I love Tmax 400, but...

[gunnar_g]

I've had lots of strange spots on 20 rolls of tmax 400 in 120, emulsions 153 154 and 155. I've been looking for the cause in my development, but today I made a scan which makes me believe the film is the problem (or one of them at least).

In the upper left of the frame (#1 on the roll) there are vertical lines which can also be found on the backing paper. Whats wierd is that the number 2 is superimposed, which means it's offset through the paper. What is causing this?

The frame also shows the spots/mottling or whatever, seen on all rolls. The background behind the number 2 is supposed to be smooth. Strangely the spots are plus density in one batch, but minus density in another. The negs range from useles to barely noticable spots.

Other 120 films (tmx) and 135 films (tmy2) developed together with tmy2 120 do not have problems. But all tmy2 120 have problems.

If it is the film, surely someone else is having these problems?

I'm trying to post an example scan from one neg, emulsion 155002. (face is blurred, not a defect)
mamiya rb67 180mm, xtol 1+0.5, jobo 24C cont.ag., 2m prewarm, filtered chems from tap water, water stop, ag fix, photoflo 1+400
films not frozen or refridgerated, shot within date, developed days to months after shot

 

[removed account4]

bummer

have you seen these 2 threads ?
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/tmax400-120-watermark-defect-current-status.135814/
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...achrome-100-update.155668/page-3#post-2034648

 

[gunnar_g]

bummer

have you seen these 2 threads ?

Thanks! Yes I have, but most problems reported seem to be on earlier emulsions I think.

 

[gunnar_g]

It strikes me now that on this roll the spots are thin, but the offset is dense.

 

[MattKing]

Sorry that this has happened to you. Your problem seems to be the same or similar to a problem that many people encountered when Kodak began using another source for backing paper, after their capacity to make their own was shut down.
Here is a thread that discusses the problem: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ing-paper-problems-emulsions-affected.137251/
I'm surprised to see these batch numbers, because they are newer than the batch numbers of the films that suffered the most, and I believe are newer than the batch numbers for films with the new backing paper printing.
Please contact Thomas Mooney at Kodak Alaris to describe your problem. The appropriate email is profilm@kodakalaris.com.
Mr. Mooney and others at Kodak Alaris have replaced film for a number of participants here on Photrio/APUG.
Be sure to indicate and describe the batch numbers for film that you have that has not yet been exposed.
In my case, I advised him of 30 rolls from known affected batches that I had not yet exposed. He promptly sent me replacement film, from the USA to Canada via courier and at no cost, and did not require return of my 30 rolls.

 

[gunnar_g]

Thanks Matt. I'll contact mr Mooney.

 

[gunnar_g]

I just dont understand how the print on the paper can affect the film from both sides. When you roll the paper on the spool, the "2" and the vertical lines line up on top of each other with film in between. But the "2" is turned away from the film and does not touch it at that spot!

 

[Craig]

I don't think anyone knows for sure what the cause is.

 

[gunnar_g]

Something would have to pass from the print through the paper and onto the film base. Heat? Radiation? A chemical substance? Moisture? And it gives the same effect (higher density) as the print directly touching the emulsion side.

But is it before or after exposure?

 

[mnemosyne]

I just dont understand how the print on the paper can affect the film from both sides. When you roll the paper on the spool, the "2" and the vertical lines line up on top of each other with film in between. But the "2" is turned away from the film and does not touch it at that spot!

Very well observed and a very interesting point that you make. It would mean that the added density in these areas cannot be a result of a chemical reaction triggered by direct contact of the ink and the emulsion, which has been the most common explanation of this problem to date. Now, after seeing this, one thing comes to my mind: Luminescence? Is it possible that the ink contains some kind of substance that actually emits light (or some other form of radiation the emulsion is sensitive to)? This would explain why the film has seemingly been "exposed" from both sides, front and back. And, if the assumption above is true, will the ink emit light all by itself (so it is merely a question of time until the added density shows up after a couple of months of storage) or is this process triggered by some form of exposure to external energy (heat, x-ray, ...)?

 

[RattyMouse]

I've had lots of strange spots on 20 rolls of tmax 400 in 120,

20 rolls! Wow. That's very unfortunate. I've been there, burned by TMAX400 quite a lot so I feel for you.

Welcome to the forum. Sorry you had to arrive on such a poor set of circumstances.

 

[bstark]

I have no idea what's going on wrt chemistry/radiation, but I'd like to point out that the emusion side of frame #1 is touching the "2" ink marking on the unexposed roll and the vertical lines on the take-up spool after exposure.

 

[Ste_S]

Sorry that this has happened to you. Your problem seems to be the same or similar to a problem that many people encountered when Kodak began using another source for backing paper, after their capacity to make their own was shut down.
Here is a thread that discusses the problem: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ing-paper-problems-emulsions-affected.137251/
I'm surprised to see these batch numbers, because they are newer than the batch numbers of the films that suffered the most, and I believe are newer than the batch numbers for films with the new backing paper printing.
Please contact Thomas Mooney at Kodak Alaris to describe your problem. The appropriate email is profilm@kodakalaris.com.
Mr. Mooney and others at Kodak Alaris have replaced film for a number of participants here on Photrio/APUG.
Be sure to indicate and describe the batch numbers for film that you have that has not yet been exposed.
In my case, I advised him of 30 rolls from known affected batches that I had not yet exposed. He promptly sent me replacement film, from the USA to Canada via courier and at no cost, and did not require return of my 30 rolls.

Thanks for that email address. I've emailed Thomas Mooney re the problem I had with batch 515/001

 

[gunnar_g]

I have no idea what's going on wrt chemistry/radiation, but I'd like to point out that the emusion side of frame #1 is touching the "2" ink marking on the unexposed roll and the vertical lines on the take-up spool after exposure.

You're smarter than me. I just now played with the paper and spools and realized the same thing.

And that means the marks show
up both before and after exposure. If thats relevant.

 

[gunnar_g]

Welcome to the forum. Sorry you had to arrive on such a poor set of circumstances.

Thanks!

 

[Lachlan Young]

Mottling from the backing paper is not unknown, especially in out of date, poorly stored rolls of film (likely humidity related) - and those rolls of film with mottling problems often show the backing paper numbers too - even on films where wrapper offset is not an issue when in date. How did you store the films after buying, when in the camera & before processing? Were there any situations where condensation could build up around the films & not escape?

 

[gunnar_g]

It's been indoors at 20-24C all the time. Don't remember if it was in a plastic bag after exposure. No fridge or freezer. I can't really see a pattern between the different rolls with mottling.

 

[pentaxuser]

It's been indoors at 20-24C all the time. Don't remember if it was in a plastic bag after exposure. No fridge or freezer. I can't really see a pattern between the different rolls with mottling.

These are the conditions in which you have stored the film and they seem fine but the real question which presumably you cannot answer is: What were the conditions in which it was stored from when it rolled off the Kodak production line and arriving at your address.

You'd hope that Kodak had a hand in specifying/overseeing the ingredients and production of the backing paper when the changes were made which it was hoped would eliminate the problem. At Ford for instance Ford Supplier Quality Engineers would liaise with its suppliers which meant visiting their premises to ensure that the process at the suppliers' premises met with Ford standards.

Maybe Kodak were more trusting of course but surely must have carried out some form of inspection. If it trusted the paper manufacturer 100% with no checks then it has learnt a salutary lesson which has had a cost to it.

Policing the production is one thing but policing the whole of the distribution change is of course quite another.

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

This is a well known problem which is slowly being corrected by removing products with the offending paper backing. Follow the above urls to other threads to find out what to do.

Welcome to APUG Photrio

 

[aleckurgan]

I just dont understand how the print on the paper can affect the film from both sides. When you roll the paper on the spool, the "2" and the vertical lines line up on top of each other with film in between. But the "2" is turned away from the film and does not touch it at that spot!

That puzzles me too, you got both marks on the same neg. Do they use radioactive inks or something?

 

[gunnar_g]

That puzzles me too, you got both marks on the same neg. Do they use radioactive inks or something?

It probably is because the film touches different parts of the backing paper before and after exposure.

 

[ic-racer]

Can't we just have 220 back....

 

[Alan W]

No

 

[Sirius Glass]

Can't we just have 220 back....

It was not done well. It costs too much per roll, more than twice as much as 120. The processing price was more than twice the cost of two 120 rolls. Many films were never available in 220. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to know from the start that it was not going to catch on. It just took a long time to die.

 

[ic-racer]

220 Film

No paper backing = done well
It had twice as much film per roll and was a better product, so I'd pay more
Processing cost is the same as 2 rolls of 120 in a single Jobo reel. Easier to load because it is all in one piece.
It did catch on, every camera manufacturer made 220 backs.
I'd think the only people that want a crappy paper backing and short 8 exposure rolls are the LOMO crowd and the peeping-tom-red-window-vintage crowd.