Film failure

Darren Kelland · May 4, 2017

I know this topic has been discussed before to some degree but I feel angry enough to revive it and to warn other users.

Last year I suffered from the well known issues with Kodak Tri-X 400 and T- Max 400. I had a box each of the faulty batches that resulted in the numbers from the backing paper showing through in the negatives. Not a huge issue for me apart the annoyance of losing the photographs from those rolls - all thankfully taken close to home. Also not an issue as HP5+ is generally my go to B&W film.

I recently received some scans back from a roll of Portra 400 taken about a month ago. This issue has recurred. The film was fresh stock and was treated with the same care as my other film - (refrigerated before use and developed shortly after exposure). I rarely work with colour film and recently started using Fuji Pro400H. I think that following this disaster, my time with Kodak films is coming to an end.

This is extremely frustrating. There is a huge effort to support film manufacturers and I am delighted that we have a renaissance in the film industry. Poor products will turn people away and those who use both digital and film may think that they should just use digital for those 'never to be replaced' moments.

I have come here to vent and to ask if anybody else has experienced this recently.

MattKing · May 4, 2017

Darren Kelland said:
I know this topic has been discussed before to some degree but I feel angry enough to revive it and to warn other users.

Last year I suffered from the well known issues with Kodak Tri-X 400 and T- Max 400. I had a box each of the faulty batches that resulted in the numbers from the backing paper showing through in the negatives. Not a huge issue for me apart the annoyance of losing the photographs from those rolls - all thankfully taken close to home. Also not an issue as HP5+ is generally my go to B&W film.

I recently received some scans back from a roll of Portra 400 taken about a month ago. This issue has recurred. The film was fresh stock and was treated with the same care as my other film - (refrigerated before use and developed shortly after exposure). I rarely work with colour film and recently started using Fuji Pro400H. I think that following this disaster, my time with Kodak films is coming to an end.

This is extremely frustrating. There is a huge effort to support film manufacturers and I am delighted that we have a renaissance in the film industry. Poor products will turn people away and those who use both digital and film may think that they should just use digital for those 'never to be replaced' moments.

I have come here to vent and to ask if anybody else has experienced this recently.

I'm sorry this problem with wrapper offset has happened to you.
Can you tell what the batch number and develop before date of the Portra was?
And have you communicated with Kodak Alaris to at least get the film replaced?
It is the same problem, with essentially the same backing paper. It just didn't show up as quickly with the colour emulsions.
The most recent iterations of the Kodak backing paper has very different levels and quantities of ink on it (it is the reaction between the ink and the emulsions that appears to be at fault).
There is a number of threads on this issue, including the one I started: (there was a url link here which no longer exists). That thread includes (later on) people who have had problems with the colour emulsions. The moderators may elect to merge your thread with that.

Leigh B · May 4, 2017

MattKing said:
(it is the reaction between the ink and the emulsions that appears to be at fault).

But the ink never touches the emulsion.

- Leigh

MattKing · May 4, 2017

Leigh B said:
But the ink never touches the emulsion.

- Leigh

Sure it does - it is the ink from the back of the preceding layer of the backing paper as the film plus backing layer sandwich is rolled on to the spool.

Leigh B · May 4, 2017

Oh. OK.

-Leigh

LAG · May 5, 2017

MattKing said:
The most recent iterations of the Kodak backing paper has very different levels and quantities of ink on it (it is the reaction between the ink and the emulsions that appears to be at fault)

I feel sorry to repeat myself with this, but IMHO ("it appears to be") it has to do with the light/paper relationship, not with the ink/emulsion.

Best!

removed account4 · May 5, 2017

SSDD
i wish KA/EK would figure this out ... 2 years later this is still happening

MattKing · May 5, 2017

LAG said:
I feel sorry to repeat myself with this, but IMHO ("it appears to be") it has to do with the light/paper relationship, not with the ink/emulsion.

Best!

As the image of the numbers and letters are more dense (not less dense) on the negatives, and are oriented in a reverse direction (not mirrored) from what would occur if it was a problem with light exposure, that hardly seems possible.

Darren Kelland · May 5, 2017

MattKing said:
I'm sorry this problem with wrapper offset has happened to you.
Can you tell what the batch number and develop before date of the Portra was?
And have you communicated with Kodak Alaris to at least get the film replaced?
It is the same problem, with essentially the same backing paper. It just didn't show up as quickly with the colour emulsions.
The most recent iterations of the Kodak backing paper has very different levels and quantities of ink on it (it is the reaction between the ink and the emulsions that appears to be at fault).
There is a number of threads on this issue, including the one I started: (there was a url link here which no longer exists). That thread includes (later on) people who have had problems with the colour emulsions. The moderators may elect to merge your thread with that.

I will be getting in touch with Kodak Alaris. Thank you for your feedback.

LAG · May 5, 2017

MattKing said:
As the image of the numbers and letters are more dense (not less dense) on the negatives, and are oriented in a reverse direction (not mirrored) from what would occur if it was a problem with light exposure, that hardly seems possible.

I have not mentioned "exposure" at any time. Light & paper (even when it is rolled up)

MattKing · May 5, 2017

LAG said:
I have not mentioned "exposure" at any time. Light & paper (even when it is rolled up)

We may have a language barrier here.
The only place on the film where there is any effect on the negative is where the numbers and letters are, and the effect is that the negatives are more dense where the black ink of the numbers and letters on the back of the backing paper contact the emulsion side of the film.

LAG · May 5, 2017

MattKing said:
We may have a language barrier here.

Maybe

MattKing said:
The only place on the film where there is any effect

only <visual> place ... any <visual> effect

MattKing said:
is where the numbers and letters are

Numbers and letters whose space reservation is greater in the percentage of ink used (and size), than in the rest of decorative elements printed in the backing-paper - in the appropriate cases -.

"Numeros y letras cuyo espacio de reserva es mayor en porcentaje de tinta utilizada (y de tamaño) en el papel-trasero, que el resto de elementos decorativos grabados en el propio papel - en los casos oportunos -."

MattKing said:
and the effect is that the negatives are more dense where the black ink of the numbers and letters on the back of the backing paper contact the emulsion side of the film.

... or due to the entire backing-paper with an opacity manufacturing defect.

MattKing · May 5, 2017

Now I'm sure that we have a language barrier!

LAG · May 5, 2017

Now I'm sure I wouldn't say "we"!

greg zinselmeier · May 5, 2017

My position is. . . . . do not buy Kodak. Kodak is shooting itself in the foot on purpose ( IMO) they want to die. they just can not put the gun to their head, instead it's just the foot. ( IMO)

MattKing · May 5, 2017

I'll keep on buying new film from Kodak.

removed account4 · May 5, 2017

greg zinselmeier said:
Kodak is shooting itself in the foot on purpose ( IMO) they want to die.

i think they bought defective paper ...
there are some left still out there that
people don't know about
there's a bunch-a scenarios ...
here are a few

they didn't realize the store they
bought it at had old stock
( that wasn't expired/still in-date)
so they assumed it was OK;

maybe they bought it 2 years ago been shooting
LF or 35mm or the D-thang for 2 years and been out of the loop/
didn't know about the dreaded watermark and didn't check the lot numbers;

they bought it from someone on ebay and/or
some photo forum member
... the seller had no clue that the film had issues ... (see above)
and just sold it because they no longer use MF gear and needed the $$ for
the custom built chamonix 32x40 camera being made.
( whats the point of having film without a camera to shoot it in... ? ).

i don't think they are in any way doing this on purpose ..
that's like saying BP/haliburton meant to have a defective valve burst
and be a oil volcano for 6 months ... or skipper hazelwood of the valdez meant to run aground
or douglas corrigan didn't mean to get lost and fly to ireland ( well, maybe )

jvo · May 5, 2017

jnanian said:
there's a bunch-a scenarios ...
that's like saying BP/haliburton meant to have a defective valve burst
and be a oil volcano for 6 months ... or skipper hazelwood of the valdez meant to run aground
or douglas corrigan didn't mean to get lost and fly to ireland ( well, maybe )

you forgot the "trump effect" - "they don't know how to make film, only I can do it!"

Gerald C Koch · May 5, 2017

Sorry to hear that the problem still occurs. Kodak and all other manufacturers do not manufacture the backing paper nor have any part of it. A single company has a monopoly on its manufacture. AFIK this includes the printing and the ink used. The problem seems to be a rather complex one. It's rather pointless to blame Kodak since they are not the source of the problem. The problem itself seems to involve incorrect storage of the film either before or after sale. With such fact0rs as temperature and humidity involved.

LAG · May 6, 2017

greg zinselmeier said:
My position is. . . . . do not buy Kodak ( IMO)

If Kodak makes mistakes, why don't you?

MattKing said:
I'll keep on buying new film from Kodak.

Me too!

jnanian said:
i don't think they are in any way doing this on purpose ..

Me neither!

macfred · May 6, 2017

jnanian said:
i don't think they are in any way doing this on purpose ..
that's like saying BP/haliburton meant to have a defective valve burst
and be a oil volcano for 6 months ... or skipper hazelwood of the valdez meant to run aground
or douglas corrigan didn't mean to get lost and fly to ireland ( well, maybe )

John, I like your poems as well as your photographs !
Reminds me to Jack Kerouac's spontaneous prose on benzedrine ...

Prest_400 · May 6, 2017

I don't shoot a lot on a row and tend to keep film around waiting batch processing/send out. Given the elemental relationship in chemical reactions and time/temperature, I've began to refrigerate my exposed 120. After leaving some around the desktop during winter, it showed light print through in a couple months of sitting around.
Perhaps it is more humidity related here (les than a mile from the seashore) because there is some paper texture imprimpting too.

LAG · May 6, 2017

Gerald C Koch said:
...The problem itself seems to involve incorrect storage of the film either before or after sale. With such fact0rs as temperature and humidity involved.

Prest_400 said:
...Perhaps it is more humidity related here (les than a mile from the seashore) because there is some paper texture imprimpting too.

If it were a problem of storage/humidity, the concern should be greater and extendable to other backing papers - ever -, and not only an isolated fact of some given batches ...

Best!

Film failure

Darren Kelland

MattKing

Moderator

Leigh B

MattKing

Moderator

Leigh B

LAG

removed account4

MattKing

Moderator

Darren Kelland

LAG

MattKing

Moderator

LAG

MattKing

Moderator

LAG

greg zinselmeier

MattKing

Moderator

removed account4

jvo

Gerald C Koch

LAG

macfred

Prest_400

LAG

Film failure

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency