backing paper numbers show on negatives.

[Old-N-Feeble]

All I can say is, "Bravo for PE", because even though he's extremely loyal to EKC (and rightfully so) he calls 'em as he sees 'em. So he's a good honest umpire.

I don't want Kodak to be hurt by this either but neither do I want consumers to be hurt. So who should pay the price? EKC should pay the price because it's their responsibility.

I just hope they can absorb the losses, learn from the mistake and move forward making world-class films.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I'm adding this in a separate post for extreme clarity...

I'm buying a crap-load of TMY2 from the latest good batches because I love it and to support EKC!!

 

[MattKing]

What would you suggest that Kodak Alaris do if the phenomena can only be reproduced in film exposed to extreme temperature and humidity variations?

What would you expect Kodak Alaris to do if Eastman Kodak won't take responsibility for any of the problems?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Matt, air bags are being replaced in cars as defective even though many have caused no problems and many have never even inflated. Here we have a similar situation IMHO. In the interest of the analog photography enthusiasts and in their own interests, either EK or Alaris should call in the film and replace it. Ilford apparently has the same problem. What are they doing about it? Or do they even care?

PE

 

[BrianShaw]

Who puts the labeling paint/ink and numbers on the paper - Kodak or the paper vendor? Who makes the paint/ink?

 

[Ai Print]

I have one bum roll thus far but I suspect there will be at least 4 more since this is from a pro-pack of 5. Other than that, I have 44 more pro-packs of varying dates from 2015-18 so I will sort all that out with Kodak.

Obviously they need to get a handle on this....TMY2 is pretty much the best black and white film I have ever used & I know quite a few photographers who second that.

 

[MattKing]

Matt, air bags are being replaced in cars as defective even though many have caused no problems and many have never even inflated. Here we have a similar situation IMHO. In the interest of the analog photography enthusiasts and in their own interests, either EK or Alaris should call in the film and replace it. Ilford apparently has the same problem. What are they doing about it? Or do they even care?

PE

Ilford hasn't recently reported the same problem even though they have the same source of backing paper. From posts from Simon Galley I understand that the reason that Ilford films have quite faint numbering is that historically they did have problems with wrapper offset.

I'm not saying that the films shouldn't be recalled if they have determined that they are defective - even if the defect doesn't always cause problems.

I'm saying that if the causes of the problem have not yet been identified or linked to particular batches, they should be careful about identifying for recall films that they have no reason to believe are defective.

 

[tomfrh]

Another thread on it with more information.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Nathan King]

I received the following response from Kodak:

Dear Nathan,

I am very sorry to hear you are having difficulty with our 120 format T-Max 400 film. We have had a limited number of inquiries for similar problems. As of the beginning of this year, we’ve made modifications to the backing paper which we believe should eliminate the potential for this type of imperfection going forward.

Please send me your address / phone number, and how many rolls you originally purchased, and I will send replacement film spooled with this new paper. Do not shoot any more of the film you have on hand.

Also please let me know the emulsion number of the rolls you had problems with. You will find this information printed on the foil wrap and/or printed between frames 11 &12.

If you encounter any further issues, please contact me directly.

Regards,

 

[ColColt]

You can't beat that for great PR.

 

[Ai Print]

You will find this information printed on the foil wrap and/or printed between frames 11 &12.

I assume they mean the backing paper, not the film it self, right?

 

[paul ron]

as ive said at the begining of all this, i shot well over 100s of rolls of 2012 - 2017 exp date tmax400 n not a single bad roll. i just bought 100 new rolls just a few weeks ago n so far no problems.

i wonder if its a regional thing... perhaps something in shipping or the distributor?

i get my film directly from B&H store, not mail order.

 

[JW PHOTO]

as ive said at the begining of all this, i shot well over 100s of rolls of 2012 - 2017 exp date tmax400 n not a single bad roll. i just bought 100 new rolls just a few weeks ago n so far no problems.

i wonder if its a regional thing... perhaps something in shipping or the distributor?

i get my film directly from B&H store, not mail order.

It might have something to do with shipping and/or distribution, but it all starts with the backing paper change to begin with. Things were fine before that and I'm sure shipping and distribution hasn't changed much if any from when they used the old paper backing. I am glad to hear they supposedly have solved the problem and it should be safe to buy the new lot. Fingers crossed....................John W

 

[Ai Print]

as ive said at the begining of all this, i shot well over 100s of rolls of 2012 - 2017 exp date tmax400 n not a single bad roll. i just bought 100 new rolls just a few weeks ago n so far no problems.

i wonder if its a regional thing... perhaps something in shipping or the distributor?

i get my film directly from B&H store, not mail order.

I was in the same boat until I discovered it on a roll that was stored in my to-be-processed bag in my fridge, shot in my Rolleiflex in January. I looked on the backing paper and could not find the marking that Nathan King quoted the Kodak email on. I will run some more tonight and keep careful track of the paper VS film and see if another pops up. This was all purchased from B&H mail order by the way, put in the freezer right when it arrives like all my other film.

I'm really hoping it was just a small bad batch....I have 44 pro packs of this stuff.

 

[MattKing]

I assume they mean the backing paper, not the film it self, right?

You learn something new every day.

I just looked at a 120 roll of TMY-2 I developed recently.

There were no problems with this roll.

In the space where one finds edge printing, on the side where frame numbers 1 through 12 are found, there is what appears to be an emulsion number. The numbers are in a very thin and light font.

In my particular case, it is "B0145010". The film would be one with a 2016 develop before date.

It appears to be the same number for all TMY-2 rolls.

Plus-X has different numbers in a slightly different location.

My older TMX has a different code.

Older film - probably TMY, not TMY-2 - has different numbers in a slightly different location.

 

[Ai Print]

OK, I have the batch number thing figured out, it is on the film proper like Matt has shown. My bad roll is 0151 001 / 09/2017. I have no more of that batch number in the fridge but what number I do have....and a fair amount of is 0151 002 / 09/2017...so I could be kind of screwed. I do know that I only buy my 120 film in boxes of 5 so there are likely at least 4 more bad rolls in my to be souped bag, but I already knew that.

It would be great if we could start looking at batch numbers that have the issue, that way people can decide what to do with them if they have suspect rolls too.

 

[tomfrh]

My bad roll is 0151 001 / 09/2017.

Interesting. Mine, as with other posters, were 02/2017. So we know 02/2017 thru to 09/2017 are potentially bad, and from 03/2018 onwards are ok.

 

[Ai Print]

Interesting. Mine, as with other posters, were 02/2017.

FYI, that date is batch #0149-003 for me, I have two pro packs of it.

 

[Liese]

Just got off the phone with Kodak. I have 4 Propacks of film that leave that watermark. I scanned the negs and sent them by email to them. They called me and are immediately replacing the film at no cost to me. The Batch number is 0151 002 with expiration as 09/2017. The rep explained that somewhere in transit the film may have been exposed to high heat, most likely.
I am attaching a pic of the very enlarged part of the neg scanned so you can see the mark. I also noticed that the backing paper is very different, whiter and the inks way blacker than I am used to seeing. It may be heat OR a manufacturing flaw. Nonetheless, it is NOT a light leak or any such thing.
Hope this helps those of you who have had this happen. Call Kodak.

 

[Liese]

OK, I have the batch number thing figured out, it is on the film proper like Matt has shown. My bad roll is 0151 001 / 09/2017. I have no more of that batch number in the fridge but what number I do have....and a fair amount of is 0151 002 / 09/2017...so I could be kind of screwed. I do know that I only buy my 120 film in boxes of 5 so there are likely at least 4 more bad rolls in my to be souped bag, but I already knew that.

It would be great if we could start looking at batch numbers that have the issue, that way people can decide what to do with them if they have suspect rolls too.

Please note my post from today. Same batch but 0151 002 09/2017. Watermarks clearly visible. Contact Kodak at 1-800-431-7278 and ask for Jenna who got me to the right person.

 

[Liese]

FYI, that date is batch #0149-003 for me, I have two pro packs of it.

Also, many people on Flak Photo Network on FB have reported that batch as leaving the dread watermark.
L

 

[Ai Print]

Please note my post from today. Same batch but 0151 002 09/2017. Watermarks clearly visible. Contact Kodak at 1-800-431-7278 and ask for Jenna who got me to the right person.

I also have had imprinting from this batch and Kodak has already replaced that film. Mine is all purchased from B&H.

 

[RattyMouse]

Please note my post from today. Same batch but 0151 002 09/2017. Watermarks clearly visible. Contact Kodak at 1-800-431-7278 and ask for Jenna who got me to the right person.

Sure, you can get your film replaced, but what about the moment photographed? Not likely in many cases. Has Kodak even tried to recall this film?

 

[Ai Print]

Sure, you can get your film replaced, but what about the moment photographed? Not likely in many cases. Has Kodak even tried to recall this film?

The warranty reads now is as it did in 1986….

“Limitation of Liability: This product will be replaced if defective in manufacture or packaging. Except for such replacement, this product is sold without warranty, condition, or liability even though defect, damage, or loss is caused by negligence or other fault.”

Color films have an added part about no warranty against color fading.

So Kodak is dealing with this in exactly the same manner in which they did all along which is to replace defective product. They are not by law or by reasonable and customary business practices obligated to pay for a trip abroad to replace memories lost or to give said customer a play by play of what happened and what is being done to remedy it.

It's not personal, it's business.

 

[RattyMouse]

The warranty reads now is as it did in 1986….

“Limitation of Liability: This product will be replaced if defective in manufacture or packaging. Except for such replacement, this product is sold without warranty, condition, or liability even though defect, damage, or loss is caused by negligence or other fault.”

Color films have an added part about no warranty against color fading.

So Kodak is dealing with this in exactly the same manner in which they did all along which is to replace defective product. They are not by law or by reasonable and customary business practices obligated to pay for a trip abroad to replace memories lost or to give said customer a play by play of what happened and what is being done to remedy it.

It's not personal, it's business.

That's not what I was suggesting. Since Kodak has a product out there that they KNOW is defective, they should recall that product and let people know that there is a high risk of failure to use it. I took my final walk in China shooting Kodak TMAX400. Had I been aware that this product was defective, I would not have used it. All my shots from my final walk were ruined with numbers imprinted all over the images.

Kodak can't claim ignorance about this problem and should be doing what they can to protect their customers. Very public announcements at their website are the very least that they can do, and they arent even doing that.