The initial acceptance tests would have run them and from then on, a smaller subset would have been used. This is what happened way back when. Those thousands of tests were only used as spot checks.
PE
... and there are thousands of test that COULD be run if you knew there was a need for them. I'm sure this issue 'blind sided' the small QC staff remaining.
p.s. "Could you please attach here a quick visual reference to the negative, both the affected area shown and the keycodes as well? I would be very grateful"
Best!
On the edge of the 120 film with the frame numbers, next to the 11 frame number, on the side toward number 12, should be a stamped emulsion number. It is actually stamped with some sort of edged fine metal font, not printed (and I didn't believe it the first time I heard about it either!I do not believe that 120 film has key codes, just 35mm and 16mm. My negatives only have frame numbers on the edges, and my negatives show the same printing artifacts you could see in my posted image.
The initial acceptance tests would have run them and from then on, a smaller subset would have been used.
That would be my bet - especially if the film was exposed to high humidity conditions.
It is these relentless rants and public vendetta that killed any sympathy that I had had. The offender has gone on anti-Kodak rants in the past and the tantrums run on for months. At this point they have much the same consideration as background radiation in a normal environment.
I already raised my children, so it is not my job to train the offender.
"Could you please attach here ... the keycodes as well? I would be very grateful"
I do not believe that 120 film has key codes,
On the edge of the 120 film with the frame numbers, next to the 11 frame number, on the side toward number 12, should be a stamped emulsion number.
"Could you please attach here a quick visual reference to the negative? I would be very grateful"
... my negatives show the same printing artifacts you could see in my posted image.
... a smaller subset would have been used.
For what it's worth here are a few backing papers of some Kodak C-41 120 films I processed on Tuesday - exp 2007 160VC on left, exp 2011 160nc in middle, exp 08/2018 Portra 160 on right. The new printing style is clearly obvious & there is no evidence of offsetting etc from any of the films on the high-res scans I have done (Hasselblad X5 for reference). The older films were given to me shortly before Christmas & I bought the Portra 160 pro-pack about 1 month ago. The ink density on the 08/18 is in the range of Ilford's 120 films I think.
View attachment 171076 View attachment 171077
Did you store the film in your refrigerator at any time?What about dry warm temperatures? Everyone seems to rabbit on about high humidity levels. We don't get those here in Arizona, and it was my original post that started this rant-fest.
The irony inherent in your post (which is still much appreciated by me) is that to the best of my knowledge the backing papers you show are outside what I understand to be the problem batch(es). 2007 and 2011 develop before dates are too old, and 2018 is too recent.For what it's worth here are a few backing papers of some Kodak C-41 120 films I processed on Tuesday - exp 2007 160VC on left, exp 2011 160nc in middle, exp 08/2018 Portra 160 on right. The new printing style is clearly obvious & there is no evidence of offsetting etc from any of the films on the high-res scans I have done (Hasselblad X5 for reference). The older films were given to me shortly before Christmas & I bought the Portra 160 pro-pack about 1 month ago. The ink density on the 08/18 is in the range of Ilford's 120 films I think.
View attachment 171076 View attachment 171077
The irony inherent in your post (which is still much appreciated by me) is that to the best of my knowledge the backing papers you show are outside what I understand to be the problem batch(es). 2007 and 2011 develop before dates are too old, and 2018 is too recent.
Did you store the film in your refrigerator at any time?
Any idea on how long the exposed film sat around before developing?Not that film, I don't believe. I bought it and I shot it over the next few days and it stayed on a shelf at room temperature after that until it was developed.
Should've put that in my post - the point was to show that the problem is (hopefully) in the past.
Any idea on how long the exposed film sat around before developing?
If film sits in 72-77 degrees and has issues...
So it sat around for 5 months outside the Kodak sealed foil package. I don't remember any complaints from folks who immediately processed their film- were there any?If I remember correctly (Chadinko mentioned it before) it was more or less five months
So it sat around for 5 months outside the Kodak sealed foil package...
Everyone is going bananas about Ektachrome and just the mention of Kodachrome (they will bring back the brand not the film). I think it is critical that we try to help resolve these issues with the few companies that are willing to cater to this medium. Going nuts and ranting about a company that has contributed so much to our avocation/profession doesn't do anyone any good.
Best Regards, Mike
I have been lucky that, (So far) I haven't been burned by this. I get most of my film through B&H, I shoot a lot of TMY. I have to believe, that the product coming out of Rochester today, doesn't have this problem. Maybe I'm wrong, and will regret it. I shoot a lot of Ilford film too, especially sheet film, since I can't afford Kodak, (8x10 Tri-X WOW). I am getting ready to place my spring, before it gets hot, order. I will be buying TMAX 400 120 film, I love it. But I will be buying Ilford film and paper at the same time.
Everyone is going bananas about Ektachrome and just the mention of Kodachrome (they will bring back the brand not the film). I think it is critical that we try to help resolve these issues with the few companies that are willing to cater to this medium. Going nuts and ranting about a company that has contributed so much to our avocation/profession doesn't do anyone any good.
Best Regards, Mike
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?