Kodak 120 film - backing paper problems - emulsions affected

[MattKing]

There are already two threads about this subject, but in the interest of making it easy to find the information about problem batches, I've brazenly decided to copy a couple of posts from those threads, to make it easy to find the information.

The threads are this one: (there was a url link here which no longer exists) ;

and this one: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

From Michael R 1974's post #195 in the latter thread:

Some more information about the affected emulsion numbers below in this excerpt from John Sexton's latest newsletter. The full newsletter can be found here http://www.johnsexton.com/newsletter05-2016.html


IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR USERS OF 120 FORMAT KODAK PROFESSIONAL FILMS- PLEASE READ

As many readers are likely aware, I have used Kodak Professional film continuously for more than four decades. Over the years I have found Kodak film to be of the highest possible quality and consistency. However, anomalies can occur from time to time. There have been recent reports that appear to be associated with certain batches of 120 format Kodak Professional film.

The problem can easily be seen in the photograph below recently made by William Wetmore. I appreciate William allowing me to share this example with readers. You will notice the word Kodak clearly appears in the sky, along with frame number '13' multiple times. I first became aware of this situation a few months ago when a former workshop participant brought some online discussions on this topic to my attention. Unfortunately, as time has passed, I have encountered a number of students, colleagues, and friends who have experienced this exact problem.

©2016 William Wetmore. All rights reserved.

I have spoken at length with Thomas J. Mooney, Film Capture Business Manager at Kodak Alaris about this phenomenon. He told me "Kodak Alaris has had a limited number of inquiries for similar problems, and that the affected film may have seen some abnormal keeping after it left the factory (e.g. sat in a truck over a hot weekend, etc.). That said, we are taking this issue very seriously and have recently made modifications to the backing paper which we believe should minimize the potential for this type of blemish going forward."

Mr. Mooney has supplied me with the emulsion numbers - which I have listed below – where this latent image print issue could potentially be seen. If you have experienced problems, or have questions or concerns, you should email Profilm@Kodakalaris.com. This email address goes directly to Mr. Mooney, who will be able to answer your questions, address your concerns, and replace any problematic film you might have on hand or have used.

If you purchase new film you should make sure that the emulsion number, printed on the box as well as the individual foil packages, is higher than the suspect emulsion numbers listed below. All photographers can imagine the disappointment and frustration any of us would feel if this happened to any of our negatives. Please pass this important news on to your photographic friends.

Emulsion numbers that may exhibit the above problem only in Kodak 120 format roll film:
(Emulsion numbers can be found on the film box, the foil wrapper, and printed on the clear edge of processed film near frame number 11.

Kodak T-Max 400
Emulsion 0148 004 through 0152

Kodak T-Max 100
Emulsion 0961 through 0981

Kodak Tri-X
Emulsion 0871 though 0931

 

[MattKing]

I read the reference to T-Max 400 to being a reference to the 4th sub-batch of Batch 0148 through all batches and sub-batches in batch 0152.

I would suggest and propose that this thread be limited (hah!) to posting the batch numbers of anyone who has experienced this wrapper offset problem and, in particular, if the problematic film was not in the listed batches.

Information about the source of your film is of limited value, because all the distributors, sub-distributors and retailers are essentially free to source, store and ship film in whatever way they deem fit.

 

[digital&film]

I have 10 rolls of affected batches. Do you return them to Kodak?

 

[MattKing]

I have 10 rolls of affected batches. Do you return them to Kodak?

Contact Kodak Alaris at that email address, and see what they tell you. Please report back!

 

[JW PHOTO]

We can talk about this problem until the cows come home, but what I want to know is whether or not the problem is totally solved. Is it safe now, to buy the films listed above, with emulsion date/numbers past what is posted here? I want to start using TMY2 again, but want "NO" surprises.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I do not know about you, but I do not want cows in my home!

 

[MattKing]

We can talk about this problem until the cows come home, but what I want to know is whether or not the problem is totally solved. Is it safe now, to buy the films listed above, with emulsion date/numbers past what is posted here? I want to start using TMY2 again, but want "NO" surprises.

They have changed the backing paper to one with much less ink.

 

[JW PHOTO]

They have changed the backing paper to one with much less ink.

Thanks Matt, I really do miss TMY2 for certain things. I was just leery of getting those blasted numbers in my sky scenes. I could use Delta 400, HP5+ or even Ultrafine Xtreme 400, but TMY2 is hard to beat for certain subjects. I've jotted down those emulsion batch numbers and will check out my local store next week.

 

[HiHoSilver]

Matt, just a word of thanks for excellent help. Bravo!

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Since the backing paper is made by a single manufacturer ALL 120 files from ALL film manufacturers are potentially effected. It seems pointless to blame Kodak for the faults of another company.

 

[Roger Cole]

The paper may be, but considering it's printed with information about the film I think it's printed to spec for each film. So others may not be affected if the problem is the printing.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

There are already two threads about this subject, but in the interest of making it easy to find the information about problem batches, I've brazenly decided to copy a couple of posts from those threads, to make it easy to find the information.

The threads are this one: (there was a url link here which no longer exists) ;

and this one: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

From Michael R 1974's post #195 in the latter thread:

Some more information about the affected emulsion numbers below in this excerpt from John Sexton's latest newsletter. The full newsletter can be found here http://www.johnsexton.com/newsletter05-2016.html


IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR USERS OF 120 FORMAT KODAK PROFESSIONAL FILMS- PLEASE READ

As many readers are likely aware, I have used Kodak Professional film continuously for more than four decades. Over the years I have found Kodak film to be of the highest possible quality and consistency. However, anomalies can occur from time to time. There have been recent reports that appear to be associated with certain batches of 120 format Kodak Professional film.

The problem can easily be seen in the photograph below recently made by William Wetmore. I appreciate William allowing me to share this example with readers. You will notice the word Kodak clearly appears in the sky, along with frame number '13' multiple times. I first became aware of this situation a few months ago when a former workshop participant brought some online discussions on this topic to my attention. Unfortunately, as time has passed, I have encountered a number of students, colleagues, and friends who have experienced this exact problem.
John Sexton recently released an article in which he explains that this is a manufacturing issue at Kodak with certain batch numbers;so,nothing you did wrong.

©2016 William Wetmore. All rights reserved.

I have spoken at length with Thomas J. Mooney, Film Capture Business Manager at Kodak Alaris about this phenomenon. He told me "Kodak Alaris has had a limited number of inquiries for similar problems, and that the affected film may have seen some abnormal keeping after it left the factory (e.g. sat in a truck over a hot weekend, etc.). That said, we are taking this issue very seriously and have recently made modifications to the backing paper which we believe should minimize the potential for this type of blemish going forward."

Mr. Mooney has supplied me with the emulsion numbers - which I have listed below – where this latent image print issue could potentially be seen. If you have experienced problems, or have questions or concerns, you should email Profilm@Kodakalaris.com. This email address goes directly to Mr. Mooney, who will be able to answer your questions, address your concerns, and replace any problematic film you might have on hand or have used.

If you purchase new film you should make sure that the emulsion number, printed on the box as well as the individual foil packages, is higher than the suspect emulsion numbers listed below. All photographers can imagine the disappointment and frustration any of us would feel if this happened to any of our negatives. Please pass this important news on to your photographic friends.

Emulsion numbers that may exhibit the above problem only in Kodak 120 format roll film:
(Emulsion numbers can be found on the film box, the foil wrapper, and printed on the clear edge of processed film near frame number 11.

Kodak T-Max 400
Emulsion 0148 004 through 0152

Kodak T-Max 100
Emulsion 0961 through 0981

Kodak Tri-X
Emulsion 0871 though 0931

 

[RattyMouse]

Since the backing paper is made by a single manufacturer ALL 120 files from ALL film manufacturers are potentially effected. It seems pointless to blame Kodak for the faults of another company.

I have shot 20 times more Acros film than TMAX 400 and have never seen one instance of this problem. I've been hit with defective Kodak film FIVE separate times.

Is there ANY example of a Fujifilm paper problem out there?

 

[R.Gould]

Since the backing paper is made by a single manufacturer ALL 120 files from ALL film manufacturers are potentially effected. It seems pointless to blame Kodak for the faults of another company.

In ten years or more of using mostly Fomapan, with a little Ilford, I have never had this with either fomapan or ilford, I recently decided to try a couple of rolls of Tmax and both were ruined by this problem, never again, and if their is only one maker of backing paper left then they must make a range of paper as the paper used by both foma and rollei films is different to that used by Ilford, it is a little thicker and feels completely different to Ilford/Kodak. so is Kodak using a cheaper paper to save a few pennies

 

[RattyMouse]

In ten years or more of using mostly Fomapan, with a little Ilford, I have never had this with either fomapan or ilford, I recently decided to try a couple of rolls of Tmax and both were ruined by this problem, never again, and if their is only one maker of backing paper left then they must make a range of paper as the paper used by both foma and rollei films is different to that used by Ilford, it is a little thicker and feels completely different to Ilford/Kodak. so is Kodak using a cheaper paper to save a few pennies

Another customer burned by Kodak. Sorry to hear of your lost images.

 

[Peter Schrager]

BURNED BY KODAK?? I've never had a bad roll of film either sheet or roll from them..so you mean they screw up a little and the sky is falling?? and how many billions of rolls of film have they sold??
have a great day!!
peter

 

[Sirius Glass]

BURNED BY KODAK?? I've never had a bad roll of film either sheet or roll from them..so you mean they screw up a little and the sky is falling?? and how many billions of rolls of film have they sold??
have a great day!!
peter

WE WILL ALL BE KILLED! WE WILL ALL BE KILLED! WE WILL ALL BE KILLED!

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

If the problem occurs with their color films too then let's just see how many lawsuits arise from pricey wedding and commercial photographers losing tens of thousands of dollars. This could get very ugly. There's a very big difference from losing family and vacation photos vs. losing high-dollar clients permanently.

We joke about being killed, oh woe is me... but what happens when the last remaining pro analog photographers switch ti digital because Kodak took too long to admit to the problem and resolve the problem? This is a very serious issue that was not and still is not properly addressed by Kodak/Alaris.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

They don't use film.

I don't know how you were able to see and respond to my post before I finished writing it but... some do still shoot analog.

 

[R.Gould]

They don't use film.

Untill I retired last October I used film for all of my professional work, I shot on Black and white and certainly if I had used Kodak and this problem had happened then I would have been a very unhappy photographer, also, as far as I can see this problem only seems to be with Kodak of the main film suppliers, I have not heard of problems with Fuji, I have never seen a problem with either Ilford or Foma, so it appears that Kodak, whose films are by far the most expensive, wt least over here,are the only problem films. I wonder if Kodak realy care about this problem, after all, they only make the stuff for Kodak Alaris, a seperate company,

 

[Roger Cole]

BURNED BY KODAK?? I've never had a bad roll of film either sheet or roll from them..so you mean they screw up a little and the sky is falling?? and how many billions of rolls of film have they sold??
have a great day!!
peter

Me either. I'm not saying this problem isn't real, but it's new and unique and presumably now corrected. I've used Kodak film since the 1970s and never ONCE had a quality issue with a single roll or sheet.

 

[Ai Print]

Untill I retired last October I used film for all of my professional work, I shot on Black and white and certainly if I had used Kodak and this problem had happened then I would have been a very unhappy photographer, also, as far as I can see this problem only seems to be with Kodak of the main film suppliers, I have not heard of problems with Fuji, I have never seen a problem with either Ilford or Foma, so it appears that Kodak, whose films are by far the most expensive, wt least over here,are the only problem films. I wonder if Kodak realy care about this problem, after all, they only make the stuff for Kodak Alaris, a seperate company,

Well I am not retired, in fact no where near it as I am only into this career just shy of 30 years and I did and do and will use Tmax 400 for my work. I have built many relationships of mutual trust and transparency with my chosen brands over the years and nothing has broken that trust, not even this instance. I prefer to help those who have helped me, build partnerships rather than battlefield exploits lead by armies of lawyers.

So I have been talking with Mr. Mooney for a couple of weeks now, he has replaced my film and I know they are working on figuring out all aspects of the issue, product, distribution, how to replace suspect product and how to balance PR with not feeding some of the more prolific trolling members who frequent this site.

So please consider us other folks who are not only not retired, but need Kodak products to continue offering our unique brand of vision to our clients and buyers of our creative output. In the case of TMY2 in particular, I have never seen a film that comes close. Others feel that way about TMX 100 and Tri-X.

And yes, Kodak cares about it, these are marque products and they know this.

 

[BrianShaw]

Have you invited Mr Mooney to visit us to say hello?

 

[PittP]

..., build partnerships rather than battlefield exploits ... yes, Kodak cares about it

+1, my suspicious film stock was replaced. Didn't need much or lengthy discussions. Very considerate arrangement for shipment, not yet received though. Accidents happen, let's bear with Kodak.

 

[Ai Print]

Have you invited Mr Mooney to visit us to say hello?

Not him directly as I think that PR outreach is someone else's area of expertise. But it has been mentioned that if this situation escalates and verges on appearing on a troll haven like petapixel, then it might be a good idea.