Kodak 120 film - backing paper problems - emulsions affected

[MattKing]

I did sent Mr. Mooney email, he didn't reply me directly. Instead, the Kodak Shanghai Co. replied me with that solution.
I live in Toronto now, and shot in Toronto, developed in Toronto. It's difficult to contact retailer in China for me.

Follow up with Mr. Mooney. At the very least he deserves to know how other Kodak Alaris end users are being dealt with, and it certainly can't hurt your cause.

 

[Daniel He]

Follow up with Mr. Mooney. At the very least he deserves to know how other Kodak Alaris end users are being dealt with, and it certainly can't hurt your cause.

I will try that again.
Thank you Mr.MattKing.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Good advice Matt! I sure hope they get this straighten out before I kick the bucket 'cause I'd like to run some TMY2 through my 120 film cameras again. Lovely film!

 

[MattKing]

I don't know that it is much in the way of reassurance, but Daniel's film is/was fairly old, and the "develop before" date indicates that it most likely has the backing paper that was in or near the first batch where all the problems appeared. There have been significant changes since 2013/2014, when that film was packaged.

 

[AgX]

They [Kodak Alaris] dianose it belongs to improper delivery method, they are innocent.

Instead, the Kodak Shanghai Co. replied me with that solution.

What solution did the give you?
If I understand you right Kodak Alaris refuses any refund as the cause was warming during transport at a period no longer under their control, but at that of the retailer.

 

[John Wiegerink]

What solution did the give you?
If I understand you right Kodak Alaris refuses any refund as the cause was warming during transport at a period no longer under their control, but at that of the retailer.

I don't think he has heard back from Kodak Alaris yet. He was dealing with Shanghai, China and not Kodak Alaris directly.

 

[removed account4]

in the ilford filmsale/ run posted by photo warehouse/ultrafine
in the past few days, advertises 120 backing paper for sale
as well as a variety of other consumables. i hate to suggest this but maybe
... EK should buy backing paper from harman/ilford seeing
they don't seem to have trouble with theirs.
the EK/KA backing paper problems have been going on for over a year,
with drips and dribbles of new users with problems. it makes me wonder
if these "problem films being reported" are just marooned outside the "new fixed paper issue supply"
being reported by people who didn't check the batch numbers of their films, got it cheap on ebay
or from a store getting rid of stock they couldnt' sell, stuff they had in their film stash and forgot about
or if it is still a problem they has to be fixed...

 

[mshchem]

I've been lucky. I shoot a lot of TMY. I always order film in cool months. I have always been worried about shipping. Still Kodak needs to put all the facts out on their website. I cant believe that current product could still have a problem. I just received my spring shipments of TMY, Fujichrome, Ektar, Acros, Ilford. I keep in a fridge.
I will not abandon Kodak, still the best long term hope for FILM. I buy from Ilford too. I buy paper even though I don't need it just to keep them going.
These stories are heartbreaking. Kodak needs to have a conversation with their customers to insure this is resolved.
Mike

 

[John Wiegerink]

in the ilford filmsale/ run posted by photo warehouse/ultrafine
in the past few days, advertises 120 backing paper for sale
as well as a variety of other consumables. i hate to suggest this but maybe
... EK should buy their backing paper from harman/ilford seeing
they don't seem to have trouble with theirs.
the EK/KA backing paper problems have been going on for over a year,
with drips and dribbles of new users with problems. it makes me wonder
if these "problem films being reported" are just marooned outside the "new fixed paper issue supply"
being reported by people who didn't check the batch numbers of their films, got it cheap on ebay
or from a store getting rid of stock they couldnt' sell, stuff they had in their film stash and forgot about
or if it is still a problem they has to be fixed...

John,
I'm wondering if Kodak has a big stockpile of backing paper and is playing the game of "hope not everybody has a problem" until it's all gone. I have also brought this up before and that is this, if I'm buying from a supplier and said supplier ships me faulty goods..................one of two things would happen. No.1 would be you have "X" amount of days to correct and you will take back, at your expense, the goods you shipped. No.2 is if you don't honor No. 1? And that is you will no longer supply my company. It seems there Kodak Alaris has a problem with both No.1 and No. 2............? It is obvious to me that there is something going on that is not normal in the business world, but we may never know the truth about what that is. I guess not knowing the truth in the business world is starting to be the norm. Personally, I think this all started when some "bean counter" thought a buck could be saved by using a cheaper ink or different paper. Seems the old paper and ink was working just fricking fine for years, but nooooooooooo some jerk has to go and screw it up. Thanks Mr. or Ms. Jerk!

 

[Saganich]

Just to reiterate my experience with TriX 120, I bought 2 boxes last summer that were problematic. I bought two boxes last month and noticed the different backing paper and fainter numbers. Not a problem so far (have 3 rolls left). Fingers crossed. I suppose since I'm buying from Adorama NYC the stock turnover is high so I'm getting new lots quicker than others.

 

[MattKing]

in the ilford filmsale/ run posted by photo warehouse/ultrafine
in the past few days, advertises 120 backing paper for sale

I expect that the Ilford/Harman paper is unprinted backing paper. As the problem appears to be with the printing, I doubt that Ilford's product will solve the issue.

 

[MattKing]

I'm wondering if Kodak has a big stockpile of backing paper and is playing the game of "hope not everybody has a problem" until it's all gone.

As far as I can see, there have been at least three different versions of the backing paper since they ran out of/ stopped using the no longer available, most likely Kodak manufactured version. That would indicate that they have disposed of a lot of unused, problematic paper, if the minimum order quantities are what I think they are.
Daniel He's film is fairly old film - probably from the first or second problematic iteration - which he bought relatively recently. I'm hopeful that Kodak Alaris in Shanghai dropped the ball, and that the head office will make that part right.
That being said, if the retailer bought it outside the regular channels (not from an authorized distributor) and then it was handled improperly in the years that followed before Daniel bought it, I can understand why Kodak Alaris would bounce the problem back to the retailer that Daniel dealt with.

 

[John Wiegerink]

As far as I can see, there have been at least three different versions of the backing paper since they ran out of/ stopped using the no longer available, most likely Kodak manufactured version. That would indicate that they have disposed of a lot of unused, problematic paper, if the minimum order quantities are what I think they are.
Daniel He's film is fairly old film - probably from the first or second problematic iteration - which he bought relatively recently. I'm hopeful that Kodak Alaris in Shanghai dropped the ball, and that the head office will make that part right.
That being said, if the retailer bought it outside the regular channels (not from an authorized distributor) and then it was handled improperly in the years that followed before Daniel bought it, I can understand why Kodak Alaris would bounce the problem back to the retailer that Daniel dealt with.

Matt, I hear that that happens a lot in China. You never really know what your getting until it's to late.

 

[Daniel He]

As far as I can see, there have been at least three different versions of the backing paper since they ran out of/ stopped using the no longer available, most likely Kodak manufactured version. That would indicate that they have disposed of a lot of unused, problematic paper, if the minimum order quantities are what I think they are.
Daniel He's film is fairly old film - probably from the first or second problematic iteration - which he bought relatively recently. I'm hopeful that Kodak Alaris in Shanghai dropped the ball, and that the head office will make that part right.
That being said, if the retailer bought it outside the regular channels (not from an authorized distributor) and then it was handled improperly in the years that followed before Daniel bought it, I can understand why Kodak Alaris would bounce the problem back to the retailer that Daniel dealt with.

What solution did the give you?
If I understand you right Kodak Alaris refuses any refund as the cause was warming during transport at a period no longer under their control, but at that of the retailer.

I guess both of you are right, Mattking and AgX.
Kodak Shanghai office simply rejected me with reason of improper delivery and warm storing after leaving Kodak warehouse. I was furious on them.
I received response from Mr. Mooney this morning, that was kind reply. He asked me a few informations about the films, and he also mentioned the word of replacing.
I am still waiting for next contact with him, hope every thing will be better with my fifty rolls left in my hand.
Thanks all you guys.

 

[MattKing]

I guess both of you are right, Mattking and AgX.
Kodak Shanghai office simply rejected me with reason of improper delivery and warm storing after leaving Kodak warehouse. I was furious on them.
I received response from Mr. Mooney this morning, that was kind reply. He asked me a few informations about the films, and he also mentioned the word of replacing.
I am still waiting for next contact with him, hope every thing will be better with my fifty rolls left in my hand.
Thanks all you guys.

I am glad to hear that Daniel.
For clarity, does Thomas Mooney understand that you still have 50 unexposed rolls from that batch? If not, you should tell him that.

 

[Daniel He]

I am glad to hear that Daniel.
For clarity, does Thomas Mooney understand that you still have 50 unexposed rolls from that batch? If not, you should tell him that.

Thanks all.
Mr. Mooney processed replacing all my sixty films, it's really good news.
My problem films emulsion number is 1201, which is earlier than 1232, which the back paper being changed and guaranteed being safe.

 

[MattKing]

I am very glad about this Daniel.

 

[John Wiegerink]

That is good news, but it's a shame you had to go through this. This is a nightmare for Kodak (Alaris) customers, but it also has to be a terrible nightmare for Kodak Alaris also.

 

[mshchem]

One of George Eastman's first batch of dry plates went bad. He nearly went broke replacing every defective box. Kodak hasn't changed that much. Now I'm talking Eastman Kodak Company. This company has always had the best people. These things happen, and Eastman Kodak will resolve the problem for Kodak Alaris. I think that Kodak Alaris has the same high standards. Sometimes what seems like a simple change, a change in equipment, a source for a component etc. causes a disaster.
I'm buying fresh film from B&H, if I could buy it locally I would. Go out and buy some Ilford B&W paper, even if you don't print. Take it home and hide in your back yard. God save us if Ilford goes under.
Mike

 

[Daniel He]

I am very glad about this Daniel.

That is good news, but it's a shame you had to go through this. This is a nightmare for Kodak (Alaris) customers, but it also has to be a terrible nightmare for Kodak Alaris also.

I'm happy to find this great site helping me find a good way to solve my problem. Thank every friend here again. I will come here often.

 

[KC2PED]

After experiencing the dreaded paper backing problem with TMY and TMX and finding this thread I contacted Mr. Mooney via email. He responded quickly and within the week I received replacement. BTW He did note that the TMX is not yet available. They also did not ask for receipts or the like to prove my claim so major kudos for them. On the other hand I also pointed out that I incurred the expense of processing and making contacts. They did not respond to that point. So aside from the lost images, lost day of work and expense of the shoot I am still in the hole from their mistake. One would think that a company in a niche business would know how to fully deal with issues like this. To that point I recently had a problem with some Ilford paper and not only did Ilford send me a whole new box but also sent me a personal note and some film to say sorry. I have been a customer of Kodak for over 50 years and it would have been quite simple, an extra box of film, to maintain that relationship but given how Ilford responded to a problem versus Kodak I am more inclined to use Ilford products going forward. Just sayin.

When was the last time you read a warranty that didn't exclude consequential damages.
I recently read the warranty for a new watch which basically said you bought it, you own it and any problems you have with it. Don't bother us. It says right in there that they will not even be responsible for misassembly or other manufacturing defects.
Lots of luck getting anyone to cover consequential damages.

 

[railwayman3]

When was the last time you read a warranty that didn't exclude consequential damages.
I recently read the warranty for a new watch which basically said you bought it, you own it and any problems you have with it. Don't bother us. It says right in there that they will not even be responsible for misassembly or other manufacturing defects.
Lots of luck getting anyone to cover consequential damages.

Not making any point, but there is a difference between goods and services being "fit for purpose" and the manufacturer being liable for unlimited consequential damage if something subsequently goes wrong. A bit like labs which limit normal liability to a replacement film, but offer an insurance-like cover for films of extra value for a small extra charge. I'd imagine that professionals will have their own insurance to cover consequential losses in the event of film or processing disasters.
(I'm not saying, though, that a small extra gesture, in respect of a prompt and polite resolution of an issue, maybe with a few extra replacement films, would not be appreciated, and go a long way to maintaining goodwill. My impression is that Ilford go that extra bit to genuinely investigate issues with their products, and give an honest answer as to the cause.)

 

[Thomas71]

I've got 50 rolls of tri-x 120 batch number 921 (defekt) and I recieved 50 fresh rolls promptly sent from Kodak UK to Italy last summer.
Excellent customer support from Kodak; I will be loyal to Kodak for the next 20 years at least.

 

[Chris Livsey]

Ilford go that extra bit to genuinely investigate issues with their products, and give an honest answer as to the cause.)

I have recently sent a 35mm strip of Kentmere 400 back to Ilford for what I think is a small coating defect. I today received a very pleasant letter which has a preliminary diagnosis of "pickoff" of the emulsion perhaps related to a "soft" emulsion. All QC passed and no other reports on the batch but passed on for further investigation. A tiny defect and one I was curious about rather than upset, 5 x rolls of assorted films from them as a goodwill gesture pending return of my strip and details of the investigation. No complaints on the service and customer loyalty assured.

 

[lensmagic]

I am very glad about this Daniel.

Mr. King, are you somehow associated with Kodak or Alaris? You seem too willing to go to bat for them.