Kodak Quality Control Slipping?

pentaxuser said:

It is a good question about whether the very faint 6 we can see corresponds to the film frame in front of the backing paper that has the number 6 but even if the backing paper has gone then doesn't the frame number on the film correspond to the backing paper i.e. the film and paper are joined in such a way that the film frame 6 is in front of the backing paper number 6?

Just a thought

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

I don't have a Kodak backing paper in front of me to check right now, but don't the "6" and "9" have a line underneath to distinguish the numbers when the film is used in a red-window camera ? I've certainly seen this on some brands of film, if not Kodak.

For clarity, one should remember that with 120 film, the substrate of the film is against the black side of the backing paper. When the combination of film and backing paper is wound on to the spool, the emulsion side of the film is pressed against the numbered (with ink) side of that part of the backing paper that is in the next layer of the roll.
So you have emulsion pressed into paper with ink on parts of that paper.
Think of the layers of an onion (except more even EDIT: and one continuous piece, rather than discrete circles).

Then it makes sense that possibly the ink had some sort of interaction with the emulsion -- not necessarily light-related but more chemical-related. Maybe the ink somehow affected the sensitivity of the emulsion? A combination of conditions and handling set that reaction in motion? I suppose stranger things have happened...

Chadinko said:

Then it makes sense that possibly the ink had some sort of interaction with the emulsion -- not necessarily light-related but more chemical-related. Maybe the ink somehow affected the sensitivity of the emulsion? A combination of conditions and handling set that reaction in motion? I suppose stranger things have happened...

Click to expand...

Talking to a colleague last night about this saga, one of the more common problems is leaving the film exposed and in high humidity environments — sort of fitting your observation of "a combination of conditions and handling". As Matt pointed out, the backing paper is in contact with the substrate, and although this may seem to be a bad thing, it is the way things are. Film is tightly wound onto the take-up spool in all MF cameras with some, like the Pentax 67, getting it really tightly wound and this would seem conducive to an imprint event occurring, but it is so rare in my own circumstances that I cannot make any reference to it. Processing the film immediately upon completion, rather than returning to storage for any length of time may help.

railwayman3 said:

I don't have a Kodak backing paper in front of me to check right now, but don't the "6" and "9" have a line underneath to distinguish the numbers when the film is used in a red-window camera ? I've certainly seen this on some brands of film, if not Kodak.

Click to expand...

I have a few shreds of backing paper (for all of my processing work both backing paper and spool is returned to me), all from Fuji films (also applies to TMax) and that is a correct observation, the 9 being underlined to differentiate it from the 6 (rows 1 and 2). It is unusual to note that Kodak's printing is quite faint and difficult to view through the small red counter windows on cameras e.g. my Zero Image pinhole camera. It certainly isn't big bold print like Fuji uses and does not have this problem!

There are several threads on this, and in some the posts note that both Fuji and Ilford have had recent problems. It should be noted that as film demand goes down, certain things in the manufacturing process are outsourced with rigid specifications. However, that is not always the case. The vendor often supplies materials almost identical but it may differ very very slightly from the norm and cause problems if not caught. Also, many shippers and sellers are not familiar with film storage nowdays and do not refrigerate properly.

The carbon black used for the paper must be very high quality and not derived from tallow which has many sulfur compounds. This is just one simple comment on an ongoing issue with 120.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

There are several threads on this, and in some the posts note that both Fuji and Ilford have had recent problems. It should be noted that as film demand goes down, certain things in the manufacturing process are outsourced with rigid specifications. However, that is not always the case. The vendor often supplies materials almost identical but it may differ very very slightly from the norm and cause problems if not caught. Also, many shippers and sellers are not familiar with film storage nowdays and do not refrigerate properly.

The carbon black used for the paper must be very high quality and not derived from tallow which has many sulfur compounds. This is just one simple comment on an ongoing issue with 120.

PE

Click to expand...

Has anyone ever posted an example of Fuji 120 film showing this problem? I've shot well over 1500 rolls of Fuji 120 film the past 4-5 years and havent had a single issue of the paper imprinting on the film. I've shot far less Kodak film and had this problem a good 8-10 times. Ilford, once.

I have never seen anyone post an example of this problem with Fuji's film.

MattKing said:

For clarity, one should remember that with 120 film, the substrate of the film is against the black side of the backing paper. When the combination of film and backing paper is wound on to the spool, the emulsion side of the film is pressed against the numbered (with ink) side of that part of the backing paper that is in the next layer of the roll.
So you have emulsion pressed into paper with ink on parts of that paper.
Think of the layers of an onion (except more even EDIT: and one continuous piece, rather than discrete circles)

Click to expand...

Chadinko said:

Then it makes sense that possibly the ink had some sort of interaction with the emulsion -- not necessarily light-related but more chemical-related. Maybe the ink somehow affected the sensitivity of the emulsion? A combination of conditions and handling set that reaction in motion? I suppose stranger things have happened...

Click to expand...

Excuse me Matt

If that were the reason (assuming the same ink for the whole roll) you'll find the same marks even between frames for that whole role, not to mention that the pressure is not the same at the inner part as at the end of the spool, besides the friction (or ink abrasion if you will) and the curvature while wounded, could easily cause the numbers, words, etc not to be so well outlined as showed.

Kind regards!

Poisson Du Jour said:

Talking to a colleague last night about this saga, one of the more common problems is leaving the film exposed and in high humidity environments — sort of fitting your observation of "a combination of conditions and handling".
-- snip --

Click to expand...

There's something comical about the phrase "high humidity environment" and Arizona being used in the same sentence.

I think that's probably it -- a combination of environment and handling.

Chadinko said:

There's something comical about the phrase "high humidity environment" and Arizona being used in the same sentence.

I think that's probably it -- a combination of environment and handling.

Click to expand...

Yes, it might be slightly comical inasmuch I could say it is feeling very, very dry down where I am, but actually has high humidity!
But I am not a Phoenix, AZ native, so I wouldn't know. But I agree firmly with your last observation!

LAG said:

Excuse me Matt

If that were the reason (assuming the same ink for the whole roll) you'll find the same marks even between frames for that whole role, not to mention that the pressure is not the same at the inner part as at the end of the spool, besides the friction (or ink abrasion if you will) and the curvature while wounded, could easily cause the numbers, words, etc not to be so well outlined as showed.

Kind regards!

Click to expand...

See tomfrh's post from one of the related threads concerning TMY-2: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Well, we're in the middle of the desert. Humidity only happens in August and September and even though that's very high by Arizona standards, I grew up in Hawaii where we had real humidity.

RattyMouse said:

Has anyone ever posted an example of Fuji 120 film showing this problem? I've shot well over 1500 rolls of Fuji 120 film the past 4-5 years and havent had a single issue of the paper imprinting on the film. I've shot far less Kodak film and had this problem a good 8-10 times. Ilford, once.

I have never seen anyone post an example of this problem with Fuji's film.

Click to expand...

I know that the posts have been made, but I don't remember if any examples were shown.

PE

MattKing said:

See tomfrh's post from one of the related threads concerning TMY-2: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Click to expand...

Matt, I promise to give you my view on this link (for what it can be worth - for both), as soon as I have a moment to read it, perhaps this evening here (in Europe) - I'm to busy right now, sorry - and thanks for the link.

Regards!

MattKing said:

See tomfrh's post

Click to expand...

Matt

I do not doubt about tomfrh test/experience (…), what I really doubt is thinking on the ink as a reducing agent.

If anything by chance, I would dare to say that the ink – perhaps due to its thickness or due to any change in its "normal" status for any reason – once in touch with the (wounded) film could have damaged that part of the film and consequently have spoiled enough certain amount of silver halides to give as a result that same “mirror or trace” shape. In other words the same or similar thing (mark) can happen with our fingerprints (bare of chemicals) while handling the film … if that were the reason, then is not appropriate to say that the ink exposed the film, and at the same time of course is not appropriate to say “adding” to the exposures (like tomfrh said) but “subtracting”.

Let me tell you that I do not work for Kodak and I take no benefit from my opinions. I’m sorry for being so stubborn and deeply sceptical. I have my own ideas, waiting for a real reason.

After reading that whole thread, it seems it all ended in a “brand-distrust” discussion. My point is "Don't grumble, give a whistle" I always look on the bright side of life If I had the chance to buy those “listed/affected films” I would buy them all, for my own consumption without a doubt (many ideas arise with all this to all of them).

And here’s a funny story to finish with this:

A couple had two children. One of them pessimistic and the other optimistic. On Christmas Day they both received a gift. The pessimistic child received a wonderful bicycle - a great gift that his very brother would like for himself - and the pessimist received a box filled up with horse poop.

The parents asked the pessimist: "- Why do you look disgusted at your precious gift?"

The boy said: "- Is only that when I take the bike out of the house, I can stumble and fall with it, or maybe a car can hit me and kill me ..."

Both parents turned their attention to the optimistic child watching him run smiling around the house with the box full of horse poop still in his hands, his mother asked him: "- How was your gift darling, what is it?"

"- Yes, yes, I love it. It's a horse but I cannot find it!”

Best

These are from my rolls of Portra 160. I have more examples but I am only posting these.

Picture 1:
Above the hill on the left says "Kodak 15" and on the right it says "Kodak".

Picture 2:
The sky says "Kodak 12" multiple times on the left and again "Kodak" on the right.

If this is something I have to start worrying about, I think my time with film might be over...



Some other examples:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153279
http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00eASK

TimVance said:

If this is something I have to start worrying about, I think my time with film might be over...

Click to expand...

Joking apart from my previous comment and returning to the subject in a serious way (without abandoning the good humor in my case) with all due respect to this problem and the person behind, I do not understand any kind of decisions. Switching from one system to another does not remove stains or markings on sensitive material. In fact the sensors are much more delicate in that sense (I do not say that this will be your case, of course)

Back on film - which is what interests in this electronic land -, it is very complicated to be/stay away from all kinds of marks 100% (Water, dust, scratches, ... etc) there are many examples as we all know. Again, we also know that they are, of course, of quite different condition than this "brand-case" to be treated, but as I said above with other words, "fighting & whistling while working" in a healthy way, with lots of good information, will help better.

Generally speaking (not only in these kind of cases) I also do not understand not having our notebooks with us (but I can understand that it goes with the way of working for each one, and I am not pointing to anyone with this), perhaps I see it easy, because I always carry one notebook with me at all times and understand it as a fundamental tool, enriching and fun part of the process.

It would be a very good idea, if in these types of posts we also have that other reference for those type of problems, as much information as possible about the film, and its treatment from its purchase to its archiving, and not only posting the visual reference as a complaint. I know again that it implies that the user has the control and the desire as a personal way of working and keeping things (If I may compare, just simple as when we keep official documents and discard them after a while because they prescribe) ... In my opinion certain data would help to shorten various factors trying to sort these issues out, and all those things & info. are what I miss in this new post, just like before with my #10 interrogation ...

Resign or give up is not the option, and I do not say that is your case either TimVance, but is not a helping message either, although again respectable. I encourage you to continue with film, and if anything must be done, you have too many other options, like trying another "trade name", which in my view is not the solution either, we all know, from our own experience in the dark, that different brands have different results & qualities (according to the intentions of each one) and that would also be lost. To each his own.

Best Regards and Good Luck!

TimVance said:

These are from my rolls of Portra 160. I have more examples but I am only posting these.

Picture 1:
Above the hill on the left says "Kodak 15" and on the right it says "Kodak".

Picture 2:
The sky says "Kodak 12" multiple times on the left and again "Kodak" on the right.

If this is something I have to start worrying about, I think my time with film might be over...

View attachment 170221 View attachment 170222

Some other examples:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153279
http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00eASK

Click to expand...

As written here and in other thread multiple times, the problem is known for some time now (one of the threads you linked to is two years old!), it has been acknowledged by Kodak and they have taken steps to correct it.

These "Me too!" kind of posts are not really helpful at all, unless someone can tell us WHEN this happened, and provide the batch number and expiry date of the film used, so it can be determined if we are talking about yesterday's news (= the film was from an older batch that is known to be susceptible to the problem) OR from a batch that was made AFTER Kodak took corrective measures, which would indeed be alarming.

Other relevant information: How much time elapsed between exposure and development and whether the film was subjected to any extreme heat/humidity.

And last but not least, this should also be reported to Kodak Alaris
profilm@kodakalaris.com

mnemosyne said:

As written here and in other thread multiple times, the problem is known for some time now (one of the threads you linked to is two years old!), it has been acknowledged by Kodak and they have taken steps to correct it.

Click to expand...

The fact that these posts keep appearing is due to Kodak's "steps" to correct the problem. At no point did they publish any warning signs on their web site to alert customers that defective film was out there. At no point did they order a recall to try to reclaim as much defective film as possible. What they did was silently compensate customers who had their images ruined after the fact.

Most people load up their cameras and discard the wrappers. They also discard the paper before processing is done. That means very often the lot number and the problematic paper are gone before the problem appears.

TimVance said:

If this is something I have to start worrying about, I think my time with film might be over...

Click to expand...

Switch to Fuji for color and Ilford for b & w and the chance of this problem happening virtually disappears.

RattyMouse said:

Switch to Fuji for color and Ilford for b & w and the chance of this problem happening virtually disappears.

Click to expand...

No need to switch. Select whichever film manufacturer's product best suits your goals, ensure that you purchase from a batch after the backing paper issue was solved (regardless of manufacturer) and the chance it will happen virtually disappears.

Kodak may be the last to experience wrapper offset in recent years, but it still offers some unique products that ought not be shunned. And I'm one of HARMAN's most vocal supporters. Trashing a major manufacturer of film on APUG is just plain dumb.

Sal Santamaura said:

ensure that you purchase from a batch after the backing paper issue was solved (regardless of manufacturer) and the chance it will happen virtually disappears.

Click to expand...

Is there a list of such batches?

miha said:

Is there a list of such batches?

Click to expand...

This may help, but it only covers B&W film
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

miha said:

Is there a list of such batches?

Click to expand...

The previously mentioned thread(s) on TMAX 400 include numbers for that film. For other films, including color, contact Thomas Mooney at Kodak Alaris (profilm@kodakalaris.com).

miha said:

Is there a list of such batches?

Click to expand...

Kodak only furnishes this information upon request. You have to contact them.

Thanks. So the answer is no.