence to criminal intent. For a buyer of a product this may be of importance to whether a contract is valid and to what extent he may have right on damages, beyond the standard buyer rights on a faulty product. Of course this all varies with the various legal systems over the world.

Lachlan Young said:

Inoviscoat makes the emulsion and coats it, Ilford may do the conversion and packaging.

Click to expand...

That's correct. This film is a development / design by InovisCoat in Germany. They are producing the emulsion and are coating it.
Converting / finishing is then done by Harman technology in the UK, as InovisCoat has no own converting capabilities.

The best the OP can do in this case is contacting Bergger, sending them the samples / pictures, explaining the shooting conditions or circumstances and waiting for a reply.
Companies can only react if they get the information from the customer.

ADOX - Innovation In Analog Photography.

miha said:

Please name the vendor.

Click to expand...

Retrocamera.be

Thanks!