Kodak 120 film - backing paper problems - emulsions affected

[StoneNYC]

Have you invited Mr Mooney to visit us to say hello?

Kodak reps have tried this in the past but people here are too short sighted and just want someone to yell at instead of constructive discussion, so they leave, who wants to hang around listening to a bunch of grumpy old men complain about old films no longer made and be beat down about it. So they've written APUG off as a negative place.

Perhaps someday it will get better, but there's a lot of way to go for many here before it's a welcoming environment for someone like a Kodak rep.

 

[R.Gould]

Well I am not retired, in fact no where near it as I am only into this career just shy of 30 years and I did and do and will use Tmax 400 for my work. I have built many relationships of mutual trust and transparency with my chosen brands over the years and nothing has broken that trust, not even this instance. I prefer to help those who have helped me, build partnerships rather than battlefield exploits lead by armies of lawyers.

So I have been talking with Mr. Mooney for a couple of weeks now, he has replaced my film and I know they are working on figuring out all aspects of the issue, product, distribution, how to replace suspect product and how to balance PR with not feeding some of the more prolific trolling members who frequent this site.

So please consider us other folks who are not only not retired, but need Kodak products to continue offering our unique brand of vision to our clients and buyers of our creative output. In the case of TMY2 in particular, I have never seen a film that comes close. Others feel that way about TMX 100 and Tri-X.

And yes, Kodak cares about it, these are marque products and they know this.

The simple fact is that I have never used much Kodak film, on this side of the pond I prefered Ilford for many years, and never ever had any issues with their film, for the last ten years I prefered Fomapan film for the results I got with it, as did my clients, I have never, ever had any issues or problems with it. I tried Fuji film a few years ago. used a few rolls but didn't really like it, but no issues with it, Years ago, when Tmax was new I tried a few rolls, had problems, Contacted Kodak with no satisfactory results, Recently I tried a pro pack of Tmax, and every frame had the imprints on the film, so in over 55 years of photography both hobby and professional use the only film that I have had issues with has been Kodak, I tried in general to keep out of this debate, I personally do not need and have never needed Kodak to offer my own brand of creativity for myself and my former clients, Ilford and Foma do it for me, plus certainly of late over here Kodak is by far the most expensive Black and White film available by a large margin, so each to their own, It would be a sad world if we all used the same film chemistry and paper, I would add that I used to love some of the long gone Kodak paper such as Bromesko, lovely, and I never had a complaint about the material, as far as building partnership's I have very good relationships with Ilford, Foma and Adox, whose paper I use and again have never had any problems with, but if all I have ever had is problems with any brand of film, such as I have had on the few times I have used Kodak, then I feel that it is better, and was a better business propersition to use materials that have given me no problems and that I trust, and for me that is all I have to say on the matter, I wish Kodak well. it would a sadder world without Kodak film, but unless I am 110% sure that the problem is sorted, and in such a way that I can use their film in the cameras I use, then I will stick to the films I know and trust

 

[Xmas]

Maybe but the rebadged Tmax from the Lomo shops and local pharmacy does not fit in my Pentax SP...

The bulk is way expensive.

Foma and Ilford 120 does not have edge numbers yet.

So I don't buy Kodak.

If you can use Kodak please buy Kodak.

 

[Xmas]

Since the backing paper is made by a single manufacturer ALL 120 files from ALL film manufacturers are potentially effected. It seems pointless to blame Kodak for the faults of another company.

Is there another thread blaming Foma or Ilford?

 

[destroya]

i shot 3 rolls of tmax 400 emulsion 0153, purchased from B&H two weeks ago. developed them last night and no issues at all. so.......

 

[R.Gould]

Is there another thread blaming Foma or Ilford?

Never seen this on either Foma or Ilford, or read of any complaint, it seems that only Kodak films are affected, as far as I can tell, the only time I have used Kodak recently was some Tmax 400, I got a propack to try it for something special, and every frame on every roll was affected, wrote off three days shooting, had to do it all again, never again

 

[pentaxuser]

Kodak reps have tried this in the past

I wasn't aware that Kodak had ever visited APUG. When was this and can you point to the thread(s) and give me an indication of what reception the Kodak reps got that dissuaded them from ever returning?

It would be interesting to examine the evidence for their poor reception here.

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Ai Print]

and for me that is all I have to say on the matter, I wish Kodak well.

Then why chime in again with this barb?

I got a propack to try it for something special, and every frame on every roll was affected, wrote off three days shooting, had to do it all again, never again

Look, you got hit with some bad film, I did too, 8 rolls with some of them income earning images. But I am not going to make post after post saying things like "never again" as if to keep a bad feeling on every passing page of every thread, that is what Rattymouse does and this is exactly what I am talking about in regards to a real crap energy being needlessly passed around without regard for those of us who want to see both Kodak fix this and those were affected treated fairly.

Kodak is active on this, replacing film on a case by case basis, communicating with retailers and customers & likely evaluating options going beyond were we are currently. No one is immune to problems with QC, it happens. I hope Kodak does OK in all of this, lots of us want to continue to use the film and want them to settle into the niche they are in with no more drama.

So can we please chill then, on the axes to grind?

 

[MattKing]

On the subject of Ilford, search through APUG for Simon R Galley's posts discussing "wrapper offset". Post #24 in this thread is an example: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Some time ago, Ilford reduced the visibility of the numbers on their 120 films, and people with red window cameras were unhappy. Kodak was able to maintain the visibility for a long time, without problem. Now they have a problem.

 

[Ai Print]

I wasn't aware that Kodak had ever visited APUG. When was this and can you point to the thread(s) and give me an indication of what reception the Kodak reps got that dissuaded them from ever returning?

It would be interesting to examine the evidence for their poor reception here.

Thanks

pentaxuser

It was Colleen Krenzer, here is a good example:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[R.Gould]

Then why chime in again with this barb?



Look, you got hit with some bad film, I did too, 8 rolls with some of them income earning images. But I am not going to make post after post saying things like "never again" as if to keep a bad feeling on every passing page of every thread, that is what Rattymouse does and this is exactly what I am talking about in regards to a real crap energy being needlessly passed around without regard for those of us who want to see both Kodak fix this and those were affected treated fairly.

Kodak is active on this, replacing film on a case by case basis, communicating with retailers and customers & likely evaluating options going beyond were we are currently. No one is immune to problems with QC, it happens. I hope Kodak does OK in all of this, lots of us want to continue to use the film and want them to settle into the niche they are in with no more drama.

So can we please chill then, on the axes to grind?

I have no axe to grind, but the five films that were ruined by this problem cost me a lot of money, I still do some pro work for selected clients, I used Kodak film because I wanted something special for an old client and Kodak is very good film indeed, I was asked to shoot an heritage re enactment, needed great film and used Tmax 400, the event was un repeatable for one day only, I was being paid a very high fee, I could afford to as I am. even in the very restricated amount of work I now do, the only Traditional black and white worker in the channel islands, and charge a lot, when I developed the 5 rolls of 645 films every frame was affected, so I could not charge a fee, and have you ever had to explain to a client that there would be no pictures of their very special and very expensive event? I have ALWAYS said. on here and other forums that if a film brand gave me problems I would drop it like a hot potatoe, I tried to contact Kodak Alaris, by letter and Email, I am still awaiting a reply. I do not doubt that Kodak films are among the best, and if I am sure that this problem will not occur again I would consider using it again, if I can, if they don't make the print so light that I can't use it in my Red window cameras.
So Yes, I am already sick of this seemingly unending argument about Kodak. lets just say great films, especialy Trix, shame about the backing paper, which is not the Fault of Kodak but outside their control at present.

 

[StoneNYC]

It was Colleen Krenzer, here is a good example:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Thanks Ai

I wasn't aware that Kodak had ever visited APUG. When was this and can you point to the thread(s) and give me an indication of what reception the Kodak reps got that dissuaded them from ever returning?

It would be interesting to examine the evidence for their poor reception here.

Thanks

pentaxuser

Here's One she started

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Here's one she participated in

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

She even posted on the Ilford ULF thread when people were harping on Kodak

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

But after a while you get tired of fending off the mob.

 

[pentaxuser]

It was Colleen Krenzer, here is a good example:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Thanks for that. I note that Colleen Krenzer was employed by a PR company and had a specific task in the above thread of clarifying what Kodak was selling. She was not a Kodak rep as such. Once she had done her task she had no reason to continue to participate

She may or may not have seen any of the subsequent pages where the subject ranged far and wide as is APUG's wont. She had both "supporters and critics. She may have been upset by the Kodak critics but I imagine that PR people are made of sterner stuff and Kodak was not her company anyway.

I don't think we can necessarily conclude that the antagonistic approach adopted by a few APUG members is the reason why Kodak then ceased to have a presence here.

Just my opinion of course.

pentaxuser

 

[Lionel1972]

I have seen the problem on a Portra 400 roll for a client recently at my home-based small lab here in France and on a couple of Tri-X rolls too. If you follow the current wedding photography trends, lots of young new comers in the wedding buisiness are switching to film capture and use a pro lab to get their film developped and sc**ned on minilab scanners to get that tendy "film look" with much less post-prod time behind the computer. But this issue shouldn't affect them much because it can easily be fixed on the computer.
We all want Kodak to survive and grow, so let's support their effort to solve the problem and let's keep buying their films.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Since Kodak seems to have remedied the problem, I can buy some TMY2... YAY!!

 

[removed account4]

It was Colleen Krenzer, here is a good example:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

that was in 2012

I don't think we can necessarily conclude that the antagonistic approach adopted by a few APUG members is the reason why Kodak then ceased to have a presence here.

i have been here since 2003, kodak has never had a presence here, unless you count retired employees a presence.

thankfully i don't shoot 120 film that is in-date but if i did, i'd make it a point to dig deep at my inner russian constructivist ...
there's got to be a use for all this film with numbers on it, at the very least a large numbered pan-national exhibition

 

[Terry Breedlove]

This just happened to me. batch 0972

 

[StoneNYC]

Well it seems mine were also affected 015 002 11/2017

Mr. Mooney was gracious, sent my 3 replacement pro-packs in about a week. But the reply to my email took about 4-5 days, so please be patient folks.

 

[arnie k]

I too got bitten by this problem. I spent a day shooting 9 rolls of 120 and all were ruined. Of course I lost the day, and the time and expense of processing and making contacts. I also have 15 rolls of the bad stuff so I just sent Kodak an email. At the very least I assume they will replace the film and am curious if they go an extra step. I recently had a problem with some Ilford paper and Ilford not only replaced the paper but sent me some film. I hope Kodak acts as well as the competition.

 

[AgX]

Kodak is not the firm to be addressed but Kodak Alaris.

 

[Frank53]

I just found 15 tmax 100 and 15 tmax 400 in the affected batches in my fridge.
Sent an email to Kodak Alaris. See what happens.
Regards,
Frank

 

[Frank53]

I just found 15 tmax 100 and 15 tmax 400 in the affected batches in my fridge.
Sent an email to Kodak Alaris. See what happens.
Regards,
Frank

Mr Mooney replied very fast, within 24 hours and suggested to send me 6 new pro packs t-max 400 (t-max 100 is not available yet)
Great service!
Regards,
Frank

 

[John Wiegerink]

Mr Mooney replied very fast, within 24 hours and suggested to send me 6 new pro packs t-max 400 (t-max 100 is not available yet)
Great service!
Regards,
Frank

I'm just curious here, but did Mr.Mooney say the problem was 100% resolved? I'd like to get back to using TMY2.

 

[MattKing]

I'm just curious here, but did Mr.Mooney say the problem was 100% resolved? I'd like to get back to using TMY2.

You are never going to eliminate the problem completely, because it involves interaction between the film, the backing paper, the ink and the affects of environmental factors and storage conditions.
I quote Mr. Mooney's email to me back in May of this year: "As of the beginning of this year, we’ve made some modifications to the backing paper which should minimize the potential for this type of issue moving forward. The first TMY-2 product made with this paper is emulsion 0153."

 

[John Wiegerink]

You are never going to eliminate the problem completely, because it involves interaction between the film, the backing paper, the ink and the affects of environmental factors and storage conditions.
I quote Mr. Mooney's email to me back in May of this year: "As of the beginning of this year, we’ve made some modifications to the backing paper which should minimize the potential for this type of issue moving forward. The first TMY-2 product made with this paper is emulsion 0153."

Thanks Matt for the emulsion lot number. I wonder what the reason was for the change to the shitty backing paper? I hate it when these companies get an idea something might be just as good, but cheaper. I say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". I wonder whose covering the cost of all this film being replaced? The backing paper company or Kodak Alaris?