There have been very few problem reports fir a while. It seems like the supply line has cleared the problem. I have bought several boxes of five over the last few months.
There have been very few problem reports fir a while. It seems like the supply line has cleared the problem. I have bought several boxes of five over the last few months.
The backing numbers aren't without merit - they're necessary for a lot of cameras that use frame sizes other than 6x6, 6x7 or 6x9, and of course for all those vintage cameras that have non-geared film advance. I'd be up a creek with my 6x18 panoramic pinhole if backing paper didn't have numbers.I treat all film like a perishable item. I have an entire refrigerator (very efficient Amana unit) dedicated to film and paper. If I mail order film, I do it in the winter. Pro film needs to be stored at 55F or below. The issue that Kodak had wasn't storage, something went very wrong. They fixed the problem .
That doesn't mean that we won't see problems occasionally on film that somewhere along the line has been stressed. Numbers on the back are an anachronistic artifact. If Kodak just said we guarantee you perfection by eliminating the back print how much of the 120 market share would they lose? My guess is not that much.
I hope we can stop casting doubts and endless complaints on these companies that are the life blood of photography . If Fuji decided to drop Acros that doesn't mean I won't buy Fujichrome . Kodak had problems, it's done and over with as far as I'm concerned .
Best Regards Mike
Why, when you disagree with someone, or even if you have factual data to correct someone, do you have to be a jerk about it? Couldn't you just have said, "it has also happened with Portra and Ektar"? I don't recall seeing discussions about it with Portra and Ektar. Could you provide links to those threads?Wrong. Examples of this problem have been seen here and elsewhere with Portra and Ektar films.
Why, when you disagree with someone, or even if you have factual data to correct someone, do you have to be a jerk about it? Couldn't you just have said, "it has also happened with Portra and Ektar"? I don't recall seeing discussions about it with Portra and Ektar. Could you provide links to those threads?
I agree. but if I had the option of buying film without back print I would. But I will stop suggesting such evil ideasThe backing numbers aren't without merit - they're necessary for a lot of cameras that use frame sizes other than 6x6, 6x7 or 6x9, and of course for all those vintage cameras that have non-geared film advance. I'd be up a creek with my 6x18 panoramic pinhole if backing paper didn't have numbers.
At B&H, Ilford Delta 400 is $5.99/roll; Kodak TMY-2 is $6.49/roll. What I wonder is why the TMY-2 5-pack is only $24.45. Short dated? Porta is $5.99/roll, less than TMY-2, though the 5-pack is more at $29.95. Kodak pricing is screwy.To my way of thinking, I'm a tad puzzled by the 120 roll pricing of things. Kodak TMAX (TMY-2) 400 bought in 5 packs costs a not inconsequential bit less than Ilford Delta 400. In fact, Delta 400 works out to about the same roll price as Kodak's Portra 400.
... If I mail order film, I do it in the winter...
Well said. It should come from the CEO!That's clever.
If they haven't done so already, Kodak needs to issue an official announcement stating they know the cause of the problem and they've either fixed it or can describe how to avoid it.
Otherwise I'm afraid doubt and "being safe" will seriously affect their sales. Without an official announcement, anyone could claim the problem is still ongoing.
There is nothing wrong with anything I posted. Your predisposition to post anything negative about me supersedes my text. I note you had no problems name calling me just last week. Typical.
The Portra and Ektar examples are here in the archives if you care to look for them. They are quite old so will require more than a few minutes of work.
A few weeks back 5 packs of Acros 120 was 23.95 at B&H. Now it unobtainable. Who knows why. I suspect it's a bit like Costco or Sam's Club the deals come in volume, jumbo packages.At B&H, Ilford Delta 400 is $5.99/roll; Kodak TMY-2 is $6.49/roll. What I wonder is why the TMY-2 5-pack is only $24.45. Short dated? Porta is $5.99/roll, less than TMY-2, though the 5-pack is more at $29.95. Kodak pricing is screwy.
It's being discontinued for good. That's probably the reason. Even here in Japan it's hard to get it sometimes. I guess everybody (including me) is hoarding whatever's left.A few weeks back 5 packs of Acros 120 was 23.95 at B&H. Now it unobtainable. Who knows why. I suspect it's a bit like Costco or Sam's Club the deals come in volume, jumbo packages.
A few weeks back 5 packs of Acros 120 was 23.95 at B&H. Now it unobtainable. Who knows why. I suspect it's a bit like Costco or Sam's Club the deals come in volume, jumbo packages.
I don't recall seeing discussions about it with Portra and Ektar. Could you provide links to those threads?
Ilford is unaffected by this Tim.
Sorry to say but I had some 120 rolls of Ilford HP5 film that had the backing numbers on the film when processed. Admittedly they may have been not quite fresh by the time I used them, but have never come across this issue in the past under similar conditions with any branded film. The last few rolls will be binned.
In future, I'll be buy in smaller amounts and everything will be refrigerated and dated from the date of receipt.
Terry S
And in contrast to RattyMouse’s experience, I’ve gone through four ProPacks of TMY from the problem lots with no problems at all. Film was also bought from B&H and frozen upon receipt. I just used the last roll a couple of weeks ago.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?