MattKing
Moderator
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.
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 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.
I will try that again.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.
They [Kodak Alaris] dianose it belongs to improper delivery method, they are innocent.
Instead, the Kodak Shanghai Co. replied me with that solution.
I don't think he has heard back from Kodak Alaris yet. He was dealing with Shanghai, China and not Kodak Alaris directly.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,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...
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.in the ilford filmsale/ run posted by photo warehouse/ultrafine
in the past few days, advertises 120 backing paper for sale
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.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.
Matt, I hear that that happens a lot in China. You never really know what your getting until it's to late.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.
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 am glad to hear that Daniel.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.
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.
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.
Ilford go that extra bit to genuinely investigate issues with their products, and give an honest answer as to the cause.)
Mr. King, are you somehow associated with Kodak or Alaris? You seem too willing to go to bat for them.I am very glad about this Daniel.
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?