Kodak 120 film - backing paper problems - emulsions affected

As many who are familiar with my posting history on APUG are aware, I have been a user of Kodak products and a supporter of Kodak for much of my life. My father worked for Kodak Canada for 36 years. I grew up surrounded by Kodak product and people. When I worked in the industry (not for Kodak) I used a lot of Kodak product. In my retail days, I sold a lot of different products, including Kodak.
My Dad remained loyal to Kodak for 36 years of employment and 32 years of retirement, and they remained loyal to him - pension, benefits and retiree involvement.
Dad died at 94, and he still had his old Kodak business card in his wallet. Many of the people who were at the memorial service we held for him were Kodak retirees as well, and some of them still had their Kodak business cards too!
So yes, I still have a lot of loyalty to Kodak. But I've also been very clear about the fact that while I understand some of the difficulties involved in resolving the wrapper offset problem, I am unhappy with how they have handled the communication issues arising from it - both here on APUG and in my communications with Kodak Alaris. You will also see similar sentiments about the problems I see with a very dysfunctional distribution system, and some of the resulting pricing problems that seem to result.
The post you quoted was my statement that I was happy that Daniel had received some satisfaction after all. I was also glad that I was able to help at least a little bit.
I would have posted the same if Daniel's problem had been with any manufacturer - not just Kodak.

MattKing said:

As many who are familiar with my posting history on APUG are aware, I have been a user of Kodak products and a supporter of Kodak for much of my life. SNIP
I would have posted the same if Daniel's problem had been with any manufacturer - not just Kodak.

Click to expand...

Nicely said.

Saganich said:

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.

Click to expand...

That can be a false assumption. I bought 2 boxes of TMAX400 last November and 5 rolls from one box STILL had defective paper. I assumed that I was getting good film since I was bought from B & H. Either there is still defective old stock out there or the new iteration of TMAX 400 still has defective film/paper. End result: All my holiday travel photos had numbers and the word KODAK imprinted all over them.

RattyMouse said:

I bought 2 boxes of TMAX400 last November and 5 rolls from one box STILL had defective paper. I assumed that I was getting good film since I was bought from B & H. Either there is still defective old stock out there or the new iteration of TMAX 400 still has defective film/paper.

Click to expand...

We got retailers as B&H, Adorama and Fotoimpex represented here by members.
What do they have to say??

RattyMouse said:

Either there is still defective old stock out there or the new iteration of TMAX 400 still has defective film/paper.

Click to expand...

So, did the defective rolls have the older or the newer backing paper?

mnemosyne said:

So, did the defective rolls have the older or the newer backing paper?

Click to expand...

In my case, I dont know as I didnt retain the paper or the wrapper. I had thought that Kodak fixed this problem and that the fresh film I bought was OK. Sadly, I was too optimistic that the problem was fixed by Kodak. I only found out that my film was ruined long after I discarded any information that would identify it properly.

I'll throw my 2 cents in. Since Jan 2016 I've shot about 50 rolls of Tri-X 120 with no problems. Purchased 10 rolls at a time from B&H.

Hi people,
I just registered to your forum because of this specific problem that I have.
Even I have later batch of 120 mm TRI-X films I'm experiencing the same problem.
In the beginning I thought that 3 of my films affected from Amsterdam's airport but this is not true because I totally have problem with 7 films and I took only 3 at my trip.
The batch numbers are 0931 012 and 0961 011
It seems that I have dots from backing paper only at few shots and one shot with Kodak written on negative.
I contacted some people at Kodak Alaris and they were very kind.
A nice guy called Andrew D Church even offered to send me new films but I have 10 pieces more at my refrigerator and I want to know what will happen with these.
I will inform him after shooting.
Post you again soon.

Stelios Giansakidis said:

I contacted some people at Kodak Alaris and they were very kind.
A nice guy called Andrew D Church even offered to send me new films but I have 10 pieces more at my refrigerator and I want to know what will happen with these.
I will inform him after shooting.
Post you again soon.

Click to expand...

I take it that Mr Church was only prepared to send you the same number of films as those which you know to be affected? Did you mention that you had 10 more films and ask him what he was prepared to do about those. I have to say I get the impression that Kodak needs proof that you have affected films before it will exchange them. The problem is that if the negatives are permanently affected how does fresh film provide redress. At the very least it means re-taking the scenes which might be at best inconvenient and at worst almost impossible short of spending a great deal of money and time

pentaxuser

Fresh film has always been the redress for bad film or bad processing or loss of film, but it's never been a complete remedy. But what else is fair other than a recall of the film with the affected lot numbers... and that doesn't appear to be in the cards. We're well past any hope of that.

pentaxuser said:

I take it that Mr Church was only prepared to send you the same number of films as those which you know to be affected? Did you mention that you had 10 more films and ask him what he was prepared to do about those. I have to say I get the impression that Kodak needs proof that you have affected films before it will exchange them. The problem is that if the negatives are permanently affected how does fresh film provide redress. At the very least it means re-taking the scenes which might be at best inconvenient and at worst almost impossible short of spending a great deal of money and time

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Yes I told him that I have 10 films more.
As a proof I have scanned yesterday many photos but the worst is this
Also I have already send a photo from the boxes with their part number (that are not included at the paper problem ones)

Kodak customer service (pre-Alaris) had a no questions asked replacement policy, called their 800 number and got replacement film. Give them the batch number and Bob's you uncle replacement film in the mail. They did not even ask for the return of the bad film.

Maybe I will do it.
I want to see how will be some films from the other packages that I have at fridge.
Thanks

darkroommike said:

Kodak customer service (pre-Alaris) had a no questions asked replacement policy, called their 800 number and got replacement film. Give them the batch number and Bob's you uncle replacement film in the mail. They did not even ask for the return of the bad film.

Click to expand...

Eastman Kodak do not deal with individual customers or any photographic film other than commercial movie film. All they do is contract manufacturing for one single wholesale customer - Kodak Alaris - who own the sole international rights with respect to still film and the Kodak brand.
I don't know precisely what Eastman Kodak will say to you, but most likely they will simply refer you to Kodak Alaris. They are the ones to contact, and have been so for more than four years.

It would be nice to get to the bottom of what is KA's policy. darkroommike seems to think it is/was a "no questions asked" policy from Kodak but as Matt points out it is no longer Kodak but KA who control customer service and there the policy clearly seems to be to only change a film when there is evidence of a fault.

So even if I have a film within the affected batch numbers I still have to use it to see if that particular roll is affected. The fact that customers have to do this and not retailers suggest that even if a retailer finds he had the affected batch numbers he cannot send the films back and request replacement. He must sell them and rely on the customer to take up the matter with KA if he discovers a problem. It would appear that the whole policy is predicated by KA's position that even within the affected batches only a few films might be affected so a no questions asked, straight replacement policy is both expensive and unnecessary.

Have I now got the KA policy correct?

Thanks

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

Matt points out it is no longer Kodak but KA who control customer service and there the policy clearly seems to be to only change a film when there is evidence of a fault.

So even if I have a film within the affected batch numbers I still have to use it to see if that particular roll is affected.

Click to expand...

These are incorrect.
Kodak Alaris replaced all my film from the affected batches without any need for me to either use it, or even supply proof of how I acquired it. I could forsee circumstances where they might ask to see a copy of a purchase invoice, but I haven't heard of anyone who has been required to do so.

Kodak Alaris don't just control customer service. They are the sole worldwide supplier. They have exclusive worldwide marketing rights with respect to Kodak still films, photographic chemistry and colour photographic paper and they actually are the manufacturer of that paper.
Until the recent closure in England, Kodak Alaris owned the colour paper production factory as well. They probably still own that land, but now they use their shared leasehold facility in Colorado for colour paper manufacture.
Throughout the world, the only people employed by a company with Kodak in its name with respect to sale, distribution and marketing of Kodak still films (and Kodak photographic chemistry, and Kodak colour photographic paper) are employees of Kodak Alaris. No employees of Eastman Kodak are involved in that way.
Eastman Kodak's only role with respect to still film is as a contract manufacturer, and they cannot sell Kodak still film to anyone other than Kodak Alaris.
If you like, with respect to Kodak still film, think of Kodak Alaris as similar to Apple, who don't manufacture their phones or computers.
I don't know whether Eastman Kodak is allowed to do what Harman does - contract manufacture for other parties different still film (without the Kodak name and using a different formula). Eastman Kodak does do contract coating of other things.
Eastman Kodak does retain the motion picture manufacturing and marketing business.

I recently had the "backing problem" with some film that I had purchased a year ago. What's interesting to me is that of the many rolls that I shot on vacation in 2016, I did not have the problem. Only this summer using the same batch of film for some long exposures at dusk, did I note the problem Related to the aging of the film (although still good until 2018)? Related to the long exposures?
In any event, once I contacted Alaris and sent them the emulsion number and a sample scan of the problem, they promptly sent me a 5 pack of replacement film. Of course it doesn't compensate me for my time, but I am not sure how they could - five rolls for every roll damaged? Ten? More? I am satisfied that they did what they could, promptly and fairly.

OK. Matt's experience is that KA in his case replaced all his film on the same "no questions asked" basis that darkroommike mentioned. In Stelios G's case he was in contact with a certain Andrew G Church, not Mr K Mooney that most others refer to. Mr Church appeared not to be prepared to replace all his films, However I have no idea if Mr Church is part of KA nor if he is based in Europe somewhere. I didn't ask Stelios that question so understandably he didn't answer it. However if Mr Chruch is part of KA then it would appear he takes a different approach to Mr Mooney.

Finally we have a post from KenR who may or may not be U.S./Canada based. He seems to have had to give the emulsion number. He gave a scan as well but I cannot tell, if this was required or was KenR's initiative based on his commendable desire to demonstrate his honesty.

In summary and based on the post by lensmagic's of Jan 11 2017 in which he quotes the J Sexton newsletter in the thread entitled "Kodak120 film - backing paper problems - emulsions affected", there are instructions as to what you do.

Simply and it might be worth repeating again here, you e-mail Profilm@Kodakalaris.com which goes directly to Mr Mooney who takes the necessary actions. However the instructions as written by Mr Sexton could be construed as not being completely clear. In the first part he says" If you have experienced problems( so fault discovered after processing) or have questions or concerns (not sure how to interpret this in terms of replacement ) In the second part he says you should check that your emulsion numbers are higher than those he lists in the newsletter. You might infer that if you find numbers that are listed you are entitled to tell Mr Mooney who will replace those films with no further action on your part.

If indeed Mr Mooney will replace as long as the emulsion numbers are those in J Sexton's newsletter but will reasonably only replace a non affected emusion number once there is evidence of a Kodak fault then all appears well. In other words checking and telling Mr Mooney that you have an affected emulsion number always trumps having to experience problems in the first place with affected films

Just a pity that there wasn't a way to alert retailers of the J Sexton newsletter emulsion numbers so they could have checked emulsion numbers before consumers had the problem passed to them with the need to check themselves but we have had answers from MattKing as to why this might be impossible and we have now come full circle again.

pentaxuser

Kodak Alaris has around 1500 employees world wide.
And I don't know that anyone has ever been required to use film in the known to be affected batches before being abl;e to request replacement film.

MattKing said:

Kodak Alaris has around 1500 employees world wide.
And I don't know that anyone has ever been required to use film in the known to be affected batches before being abl;e to request replacement film.

Click to expand...

Well it looks as if Stelios comes close but of course we haven't go to the bottom of what position Mr Church occupies, if any, in the KA hierachy. Given what you say, Rattymouse seems particularly disenchanted with his "losses" but I'd need to research all his posts and even then it may not be clear if any intransigence on KA's part was to blame. Clearly we need to know in specific terms if anyone here had the "faulty" batch numbers and was refused a replacement on KA's part.

If no-one can cite an example then I'd agree that KA has acted as J Sexton claimed it would and rather like the wedding ceremony, "if no man can cite reasons why the bride and groom should not be permitted to marry, let him forever hold his peace or words to that effect

pentaxuser

Hi all,
I'm posting some photos from the film boxes I used.One is old but not expired and the other very fresh.
From total 10 films I have problem at 7.
2 of the films are ok and 1 I will never know because I gave it as a present to a friend non photographer.
At the second picture you can see negatives from 3 different films.
One is good and the other 2 defective.
All at the same package.

Now I opened the other fresh package and load one film.If there is a problem to this also I will contact them again

Slelios, can you tell us how you found yourself talking to Mr Andrew Church and what position he has within the Kodak Alaris organisation? I am still a little confused about the conversation with Mr Church. This confusion may be my fault. To clear matters let me state what I think you told Mr Church and you to confirm or correct my interpretation.

1. You contacted KA about some films which after processing you discovered had the "wrapper offset" problem. I am using what I think is the correct phrase to describe the problem of the transfer of backing paper images to the negative. These affected films which you mention seem to have the affected emulsion numbers quoted in the J Sexton Newsletter
2. Mr Church offered to replace the affected films which you discovered has the wrapper offset problem after processing
3. You mentioned to Mr Church that you had 10 more films. Did these films also have the affected emulsion numbers?
4. Did you decide to try these films in case they were OK and did not ask Mr Church to replace them as well or did you ask Mr Church to replace them or at least tell him you were worried about them as well and ask him what you should do?
5. He did not offer to replace these other 10 films which were not exposed but which you had mentioned to him?

I am sorry if I appear to be treating you as if you were in a court of law but I think it important we get to the bottom of exactly what happened between you and Mr Church

Thank you

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

Slelios, can you tell us how you found yourself talking to Mr Andrew Church and what position he has within the Kodak Alaris organisation? I am still a little confused about the conversation with Mr Church. This confusion may be my fault. To clear matters let me state what I think you told Mr Church and you to confirm or correct my interpretation.

1. You contacted KA about some films which after processing you discovered had the "wrapper offset" problem. I am using what I think is the correct phrase to describe the problem of the transfer of backing paper images to the negative. These affected films which you mention seem to have the affected emulsion numbers quoted in the J Sexton Newsletter
2. Mr Church offered to replace the affected films which you discovered has the wrapper offset problem after processing
3. You mentioned to Mr Church that you had 10 more films. Did these films also have the affected emulsion numbers?
4. Did you decide to try these films in case they were OK and did not ask Mr Church to replace them as well or did you ask Mr Church to replace them or at least tell him you were worried about them as well and ask him what you should do?
5. He did not offer to replace these other 10 films which were not exposed but which you had mentioned to him?

I am sorry if I appear to be treating you as if you were in a court of law but I think it important we get to the bottom of exactly what happened between you and Mr Church

Thank you

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

1.I contacted KA a tprofilm@kodakalaris.com.Someone called Thomas j.Mooney reply to me telling me "I will ask my colleague in the UK to follow up with you directly"
Andrew Church follow.
I described my problem that my films have light leak or better its like there is light to all the surface even BEFORE placing to my camera.At spaces between the shots and also in the beginning and the end of film all along.This is impossible to happen inside my Rolleiflex 1.5B MVS camera because I'm shooting also slides,color films etc.To convince him I gave my Instagram account to go to see that my camera doesn't have any kind of problem.
My films are NOT at the bad batch numbers mentioned at this thread.


2.Before scanning this photo with the "kodak" logo I told him that I have problem with 7 from 10 films that are DIFFERENT from the affected batches and I have 10 more films at fridge.
I told him that I must shoot some from these films to see what is going on and he said this "Would you let me know your address and I will send you a new pack of film to help with your test."
I reply negative until to shoot more films.

3.I mentioned this but I'm saying again the numbers of batch is different than these that described here at this thread.
4.I didn't ask for new films yet.I told him that I will shoot some from the films that I have and see If are good.I believe that also there are affected.
Bought the first 5 from Turkey (from a store that is like the bigger film supplier ) and the next 15 films from a supplier in Greece).Both are affected.
5.No he didn't say anything

Now what I'm thinking of all this situation.
My problem started when I bought the first 5 films from Turkey.
After some days I went for a 4 days trip in Amsterdam with my wife.I took with me color Lomography redscale films expired.Found many at very cheap price in Istanbul.
Also took with me 2 B/W Kodak Trix films.There I shoot all the films including 1 B/W Kodak Trix.I didn't shoot the other.I came back and when I developed the film with Rodinal R09 developer I noticed the light problem.In the beginning I thought that this was fog from the airport.No other color film affected thought.
Then I shot the film that it was not exposed in Amsterdam.
The same problem.
Then I shot some others that was at my fridge and never traveled in Amsterdam )))
The same problem.
I made search at internet.Found this thread and some others for specific batch numbers.Looked at mine and were not these.But the problem is still here.
Only some days before after developing 5 films found this photo with Kodaks logo on it.
Thats all.

Thank you Stelios for the comprehensive report. The good news seems to be that Mr Church who represents KA in Europe offered to send you replacement films for the damaged ones which is what I would have expected as this is good customer service. The bad news is that the problem affects film other than the specified emulsion numbers in John Sexton's newsletter. The films were purchased from big film retailers so hopefully they were properly stored on arrival but clearly something happened to cause this problem somewhere along the supply route from Kodak.

Kodak may or may not be able to investigate what might have gone wrong during the films' trip to the retailer and of course if they have made changes or recommended changes to the carriers who transport films I would not expect Kodak to tell us. This is understandable

If it were me and based on what you have said, I would assume that all the remaining films you have bought from these two retailers are affected. Once Mr Church knows this I imagine that based on his helpful approach when you spoke to him earlier he will send replacement films.

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