Kodak 120 film - backing paper problems - emulsions affected

[pentaxuser]

I want to inform you that Mr Church will send me 20 new fresh films in my address.
I will help him sending the problematic film spools with backing paper and 2 unopened films from 10 to UK so to investigate the cause of my problem.
Kodak is a serious company but its the first time in my 13 years shooting film that I see a problem.
Happy ending

Glad to hear this. I don't think that KA( Europe), following what was clearly Mr Mooney's policy could have been more helpful or demonstrate a greater desire to get to the bottom of the problem.

pentaxuser

 

[john_s]

For what it's worth, a report of a later batch exhibiting the same problem:

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=163026

 

[RattyMouse]

For what it's worth, a report of a later batch exhibiting the same problem:

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=163026

Wow. Not only more 120 paper problems for Kodak but also now 135 film is having quality issues.

And Kodak wants 8% more money for their products. Pass.

 

[AgX]

From that other forum above:
"And there is still unfortunately the dust issue with all 135 films."

What dust issue? Is that remark related to Kodak films? Have I missed anything?

 

[MattKing]

From that other forum above:
"And there is still unfortunately the dust issue with all 135 films."

What dust issue? Is that remark related to Kodak films? Have I missed anything?

That poster claims to have found dust in and around Kodak 135 cassettes that he/she claims to have left black marks on the film.
First I have heard of it.

 

[Prest_400]

Wow. Not only more 120 paper problems for Kodak but also now 135 film is having quality issues.

And Kodak wants 8% more money for their products. Pass.

The problem here is that with Kodak's QC issues and Fuji's strange attitude... what you got left to shoot? (In color)

I hope they get to the root of the issue. Did encounter faint imprimpting on Portra and Ektar and nowadays I try just to keep it all refrigerated. AFAIK, leaving rolls on the desk for a month awaiting send out helps the imprimpting to appear.
35mm I had no issues with the velvet.

 

[Lachlan Young]

That poster claims to have found dust in and around Kodak 135 cassettes that he/she claims to have left black marks on the film.
First I have heard of it.

Never seen it either, and I'd be more inclined to look at operator error and their own personal storage/ usage conditions before drawing any conclusions. People do some amazingly stupid things with film.

As it is, I processed 22 rolls of Portra 160 & 400 with the current backing paper a couple of days ago, & there's no imprint. Everyone should check their film is from recent batches & get it replaced before they shoot if it isn't.

 

[Anon Ymous]

That poster claims to have found dust in and around Kodak 135 cassettes that he/she claims to have left black marks on the film.
First I have heard of it.

I've shot some reasonably fresh Kodak 135 film lately and had no problems whatsoever. This is just weird.

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

Just shot and processed a fresh roll of Portra 800 in 135 format and had no dust, or any other, problems.

 

[pentaxuser]

Wow. Not only more 120 paper problems for Kodak but also now 135 film is having quality issues.

And Kodak wants 8% more money for their products. Pass.

I had a look at the thread. It is a one line throwaway about a dust problem with all 135 films from one participant. It stems allegedly from inferior velvet lining on all cassettes. No evidence of said person's source is given but seemingly a few thank the person for his information, having accepted it as gospel.

From the same person it appears that "even the most hardcore Kodak fan lab( what's a hardcore Kodak fan lab when its at home?) has warned its customers against buying any Kodak roll film"

I do hope that all here read the linked thread. I have made my mind up about the accuracy and impartiality of this person's report and I say that as someone who knows that half the population of Mexico has set sail towards British waters as a result of DT building a wall on the Mexican border last night preventing their entry to the U.S.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. All I can hope is that the rest of you on Photrio is experiencing one or the other emotion

pentaxuser

 

[AgX]

I had a look at the thread. It is a one line throwaway about a dust problem with all 135 films from one participant. It stems allegedly from inferior velvet lining on all cassettes. No evidence of said person's source is given but seemingly a few thank the person for his information, having accepted it as gospel.

I do not understand you. There are 5 responses to that alleged type 135 issue. No of the responders took it as a gospel. None of them had experienced the issue.

However the rest of these over 200 post are either reports on experienced and validated issues withtype 120 films, the bothering that brings it to photography and the reaction of Kodak/Kodak Alaris, by many regarded as failing.
Enough reason for emotion.

 

[john_s]

I posted the link above (#228) with the proviso "for what it's worth" here in the thread on the 120 backing paper problem because of my concern. The so-called dust in 35mm cassettes I had never heard of. Quite often, here and elsewhere, someone will have a problem and suspect a manufacturing defect in the film. In nearly every case it's not a film defect as we know. However the 120 paper backing problem is real and it would be a tragedy if Kodak has been unable to fix this problem.

 

[RattyMouse]

The problem here is that with Kodak's QC issues and Fuji's strange attitude... what you got left to shoot? (In color)

I hope they get to the root of the issue. Did encounter faint imprimpting on Portra and Ektar and nowadays I try just to keep it all refrigerated. AFAIK, leaving rolls on the desk for a month awaiting send out helps the imprimpting to appear.
35mm I had no issues with the velvet.

I'll shoot Fuji for color film and when they are gone, I'll give up color or go digital.

 

[RattyMouse]

I had a look at the thread. It is a one line throwaway about a dust problem with all 135 films from one participant. It stems allegedly from inferior velvet lining on all cassettes. No evidence of said person's source is given but seemingly a few thank the person for his information, having accepted it as gospel.

From the same person it appears that "even the most hardcore Kodak fan lab( what's a hardcore Kodak fan lab when its at home?) has warned its customers against buying any Kodak roll film"

I do hope that all here read the linked thread. I have made my mind up about the accuracy and impartiality of this person's report and I say that as someone who knows that half the population of Mexico has set sail towards British waters as a result of DT building a wall on the Mexican border last night preventing their entry to the U.S.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. All I can hope is that the rest of you on Photrio is experiencing one or the other emotion

pentaxuser

You didnt read that thread very carefully, did you?

 

[Lachlan Young]

I posted the link above (#228) with the proviso "for what it's worth" here in the thread on the 120 backing paper problem because of my concern. The so-called dust in 35mm cassettes I had never heard of. Quite often, here and elsewhere, someone will have a problem and suspect a manufacturing defect in the film. In nearly every case it's not a film defect as we know. However the 120 paper backing problem is real and it would be a tragedy if Kodak has been unable to fix this problem.

It has been fixed, the remaining problems are coming from those who have hoarded film from the problem batches or have been unlucky to get residual stock from the backs of retailers shelves. TMX will return in 120 after its next coating run - which should be happening about now, if the ETA for its return to the shelves is correct.

 

[AgX]

-) As long Kodak Alaris do not openly approach the issue we do not have a valid statement of the issue being solved.
-) Our fellow Stelios just these days reported to have had issues with film not being on lists of bad stock known to him.

 

[Lachlan Young]

-) As long Kodak Alaris do not openly approach the issue we do not have a valid statement of the issue being solved.
-) Our fellow Stelios just these days reported to have had issues with film not being on lists of bad stock known to him.

I think any Kodak 120 from immediately before the newest backing paper came in is at risk, if exposed to the right/ wrong set of conditions (which are probably as puzzling to Kodak as anyone else) - it doesn't seem to have affected everyone, but it is a massive pain for those affected. Unless you are sure that it's fresh production from this year, I'd suggest checking batch numbers with Kodak to be sure. If you are buying fresh stock from a dealer who has enough throughput that you're not buying last year's stock, you should be fine.

 

[pentaxuser]

I have just re-read your link to the rangefinder forum thread that you mention in post 229 and can still find only one reference from one participant about the dust issue. The alleged dust issue and its inclusion in the thread about roll film being the sole point of my post. He alleges this is affecting all 135 films. He then goes on to say he has been in communication with KA who acknowledge the problem. However the main theme of the thread is the 120 paper offset issue and if the reference is to that then of course KA has acknowledged it. If on the other hand it is a reference to the 135 "dust" problem affecting as is quoted all Kodak 135 films then no details are given of the substance of that communication from KA.

None of the other participants appear to have known of the 135 dust problem but thank the contributor for warning them without asking for some more details.

The person covers the alleged 135 dust problem in one line, hence my reference to a "one-liner The person goes on to mention "even the most hardcore Kodak fan lab" advises its customers against the purchase of Kodak roll film.

Can anyone here tell me what a hardcore Kodak fan club is? Are there Kodak fan clubs which take a balanced approach towards Kodak and also hardcore ones where nothing Kodak does can be criticised and then the most hardcore in which anything short of utter dedication to Kodak will not be tolerated? "Hardcore" is an emotive word that has been deliberately chosen here for its effect on the audience. I can only assume the contributor means there are many Kodak fan clubs and that these clubs can be ranked in their love of Kodak in the form of a league and the contributor has been able to find evidence that even the most dedicated and loyal of these clubs has advised its customers against the purchase of Kodak roll films( if its a fan club it might have followers/participants but customers? Are we then customers of Photrio?) Again no reference is given to the fan club in questionn or any attempt to quote from such a club's advice.

As I said before to those who have not lost interest, read the thread linked to, with reference to the alleged 135 dust problem which affects allegedly all 135 Kodak films and then make up your mind as to what credence you give to the contributor on this issue and whether that contributor has already taken a set position on "matters Kodak " in general. Are we dealing with a contributor from the rangefinder forum who may have a "hidden agenda" in all matters affecting Kodak?

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

I posted the link above (#228) with the proviso "for what it's worth" here in the thread on the 120 backing paper problem because of my concern. The so-called dust in 35mm cassettes I had never heard of. Quite often, here and elsewhere, someone will have a problem and suspect a manufacturing defect in the film. In nearly every case it's not a film defect as we know. However the 120 paper backing problem is real and it would be a tragedy if Kodak has been unable to fix this problem.

The paper backing problem has been fixed. There are a few bad rolls still in the wild but they are disappearing.

There has been no substance to the dust issue.

 

[AgX]

Unless you are sure that it's fresh production from this year, I'd suggest checking batch numbers with Kodak to be sure.

When I visit the Kodak Alaris website I have already problems finding the film portfolio, as their link is even more hidden than at old Kodak times, and then that link is dead. How ever could one find a list of bad batches, if there is not even a listing of the films they offer.

 

[MattKing]

When I visit the Kodak Alaris website I have already problems finding the film portfolio, as their link is even more hidden than at old Kodak times, and then that link is dead. How ever could one find a list of bad batches, if there is not even a listing of the films they offer.

FWIW, if you go to this main page and click on the "Professional Photographers and Labs" link, the film related information branches off the links at the top of the resulting page.
Whereas if you click on the Kodak Moments link on that main page, the Consumer Film related information branches off the links at the top of the resulting page.

 

[AgX]

No, that link is dead for me. It only leads to a photo gallery.

 

[Lachlan Young]

No, that link is dead for me. It only leads to a photo gallery.

I've noticed that with Google Chrome, not with other browsers - whoever maintains their website needs to sort it.

 

[AgX]

I got another browser. Such issue happening at a firm into information technology...

Website issues aside, experience here in Germany has shown that firms do well with an upfront information policy instead of trying to sit out quality problems.
Of course on the prerequisite that they are still interested in that market.

But we should not overlook in all our whining that this strange Kodak\Kodak Alaris constellation may have been the price for Kodak still films, maybe Kodak at all, still existing. And that still films were treated on a low level even before Kodak Alaris time.

 

[Hatchetman]

The paper backing problem has been fixed. .

Can you point me to an official Kodak statement to this? It may have been referenced above, not sure.