It's too bad they don't offer the option of having no markings other than the start arrow. I realize many people need the numbers but many don't.
There are a lot of complexities here.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?
It seems a bit odd, when roll films have been manufactured successfully by numerous makers for over 100 years, that, with 21st Century technology, the, arguably, most famous photographic manufacturer in the world still seems to have problems getting it right. Just saying.
That was my point exactly and the reason for the comment "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". If the change was for environmental reasons so be it, but if it was a cost-cut number cruncher thing then I rest my case. When I was shooting pro-wedding etc. I would never care about numbers on the backing paper as all my systems and backs only required a start point. Now that I'm totally shooting for my own pleasure I'm using cameras like my old friend the Medalist I & II, several Zeiss Super Ikontas, Kodak Monitor and several red window others. If I can't see the numbers then it's not the film I will be using. I'll just stick to Ilford and Ultrafine Xtreme since I have them dialed in and find them very good. As good as TMY2? I personally don't think any 400 speed film on the market is as good as TMY2, but that's just my opinion. Oh, and I refuse to knock-out my red windows in my folders. One saving grace is I can still use TMY2 in my old Rollei and Yashica 124G cameras.It seems a bit odd, when roll films have been manufactured successfully by numerous makers for over 100 years, that, with 21st Century technology, the, arguably, most famous photographic manufacturer in the world still seems to have problems getting it right. Just saying.
Kodak Alaris sent me thirty rolls to replace unexposed rolls I had purchased which were in the problem batches.
When I access their site using one of my previously saved Kodak Canada links, the front page says "Page Not Found" but the "Consumer Films" link under the Kodak Moments tab and the "Film" link under the "Professional Photographers and Labs" tab seem to work fine for me.(By the way, at the moment the Kodak Alaris site does not even show their products, the links are dead. That might be a problem related to the browser I use (Opera), but I did not encounter anything like that at the old Kodak site, where you had to search hard for still films, but once you found them everything worked.)
I don't believe the paper is the culprit, it appears to be the last overlay of printing that puts the numbers and little indicator flags down. That is the surface that is directly in contact with the emulsion surface of the next wrap of film. It's possible the number printing is a separate operation possibly done by some facility other than the paper vendor -- such as the film maker -- we've never heard any details on that.Random thought: I've recently shot 120 film from the 60s with no "bleed" problem. The paper is brittle and looks wood-fiber based. How hard is it to make some modern paper that won't ruin film?
EK used to make their own backing paper in Kodak Park, but it's one of many things they have given up for cost reasons.It seems a bit odd, when roll films have been manufactured successfully by numerous makers for over 100 years, that, with 21st Century technology, the, arguably, most famous photographic manufacturer in the world still seems to have problems getting it right. Just saying.
EK used to make their own backing paper in Kodak Park, but it's one of many things they have given up for cost reasons.
It (QC) almost always goes South when a company takes the cheapest way out or looses control of the process and manufacture of a product. If they are a big enough buyer from the new supplier they will have some leverage in getting the problem corrected faster and if not.............? Still, it does take time running through the "chain of commands" to get it corrected. It's not like making something "in house" and finding a problem. In house production problems usually are taken care of fairly fast. The boss walks in and says, "We have a problem! Shut the presses down and find out what the hell is going on and you got 24hrs to get it corrected and on my desk". That's how it worked where I was employed anyway.I can understand that. I can't understand the lack of quality control though.
Kodak Alaris sent me thirty rolls to replace unexposed rolls I had purchased which were in the problem batches. I have never suffered the wrapper offset problem myself. To the best of my knowledge, I never exposed any film that came from the problem batches, but not every film in those batches exhibited those problems, so the possibility exists that I did use some film that was from those batches, but was fortunate to be of the group that were not affected. That group may very well be in the majority - we don't know.
Also, I was not required to provide proof of purchase, although they certainly might have demanded that.
/QUOTE]
Thanks for the reply. As a matter of curiosity what did you do with the unexposed rolls that were in the problem batches?
pentaxuser
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?