Film ruined by paper

JW PHOTO · Sep 22, 2015

I agree with David on this one. The longer a company plays with a problem like this the more sales they lose. I, for one, will not buy any film that might develop defects while in my possession. Sure, all films start to degrade over time, but usually just slight or excessive fog is the result and you can sometimes print right through that with pretty good results. I had the same problem(numbers bleeding), others did too, with Shanghai GP3 120 film. I didn't mind it much since I bought it cheap and was only using it to test some cameras out. For the "once in a life time shot" this film would be like hunting Cape Buffalo with a box cartridges where one or two in twenty might not go off. Except the outcome from the Cape Buffalo might be a little more exciting. Of course a pissed off brides mother can be pretty exciting also when she finds a big "no. 8 on her daughters pretty white wedding dress. John W

MattKing · Sep 22, 2015

There may not be a problem with the film.

It may very well be due to one particular portion of a batch being exposed to extreme temperature at some point (either before or after retail sale) in the supply chain.

If that is the case, it would in essence be an insoluble problem. But at least it would be relatively unlikely to be encountered again by anyone.

And by the way, I think those numbers would be more likely to appear on the groom's suit than on the bride's dress. Even so, "#8" would still be a disappointment.

RattyMouse · Sep 22, 2015

analoguey said:
Did this get sorted out Finally? Kodak replaced film and the issue didn't occur?
Did the folks who had complaints send their Film to Kodak?

Sent from Tap-a-talk

I am not pursuing this with Kodak as I'm in the midst of an international move. My plate is far too full to worry about the poor quality of my past batch of film.

ignatiu5 · Sep 22, 2015

analoguey said:
Did this get sorted out Finally? Kodak replaced film and the issue didn't occur?
Did the folks who had complaints send their Film to Kodak?

Sent from Tap-a-talk

I didn't send Kodak my film, but I did send them a scan (the same as I posted earlier in this thread) of an affected negative. I received a confirmation email today that replacement film (and I actually asked for Tri-X in lieu of the faulty TMax 400, just to hedge my bets against a defective lot/run/shipment) was being sent today.

I've got two rolls left from those wonky TMY-2 propacks that are exposed but not yet developed. I fear that some shots from a recent trip to NYC are going to be lost...

ignatiu5 · Sep 22, 2015

MattKing said:
I would expect that any heat related damage for RM would have arisen as part of the supply chain. Shanghai is a long way from Rochester, but more problematic would be damage arising between Rochester and B&H.

I've been trying to think of a scenario that connects all of the transportation dots. Perhaps a non-refrigerated truck spends an inordinate amount of time stuck in I90 traffic/broken down/whatever in the summer heat (I bought my film in June) on its way east from Rochester. Part of the now heat-stroked cargo is delivered to B&H in Manhattan, before the truck carries on to JFK airport to deliver the rest of the damaged film destined for retailers overseas.

Prof_Pixel · Sep 22, 2015

JW PHOTO said:
The longer a company plays with a problem like this the more sales they lose.

I don't think Kodak is 'playing' with the problem. Troubleshooting intermittent problems can be VERY difficult.

MattKing · Sep 22, 2015

ignatiu5 said:
I've been trying to think of a scenario that connects all of the transportation dots. Perhaps a non-refrigerated truck spends an inordinate amount of time stuck in I90 traffic/broken down/whatever in the summer heat (I bought my film in June) on its way east from Rochester. Part of the now heat-stroked cargo is delivered to B&H in Manhattan, before the truck carries on to JFK airport to deliver the rest of the damaged film destined for retailers overseas.

My local, Canadian retailer buys some of their stock from B & H, because for some items, it is cheaper to do so and import it than to buy it wholesale from Canadian distributors.

It may be the same in Shanghai.

Xmas · Sep 22, 2015

Prof_Pixel said:
I don't think Kodak is 'playing' with the problem. Troubleshooting intermittent problems can be VERY difficult.

It may be a process changed imposed upon Kodak for factory safety. If the new dye is ok to X degrees and X is high then the problem is supply chain 'delinquency'... Pig to address that.
When I shot weddings I always bought a brick of ten and used one early to check there was not a problem.
Brides could be well picky eg about size of their nose or colour of their white dress.

JW PHOTO · Sep 23, 2015

Xmas said:
It may be a process changed imposed upon Kodak for factory safety. If the new dye is ok to X degrees and X is high then the problem is supply chain 'delinquency'... Pig to address that.
When I shot weddings I always bought a brick of ten and used one early to check there was not a problem.
Brides could be well picky eg about size of their nose or colour of their white dress.

I always like the old saying, "If it ain't broke don't fix it"! I've used a lot of Ilford and some Fuji B&W film and their numbers dye doesn't bleed(if that's the problem). Maybe Kodak ought to find out where those two buy their printing dye from? It seems to be a common consensus the the Shanghai GP3 120 film is free from bleed through when fresh, but the longer it is kept the more the fumes from the numbers dye is transferred into the emulsion. If it's the same with the batches of Kodak film then it's hard for them to pinpoint the exact nature of the problem. I'm not saying I know for sure that Kodak is having the same problem that occurred with Shanghai GP3 film, but there sure are some similarities that's for sure. It also might explain why some folks have the problem and some folks don't. I'll just keep using Ilford until they have a problem?
As for Brides being picky? I always seemed to have more of a problem with the brides mother since much of the time she and her hubby were footing the bill. Most of the time it was trying "to make a silk purse out of a sows ear" problem. Mom always thought the camera/photographer didn't do her daughter justice. Well, in the days I shot weddings and airbrush or retouching could sometimes work magic. I say sometimes. Now it's so much easier with software programs, but still the same idea. John W

ignatiu5 · Oct 30, 2015

I thought I'd bump this thread as I am curious whether this has been a continuous problem regarding backing paper text on Kodak film, or if it was just a one-off problem.
Anyone have recent issues?

Photo Engineer · Oct 30, 2015

My impression is that Kodak is looking into this matter. The first thing is that they must duplicate the problem.

PE

Xmas · Oct 30, 2015

Photo Engineer said:
My impression is that Kodak is looking into this matter. The first thing is that they must duplicate the problem.

PE

Without the negative and backing paper that is not going to be easy, you might 'duplicate' a different problem with similar symptoms?

Photo Engineer · Oct 30, 2015

Well, did anyone send them samples?

RattyMouse · Oct 30, 2015

Photo Engineer said:
Well, did anyone send them samples?

Not me. I just completed an 8,000 mile move. But you did remind me that my stock of TMAX 400 is probably garbage. I had forgotten about this issue during the move.

Xmas · Oct 30, 2015

I was not meaning to criticize you in any way I was aware you had been busy and not returned the problem frames and backing.

Id email them if you had time they might want the stache back.

They are honour bound to replace if they request them sent back.

They may feel bad about your lost pictures as well. They would understand that you might not have picked up the fault immediately.

JW PHOTO · Oct 30, 2015

I see on the other web photo site under (B&W-film and processing) forum a thread titled "Help With Figuring Out What Went Wrong Here" Shows somebody else with the same problem. I guess it's not just an isolated case or two. I'm sticking with Ilford until this gets ironed out. John W

mooseontheloose · Oct 30, 2015

I haven't noticed any problems (so far) on the Tri-X film I shot this summer, so maybe it is just a TMAX issue.

RattyMouse · Nov 1, 2015

mooseontheloose said:
I haven't noticed any problems (so far) on the Tri-X film I shot this summer, so maybe it is just a TMAX issue.

I believe this is true. TMAX has been the problem product.

JW PHOTO · Nov 1, 2015

Yes, the fellow over on photo.net is having the problem TMAX 400

ignatiu5 · Nov 1, 2015

Photo Engineer said:
Well, did anyone send them samples?

I sent them (scanned) samples of affected TMAX 400 negatives, but the associated backing paper was long discarded, as there was a lag between development and scanning. I requested and received rolls of Tri-X as a replacement. I asked the Kodak Alaris Film Business Manager some additional questions at the time about the source or reason for the paper problem, but received no additional correspondence on the issue. Hence my bumping of this thread; I was curious if others had more information.

ignatiu5 · Nov 1, 2015

mooseontheloose said:
I haven't noticed any problems (so far) on the Tri-X film I shot this summer, so maybe it is just a TMAX issue.

Rachelle, was your Tri-X new paper or old paper? The text on this link (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/filmsIndex.jhtml) suggests that all of their 120 has a different paper backing.

mooseontheloose · Nov 1, 2015

ignatiu5 said:
Rachelle, was your Tri-X new paper or old paper? The text on this link (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/filmsIndex.jhtml) suggests that all of their 120 has a different paper backing.

I've been keeping track of that as well, as I develop. I have a film development log to keep track of every film I develop and have been marking which rolls have come with the dark grey (old) border, and which with the light grey (new). I've also been keeping all of my backing paper should anything come up. As I've mentioned earlier there doesn't seem to be a problem so far, but I haven't looked at each and every neg under a loupe yet either.

shiaochungho · Nov 26, 2015

I put some diffrient edition of back papers under utraviolet light
I found that the new Kodak Tmax400 has Fluorescent agents
Have a look of the picture,I doubt if this cause the problem.....

Sirius Glass · Nov 26, 2015

shiaochungho said:
I put some diffrient edition of back papers under utraviolet light
I found that the new Kodak Tmax400 has Fluorescent agents
Have a look of the picture,I doubt if this cause the problem.....

Welcome to APUG

Sal Santamaura · Nov 27, 2015

shiaochungho said:
...I doubt if this cause the problem...

Why? It could very well be related.

Film ruined by paper

JW PHOTO

MattKing

Moderator

RattyMouse

ignatiu5

ignatiu5

Prof_Pixel

MattKing

Moderator

Xmas

JW PHOTO

ignatiu5

Photo Engineer

Xmas

Photo Engineer

RattyMouse

Xmas

JW PHOTO

mooseontheloose

RattyMouse

JW PHOTO

ignatiu5

ignatiu5

mooseontheloose

shiaochungho

Attachments

Sirius Glass

Sal Santamaura

Film ruined by paper

Moderator

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency