Kodak Portra 120 film (Sold by B&H + Adorama): Old Stock has the backing paper issue!!!

[moodlover]

UPDATE: Kodak Alaris has informed me that in Dec 2015 they fixed this issue. T-Max 400 produced with this new paper starts with emulsion 153. Portra 400 produced with this new paper starts with emulsion 3272. I've come to the conclusion that B&H and Adorama in NYC are still selling old film before this fix, because my batch numbers for the ruined photos below begin with 3231. So Kodak is not at fault here.

Purchased June 2017 in B&H and Adorama NYC. Every single one of my frames on every roll shows this if I look hard enough. Film was loaded normally, rolled up gently when done, thrown in camera bag, stored in dry cabinet at home, then developed a few months later. Not exposed to Mars weather, high heat, x-ray or nuclear radiation. I thought these issues were supposedly fixed, I am extremely disappointed that no one at Kodak is catching this...

External album: https://imgur.com/a/5Tj3O

I've already made threads about this throughout the years:

Dec 2015: https://www.photrio.com/forum/index...side-actual-negatives-pictures-inside.130779/

Jan 2017: https://www.photrio.com/forum/index...-major-watermark-inside-frame-problem.143721/

You cannot judge whether or not you have this problem if you are only printing your work. It only shows up if you look carefully at ultra high resolution scans (mine are at 4800 DPI) and then darken the exposure by 5-7 stops or more so for any of you hybrid shooters out here, please check some of your work and look carefully.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What a bummer!

 

[skorpiius]

Damn, this really make me not want to use 120 Portra for anything other than test or otherwise throw-away shots :/

 

[Punker]

That's a shame but luckily I've not had that experience with Portra. Ever. Not on the rolls I shot 6 months ago or the rolls I shot this past Sunday and scanned last night. I hope you can find the cause of your issue and get Kodak to reimburse you if appropriate.

Good luck and cheers!

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I thought these issues were supposedly fixed, I am extremely disappointed that no one at Kodak is catching this...

That should tell you this is a non-trivial issue without an easy fix!

 

[moodlover]

That should tell you this is a non-trivial issue without an easy fix!

I first hand know that this is not as easy fix. Its been happening to me for three years now. I am more disappointed that they continue to distribute and sell faulty product (I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they did not know about this or that its messing up during distribution).

 

[moodlover]

That's a shame but luckily I've not had that experience with Portra. Ever. Not on the rolls I shot 6 months ago or the rolls I shot this past Sunday and scanned last night. I hope you can find the cause of your issue and get Kodak to reimburse you if appropriate.

Good luck and cheers!

No idea how I can have Kodak reimburse me because I've spent thousands of dollars buying Kodak film and have ignored this issue as often as I could or cloned out the numbers to the best of my ability. If you are scanning, I'd recommend darkening your photos a lot to see if anything shows up in a high-res scan, its hard to find sometimes

 

[Punker]

No idea how I can have Kodak reimburse me because I've spent thousands of dollars buying Kodak film and have ignored this issue as often as I could or cloned out the numbers to the best of my ability.

Contact profilm@kodakalaris.com and tell them of the issue with sample images (or a link to this thread). They're good about setting things straight with customers. They'd also probably like to know about this issue if somehow they weren't already aware.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Yes, please let both Kodak and Kodak Alaris know of this.

PE

 

[Hatchetman]

If they were good with customers the film would never have been sold. Replacement film is trivial to the economic costs to the customer.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Erm, that's the old backing paper from the looks of things. Something doesn't add up here.

 

[moodlover]

Erm, that's the old backing paper from the looks of things. Something doesn't add up here.

This was purchased in 2017 from B&H and Adorama in NYC with far later expiration dates. I have purchased fresh Kodak film from these stores this entire summer from July, July, August, September and these issues are showing up. How unfortunate...

 

[Prest_400]

I did get them on a batch of 2015 mfg film which I let sit over my desk for a month after exposure (light exposure but not direct nor much heat). Since then and out of caution I keep it all refrigerated pre and post exposure; seems fine.
Ektar and Portra 160 seem more susceptible than P400, although the latter can get it as well.
On the fridge I have IIRC 3/19 and 8/19 expiration.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Dunno, this was purchased in 2017 from B&H and Adorama in NYC with far later expiration dates

Are you totally sure? All the new Portra I've seen and handled/ processed from at least the start of the year has had the new backing paper. Which Portra is it?

 

[moodlover]

Are you totally sure? All the new Portra I've seen and handled/ processed from at least the start of the year has had the new backing paper. Which Portra is it?

Lachlan, I didn't buy this film years ago and suddenly forget. I don't do that, I'm not one of those people that hoard film. I buy only what I need the day before I use it. Have no problem supplying receipts to Kodak to prove date of purchase but I dont think that means anything since its useless and theyll have no way to connect it to these problematic negatives.

Portra 160 + 400 in 120 format

Unless these popular stores in NYC are selling old Kodak film, which I doubt because the expiration dates were all 2018, 2019 and higher

 

[ignatiu5]

Unfortunate. I too have had this issue with Tri-X, TMY, and Portra 400. If you would be so kind as to note the batch number in this thread, perhaps it would be of help to others who also have Portra rolls in 120. The affect Portra propack that I had was 3221 013, expiry 04/2017. I promptly received a replacement from Kodak Alaris by writing to the email address noted above.

 

[moodlover]

Unfortunate. I too have had this issue with Tri-X, TMY, and Portra 400. If you would be so kind as to note the batch number in this thread, perhaps it would be of help to others who also have Portra rolls in 120. The affect Portra propack that I had was 3221 013, expiry 04/2017. I promptly received a replacement from Kodak Alaris by writing to the email address noted above.

I would love to help in any way I can, but how can I do that? I dont save the backing paper or the box the film came in, I discard those immediately after use. Is any useful info written on the negative itself? I've never seen any, I wish Kodak would start implementing a small number somewhere on the negatives so we could help them track this

 

[Lachlan Young]

Lachlan, I didn't buy this film years ago and suddenly forget. I don't do that, I'm not one of those people that hoard film. I buy only what I need the day before I use it. Have no problem supplying receipts to Kodak to prove date of purchase but I dont think that means anything since its useless and theyll have no way to connect it to these problematic negatives.

Portra 160 + 400 in 120 format

Unless these popular stores in NYC are selling old Kodak film, which I doubt because the expiration dates were all 2018, 2019 and higher

This may be a stupid question, but were these bought as loose rolls assembled into pro-packs by the seller or as sealed pro-packs? Kodak will be able to identify the film batches from edge markings & I'm sure they'd like to know what's going on.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I'd bet the issue has to do with humidity. I'd be curious to know what kind of ink is used on backing paper. Just speculating of course.

 

[ignatiu5]

I would love to help in any way I can, but how can I do that? I dont save the backing paper or the box the film came in, I discard those immediately after use. Is any useful info written on the negative itself? I've never seen any, I wish Kodak would start implementing a small number somewhere on the negatives so we could help them track this

Take a look at the negative rebate between frames 11 and 12. On my films, there is a batch code in green there.

 

[moodlover]

Take a look at the negative rebate between frames 11 and 12. On my films, there is a batch code in green there.

Brilliant, always wondered what that was:

Batch # B3231012

Batch # A3231012

Same batch number on both, yet these were shot weeks apart. So is this the older film before the backing paper fix?

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

All the newer Portra I've picked up has only one sets of numbers per aspect ratio, and yours shows a pair of repeating numbers.

 

[Sirius Glass]

All the newer Portra I've picked up has only one sets of numbers per aspect ratio, and yours shows a pair of repeating numbers.

I use Hasselblad backs so I line up the arrow and crank away never looking at the numbers. I did the same thing with the Mamiya C330.

 

[moodlover]

All the newer Portra I've picked up has only one sets of numbers per aspect ratio, and yours shows a pair of repeating numbers.

Not sure I understand what you're saying, can you rephrase please? I am only using 6x7

 

[MattKing]

Not sure I understand what you're saying, can you rephrase please? I am only using 6x7

I think he/she is saying that the newer backing paper has only one set of inked numbers for each negative size usable with 120 film, but your negatives seem to have two ghost images where one would only expect to see one.