Kodak 120 film - backing paper problems - emulsions affected

[Old-N-Feeble]

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.

 

[Gibran]

I recently ran into this issue with TMY-2. I emailed Kodak and received a reply from Mr Mooney within hours. He offered to replace my Pro Pack and even Express mailed it to me. Very impressive customer service.

I have since tested the new TMY-2 batch I received and the problem appears to be 100% fixed (confirmed via 6400ppi scans). Interestingly, the most notable change I can see is that the numbers and markings have changed from black to a very light gray on the backing paper. There are also fewer numbers and markings present. Previously there was for instance, from top edge to bottom, seven instances of say the number "2" on the backing paper and now there are only three instances. So a dramatic reduction. It would be interesting to know if these two changes are the only ones or if there was a change in the actual ink type and/or paper.

 

[MattKing]

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?

There are a lot of complexities here.

As I understand it, there is only one manufacturer left who has the capability to make the sort of backing paper that 120 requires, and the cost of the backing paper is higher than the cost of the film itself.

And the problem seems to be due to interaction between the film emulsions and the ink and the backing paper, so the "change" could very well be a combination of several apparently minor changes, initiated by several parties.

As for who is covering the cost, you neglected to mention two possibilities:
1) one or more insurance companies; or
2) the film manufacturer themselves - Eastman Kodak.

The new backing paper is great for those cameras that don't use a "red window", but may be really a disappointment for those that rely on that red window. The numbers are faint, and there are far fewer duplicates. I've heard of at least one camera (a currently produced pinhole) that won't work with the new backing paper, because its window relies on one of the sets of numbers that have been removed.

 

[mshchem]

One thing to remember is the "Red Window" dates from slow Ortho films. Knock the red out and cover the hole with a piece of duct tape. Peel it up when you wind

 

[railwayman3]

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.

 

[Gibran]

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.

I believe it is a change to a 21st century, environmentally friendly Soy based ink from the previous Solvent ink that may be part of the cause. Perhaps the soy based ink performs differently in heat/ humidity when improperly transported/ stored.

 

[John Wiegerink]

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.

 

[DWThomas]

There was also a batch number or two listed for 400TX which it turned out I had, so I contacted Mr. Mooney and while he said there had been very few complaints on 400TX, he sent me replacements quite efficiently. I am pleased to report that last month I dragged multiple rolls of the newest stuff on a near-6000 mile wandering out through Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah (and points in between); e.g, occasional temperatures notably above 100ºF and have seen no problems. The numbers are fewer and lighter, as noted upthread, but I was able to see them well enough in the red window of my Ercona II. I recall some earlier numbers had a sort of glossy build-up as though the ink was really laid on thickly, could be just production variations in that process may have brought about the problems. (But yeah, one might think after 100 years they'd have it pretty well nailed down!)

 

[Jon Shiu]

I just shot about 10 rolls of the replacement Tmax 400 in a Holga (6x6 toy camera, has red window) and didn't have any issues with seeing the numbers or numbers showing up in the negatives.

 

[MattKing]

I can't say this definitively, but it appears to me that the "new" numbers on the Kodak backing paper are now essentially equal in "faintness" to the numbers on Ilford backing paper.

Ilford went through the process of reducing the ink in the numbers quite a while ago - in order to stop having problems like the recent Kodak ones. Kodak was able to take other steps and stay with the dark numbers longer, but whereas in previous times they could either manufacture themselves or source dark number backing paper that rarely had problems with wrapper offset, they are no longer able to do that.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I vaguely recalled this post and searched for it during lunch. How very surprising it is for me to be returning to the studio after a lengthy commute to stock up on TMAX 100, only to find batch number 0972 on the four rolls I have! This dovetails inconveniently with the batch range noted in the opening post of this thread.. There is no Acros 100 available, so...I will put up and shut up with the difficulty of reading the faint frame numbers in my ZeroImage pinhole cameras.

 

[arnie k]

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.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

This discussion is making me consider selling my Horseman 6x12cm back and shoot only 4x5 sheet film.

 

[pentaxuser]

Forgive me for asking this question if the answer has already been covered but if you have one or more of the "offending" batch numbers mentioned, does Kodak expect you to use it first and risk a problem or is it prepared to send you replacements so the "offending" film batches need not be used in case they are bad.

It sounds as if the latter is the case and Kodak doesn't even insist that you demonstrate that you have purchased any of the offending batch numbers

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

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.

I had already been in correspondence with Kodak Alaris, and have a known lifelong connection with Kodak, so it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that they might cut me more slack than someone unknown to them.

 

[Hatchetman]

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?

 

[AgX]

Kodak Alaris sent me thirty rolls to replace unexposed rolls I had purchased which were in the problem batches.

But still the correct way would be to announce those batches properly and re-call and refund them.


(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.)

 

[MattKing]

(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.)

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.

They have a really complex setup on their site which responds differently depending on where in the world you access from. Some times that doesn't seem to respond as expected, especially if you use old links to get there.

 

[AgX]

Left above at there site there is the button "Professional Films". All I get clicking on it is basically a nearly full-screen photo that can be substituted by another.

Clicking on other product groups at the head bar so far tested only yield one photo.... and neither a product.

 

[DWThomas]

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?

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.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

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.

 

[Hatchetman]

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.

I can understand that. I can't understand the lack of quality control though.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I can understand that. I can't understand the lack of quality control though.

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.

 

[pentaxuser]

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

 

[MattKing]

Thanks for the reply. As a matter of curiosity what did you do with the unexposed rolls that were in the problem batches?

I have a few thoughts about experiments I might do with it (venture into the land of pinhole, try another modification of my 616 camera, etc.). I haven't decided yet.