backing paper numbers show on negatives.

[Free-heeler]

So, any updates on this problem? I just started experiencing it myself. I shoot with a Yashica-mat 124 (no red window!), and first noticed the numbers in March 2016. Here are home scans of shots from two different rolls of Tmax 400 that have the problem. While my camera does occasionally have a light leak issue (it's old, and i usually have it on my shoulder banging into things), frames with light leaks don't have the numbers, and frames without light leaks do have the numbers (sometimes frames with light leaks have the numbers too), so I don't believe it's correlated.

I just read three different threads, and still have mixed messages!

I'm not the most scientific type, but I can tell you all that I have used this camera for five years. My behavior with it is no different than it ever was.

I've seen the problem under various shooting conditions, from arid Death Valley to rainy San Francisco (I see a lot of mention of humidity as a factor).

So... any new news on this?

 

[Photo Engineer]

You need to get the attention of Kodak, not that of APUG.

Who is contacting them, and what is their answer to date?

PE

 

[Zathras]

How old is your film? I've had this problem with older rolls of Ilford films, but not Kodak. Regardless, I agree with Photo Engineer. You need to let Kodak know about this, especially if the film isn't that old.

 

[Xmas]

How old is your film? I've had this problem with older rolls of Ilford films, but not Kodak. Regardless, I agree with Photo Engineer. You need to let Kodak know about this, especially if the film isn't that old.

I believe this has been done on the other thread - Where Ratty mouse being the OP.

Kodaks answer was temperature in excess of normal storage.

 

[Free-heeler]

The issue is settled! It's not humidity and it's not temperature. I emailed with someone at Alaris who told me there is a problem with the backing paper itself, and Kodak has changed up the backing paper as of the beginning of 2016 to correct it. I asked if there is a way to determine if you have a fault roll... will update if I get a response. I had two propacks worth and Kodak is sending replacement rolls to me.

 

[MattKing]

The issue is settled! It's not humidity and it's not temperature. I emailed with someone at Alaris who told me there is a problem with the backing paper itself, and Kodak has changed up the backing paper as of the beginning of 2016 to correct it. I asked if there is a way to determine if you have a fault roll... will update if I get a response. I had two propacks worth and Kodak is sending replacement rolls to me.

It is most likely still a problem with temperature - with the backing paper exhibiting an unpredictable greater sensitivity to temperature variations than previous materials.

Otherwise, all rolls using the "new" backing paper would have showed the same wrapper offset problems, instead of the relatively few rolls that did.

That being said, I am hoping that the recent change will prevent normal re-occurrence of the problem. There will always be some occurrences of wrapper offset, as extreme storage and handling conditions will always tend to make the paper and the ink perform in non-optimum ways.

 

[Photo Engineer]

It is most likely still a problem with temperature - with the backing paper exhibiting an unpredictable greater sensitivity to temperature variations than previous materials.

Otherwise, all rolls using the "new" backing paper would have showed the same wrapper offset problems, instead of the relatively few rolls that did.

That being said, I am hoping that the recent change will prevent normal re-occurrence of the problem. There will always be some occurrences of wrapper offset, as extreme storage and handling conditions will always tend to make the paper and the ink perform in non-optimum ways.

Matt, this is not necessarily true.

It depends a lot on time, temp and humidity. I have seen one problem come then go away as the keeping gets longer.

PE

 

[Andre Noble]

Does anyone know the affected dates on this defective Kodak paper backing? Hopefully it was just a short window of time this was manufactured because I stockpiled many thousands of dollars worth of Kodak 120 color roll film (160 & 400 Portra, E100G, E100VS) in the years 2011 and 2012, early 2013 from B&H and Adorama and Samy's to my chest freezer. I have been working on older film from mid 2000s and have not tested the 2011 2012 2013 kodak batches yet.

I am hoping my 2011 2012 2013 kodak 120 film was made with good paper backing before Alaris made the switch (around 2014?) to the defective paper backing?

 

[MattKing]

To the best of my knowledge, it has only affected TMY-2.

And it only affected a relatively small number of rolls.

And there is no clear pattern with respect to batch numbers or, if there is, almost all films in the particular batch are fine.

Thus the suspicion that the problem is a combination of new backing paper and a particular set of storage or shipping conditions.

 

[Andre Noble]

Thanks for replying Matt. From many posts it does seems limited to TMY

 

[Photo Engineer]

To be fair, Kodak should publish the batch numbers of affected rolls and should replace them all as being defective.

PE

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

To be fair, Kodak should publish the batch numbers of affected rolls and should replace them all as being defective.

PE

YES YES YES... do you think they will?

 

[Photo Engineer]

NO! NO! NO!

PE

 

[Nathan King]

Just developed some vacation images and imagine what appeared. I've never had anything like this happen before. Film is TMax 400 that expires 02/2017. Every roll from the box did this, but nothing happened to my images on Ilford Delta 400! The number sequence on the bottom of the box is "0149 001." I am in the process of politely contacting Kodak.

 

[David Lyga]

This is truly disgusting, and Kodak, if it is still worth anything, should be up front about this mess. To not do this is not being merely obstinate , but doing what is absolutely inexcusable. What has happened with corporate responsibility, indeed, with even the perception of such?

To force users to bring up this problem with no word, no support from the Yellow Father is analogous to a lawyer absconding with the escrow. We pay a LOT of money for overpriced film. Speak loudly: maybe Rochester will hear you.

And if they do not hear you they might wish that they had. - David Lyga

 

[JW PHOTO]

David, David, David when will you learn that modern corporations have no responsibility. The responsibility lay in the hands of the consumer. He or she must suffer the lack of "good" corporate judgement. Of course with Kodak that "good judgement" hasn't been around for a very long time now. It's all about shareholder profit and that's it. Who in their right mind would buy TMY2 with its current problem. I won't until I get "OFFICIAL" confirmation directly from Kodak that this problem has been solved. I guess that's good consumer judgement on my part for their lack of good corporate judgement. All I know is I don't want any numbers running across any picture I take and would be more than disappointed to find them there.

 

[PittP]

in the process of politely contacting Kodak.

Nathan,
sorry for that! Disgusting and discouraging.
Kindly keep us updated about your communication with Kodak.
I'm also wondering how to go about my stocks: They're certainly from the same batch, expiring end 2016 and 2/2017. Haven't tried any yet, as there was no need for the 400 ASA...
Good luck to all who might be affected, too!

 

[Sirius Glass]

This is truly disgusting, and Kodak, if it is still worth anything, should be up front about this mess. To not do this is not being merely obstinate , but doing what is absolutely inexcusable. What has happened with corporate responsibility, indeed, with even the perception of such?

To force users to bring up this problem with no word, no support from the Yellow Father is analogous to a lawyer absconding with the escrow. We pay a LOT of money for overpriced film. Speak loudly: maybe Rochester will hear you.

And if they do not hear you they might wish that they had. - David Lyga

You are being unrealistic. Spend you energy going after Volkswagen for screwing up the air that we all breathe.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The other thread for this same problem mentions the batch #s that are affected.

PE

 

[JW PHOTO]

You are being unrealistic. Spend you energy going after Volkswagen for screwing up the air that we all breathe.

I just heard VW will "buy back" those fire breathers. Maybe Kodak will buy back all those bad batches of TMY2?????

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

The other thread for this same problem mentions the batch #s that are affected.

Thanks, PE. Those are batch numbers 'known' to be affected. My 'guess' is there are other batches affected that there is no specific information about.

 

[MattKing]

The complicating factor is, of course, that there are lots and lots and lots of films within the potential "problem" batch number or numbers where there has been no problems observed.

 

[MattKing]

I'm afraid this might have been an ongoing problem going back to the bankruptcy. No telling where and when it could pop up. Could even be some radioactive contaminant in the printing ink.

Kodak hasn't made the backing paper for years. There is only one company left in the world that still makes it.

 

[Photo Engineer]

And that company makes it for Ilford??

Kodak knows when changes were made and what they were. With that in hand they can test for the elements that caused the problem and when and why it took place. That is a rather short, intense series of tests for a start.

PE

 

[MattKing]

And that company makes it for Ilford??

Yes, and they have had much more faint numbering on their backing paper for years.