Kodak 120 film - backing paper problems - emulsions affected

[Bill Burk]

By the way my 'intermediate' batch is 0157 and it has gray numbers instead of black. I have a roll shot and loaded on a reel, along with a definitely old batch 0149 that I found in the camera... I am going to let the two loaded rolls acclimate for "a long time" before developing.

 

[dante]

This is probably going to be politically unpopular, but could they just make backing paper with no numbers other than the arrow and #1? Printed numbers have no purpose on most cameras made after the mid 60s and seem mainly to be a hazard.

 

[DWThomas]

This is probably going to be politically unpopular, but could they just make backing paper with no numbers other than the arrow and #1? Printed numbers have no purpose on most cameras made after the mid 60s and seem mainly to be a hazard.

That idea comes up periodically, but a surprising number of people -- including me -- use cameras old enough to need all the numbers.

 

[MattKing]

That idea comes up periodically, but a surprising number of people -- including me -- use cameras old enough to need all the numbers.

+1
I have three very competent cameras that rely on the numbers. The most recent (a Noon 6x12 pinhole) was manufactured in the last three years.
A large proportion of the people using 120 in the pinhole world needs the numbers.
One of the members here was extremely angry at Kodak because the almost 100 year old camera he bought recently - a camera that Kodak introduced as the first camera to use the then brand new 120 film format - had a window whose location did not correspond to the location of the numbers on modern Kodak film.
People - customers - resist change.

 

[Wayne]

Does the shiny new backing paper on my latest rolls of Ektar have something to do with this thread?

 

[MattKing]

Does the shiny new backing paper on my latest rolls of Ektar have something to do with this thread?

Yes, it is the solution that to the wrapper offset problem that Kodak has arrived at.

 

[dante]

Does anyone have any data points on what emulsion # various retailers (B&H, Adorama, Samys, etc.) are currently selling?

 

[DWThomas]

Does anyone have any data points on what emulsion # various retailers (B&H, Adorama, Samys, etc.) are currently selling?

I just a few days ago received two propacks of 400TX from B&H. Emulsion #1001 011, Exp 11/2020. I just opened a roll and it's the shiny new paper (first I've seen -- whoo hooo!)

Now I suppose I should shoot it so I can see how many rows of numbers there are, etc.

 

[TMZ]

Hi Matt and others,

Just wanted to update on my issue here with my stockpiled 400 rolls of TriX 120 batch 0911.

Kodak very kindly replaced the faulty rolls.

Very happy with the very friendly and professional service too.

 

[pentaxuser]

After 15 pages there has probably been an answer to this question. The answer may even have been in relation to me asking the question in the past but if someone can just re-iterate the answer briefly again I'd be grateful. The question is this:

Once Kodak knew the affected batch numbers why did it not instruct the retailers to check their stock and if those numbers were found, instruct the retailers to return those films?

I can think of one answer and it is this. Even amongst the affected batch numbers there are many films that may be OK and the cost of a wholesale replacement outweigh the benefits to the few who end up with problems. This also avoids a large and unnecessary cost to KA

However I think I have seen statements here on Photrio that Mr Mooney accepts the return of any affected batch numbers without question and does not insist on each roll being used first to establish proof that that roll is affected.

If therefore KA replaces all affected batch numbers identified by individual purchasers without question then surely it would be easier to ask that the retailers simply returned the batches

OK, KA can't rely on all retailers/ sellers being diligent in this respect so has to have some interface process with consumers but unless all or nearly all the affected batches had already been sold then return via retailers still seems easier

There may be a simple reason why my logic is flawed. If so, can someone point out the flaws

I seek only information. This is not the counsel for the prosecution of Kodak asking a seemingly naive question to which the counsel already has an answer which will assist his prosecution

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

One practical problem is/was that Kodak Alaris has no direct relationship with any retailer, and doesn't know who is selling the film.

 

[pentaxuser]

One practical problem is/was that Kodak Alaris has no direct relationship with any retailer, and doesn't know who is selling the film.

Thanks Matt. It may be that the buying route for film is a lot more fragmented than I had thought but presumably somebody(ies) place orders with KA. Those somebodies sell on to distribution agents who sell to large and smaller retailers so you'd think there was a "paper trail" so to speak but maybe the fragmentation is so great that it becomes very difficult to contact even large retailers this way?

While we on Photrio now know what the batches are and how to seek redress but how is Joe Public served in this respect? If he goes back to his retailer to complain which is all he can do, does that retailer know how to advise him?

pentaxuser

 

[AgX]

Once Kodak knew the affected batch numbers why did it not instruct the retailers to check their stock and if those numbers were found, instruct the retailers to return those films?

I can think of one answer and it is this. Even amongst the affected batch numbers there are many films that may be OK and the cost of a wholesale replacement outweigh the benefits to the few who end up with problems. This also avoids a large and unnecessary cost to KA.

It is not only about that "the cost of a wholesale replacement outweigh the benefits to the few who end up with problems".
It is also about if the replacement costs will outweigh the loss of goodwill.

In the past the grape vine on this issue told about storage issues. KA for instance could have reported on incidental cases and warn to keep storage within certain limits.
Or they could have turned the whole affair into a marketing ploy, as Impossible showed in the past.


The question recently raised with that claims attempt is whether keeping silent by purpose on KA's side would not enlarge entitlement beyond mere substituting the faulty films.

 

[Bill Burk]

Bill,
I'll await your results with bated breath.

July 2019 update. Just developed the film which I loaded in December 2018 and the film has the problem. Sorry I think it wipes out my theory that allowing atmospheric equalization may alleviate the issue.

Notice my picture before (6x9 frame 9). The numbers and paper mottling "frame" overlaps my camera image "frame". That happened on this roll too, I have a blank frame. And the mottled numbers look like a wash across half the film. Hmm wash. Half the film. I wonder if we aren't looking at the evaporation of an offset lithography fountain solution from just a half the frame where it may have been "wetter" than the other half.

 

[mshchem]

I bought a couple dozen pro-packs of TMY-2 from Unique photo early spring. I'm confident that Kodak has this behind them.

 

[AgX]

We rather would like proof than your confidence...


(Well, of course proof of something not to exist is harder to obtain than of something to exist...)

 

[Bill Burk]

p.s. I looked again and then opened the Ikonta to see it has pinholes in the bellows again so the mysterious density areas are explained... but it's in those patches where I can see the numbering. The 0149 batch definitely has the issue. My report is NOT a new report of issues with the new film. I was searching for a workaround for known bad film.