First public Kodak Alaris statement on the backing paper issue

[AgX]

"We are now very comfortable about the backing paper"

Listen from 4:40min onwards

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for that video, AgX. If I understood the KA representative correctly he was saying that anyone buying fresh TMax 400 and 100 from a retailer can be assured that it will no longer have the backing paper issue. I think he was also saying while the problem was confined to film kept under less than ideal conditions the fresh film that you buy from a retailer from now on will, even under less than ideal conditions, be OK as well. Clearly any film kept under extreme conditions cannot be guaranteed to be problem free but that applies to film in general.

pentaxuser

 

[AgX]

That is what I understood too.

You said:
"Clearly any film kept under extreme conditions cannot be guaranteed to be problem free but that applies to film in general."

True, and in industry artefacts collections humity effects on the backing paper/emulsion interface are well spread, but not at all that printing offset.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I remain forever hopeful that HIE will return... or something close to it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It was nice to see the Hasselblad SWC in the background.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I remain forever hopeful that HIE will return... or something close to it.

One would have to convince the US Government to subsidize infrared film. That ship steamed out of the train station and sank on the tracks.

 

[mshchem]

Thanks for the link. I've always been very careful how I handle film. The ink transfer was a major screwup. On some lots I think the transfer would have happened no matter how it was stored.
Glad to see KA and EK have the problem fixed.

 

[fdonadio]

It was nice to see the Hasselblad SWC in the background.

It would be nicer (for me, at least) to see one in my hands.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

The backing paper debacle struck here in Australia all of 3 years ago, and even then it was city-specific (Perth, Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne). I wrote to Kodak, then rocked up to their office, to be treated to biscuits, cups of tea and a chinwag. The two faulty TMax 100 rolls were given over, and in return I left with 6 rolls in the kitty, and no problems thereafter.

 

[removed account4]

glad to see they addressed the problem
... he said it happened ( they think ) because of extreme storage conditions
isn't film always shipped and stored ( in warehouses ) in extreme conditions ?
looking back its weird it didn't happen to all their film ( and everyone else's 120 film as well
since there is only 1 maker of backing paper ( or so some say ) ) ...
backs of delivery trucks are notorious for being kind of "warm" or "chilly"

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

It was nice to see the Hasselblad SWC in the background.

It is a pity that both the Rolleiflex and the Hasselblad in the background are out of production.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It would be nicer (for me, at least) to see one in my hands.

+1*10*1099

 

[Arthurwg]

We all want something. I want Kodak Readyloads and Polaroid 4x5 Pos/Neg.

 

[removedacct1]

I was much more excited when I realized that was a Kodak Ektra sitting on the counter! I wish there was someone out there who could refurbish those.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I remain forever hopeful that HIE will return... or something close to it.

The most likely returnees are those that made the transition in 1999-2007 or earlier to B-38's machine. So it's likely the case that TP, VP, HIE & (definitely!) FX & KM are unlikely to return without significant R&D. PX & a few others are more likely to return - I'd like to see TXP in rollfilm again...

I also don't doubt that Ilford looked at extending SFX's sensitivity & concluded that the costs involved would take a very long time to recoup. Adox might be more amenable, though who knows what a roll might have to cost to be worthwhile - 15-25USD?

 

[pentaxuser]

Adox might be more amenable, though who knows what a roll might have to cost to be worthwhile - 15-25USD?

Good point. Clearly there are those who may be prepared to pay this price but a simple statement to that effect from the few who are prepared to pay that does not constitute a business case for the film's re-introduction and yet there are those who somehow think that they can make a business case out of their own declaration plus a few others who feel the same way.

If there was not a business case for its continuation due to lack of demand at a much lower price then why does anyone imagine that the demand will improve at a higher price and possibly a much higher price?

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

...

If there was not a business case for its continuation due to lack of demand at a much lower price then why does anyone imagine that the demand will improve at a higher price and possibly a much higher price?

pentaxuser

Because they must be smoking so truly righteous weed. Please send some of that stuff to me!

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

PX & a few others are more likely to return.

I think that Panatomic-X won't be coming back, unfortunately. From what I understand, it had cadmium in the emulsion. If I'm wrong, I'm sure somebody will correct me.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Did he say when Ektachrome 120 is coming out?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Did he say when Ektachrome 120 is coming out?

We'll have to wait how the market takes Ektachrome 100 in 35mm, especially since it has here now in Australia and priced not unexpectedly at $27.00 a pop (cf. Provia 100F $17.40).

 

[zowno]

We'll have to wait how the market takes Ektachrome 100 in 35mm, especially since it has here now in Australia and priced not unexpectedly at $27.00 a pop (cf. Provia 100F $17.40).

Where are you getting that price?

Ikigai camera in melbourne going to sell it for $19.50 a roll

 

[fdonadio]

I think that Panatomic-X won't be coming back, unfortunately.

By “PX”, I think he was referring to Plus-X, not Panatomic-X.

 

[EdSawyer]

FX = pan-X. PX = Plus-x, TX = Tri-x

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

By “PX”, I think he was referring to Plus-X, not Panatomic-X.

FX = pan-X. PX = Plus-x, TX = Tri-x

Oops! You're right, of course. Panatomic-X was FX. That's what I get for trying to think while tired.

 

[MattKing]

Can somebody explain the difficult part of producing backing paper?
I hear film producers whining they can't get a supplier and I don't understand what is the part stopping any random papermill producing it.

Backing paper is thicker in the centre than at the edges.
It needs to be exact in size and dimensionally stable over a range of temperatures and humidity.
It needs to be opaque to light, while still being thin and flexible.
It needs to be dark on one side, light on the other side and the light side must accept ink-printed information.
And that ink-printed information must be able to remain non-reactive when pressed against a variety of different photographic emulsions, all of which are designed to react very sensitively with light and chemicals - possibly for as long as a period of several years.
And those emulsions get changed from time to time, some times without consulting those who make the paper.