We will have to wait until all of the results are in then before judging. Both EK and Ilford have been shown to have the problem. The films are still out there AFAIK.
PE
A bizarre statement since no one is trying to prevent you from using any film.
...That's all it would have taken to prevent me from buying defective film...
How hard is it to call up retailers and get a defective product returned? I dont see any issues that would prevent that at all, aside from total indifference to the customer.
In your case it is not even clear if it is that offset. I rather doubt it.Yes. That's one incident. How many have we seen from Kodak? Lots! Far more. Here, at Filmwasters.org, and Rangefinderforum, one can find multiple threads on Kodak film showing paper issues.
I was not talking about me, take a look at your own words:
As for the question, the answer is quite easy: The later, the harder (that's common sense). As for the rest, is your point of "view" that I deeply respect, but talking about prevent & indifference: I prefer to stop here with you & the war of words. I detect too much aggressiveness
Best of luck!
Dont read any aggressiveness in my text. It's not there!
I still have a few more to develop.
I still have a few more to develop.
Can I have one of those, please?
The rash of paper problems is exclusive to Kodak,
Excuse me RattyMouse
I'm sorry if I saw aggressiveness where you say there is not,
Blaming Kodak or Ilford serves no purpose. The problem is caused by the single supplier of paper for both companies. Aim your brinkbats at them.
Oops, sorry! I just saw " ... to develop" right now. I thought you still might have some unused. Well, it might sounds strange, but I would like to have one of those affected films, perhaps anyone can read this ...
PE, with all due respect (and I mean this with the utmost sincerity), the results came in yesterday when I scanned my most recently purchased TMAX 400 and it came back clearly defective. I posted a single example but could add many more. Both rolls are trashed. I still have a few more to develop.
Well, with Ilford and Kodak both having problems, who is left? Fuji! Have at it man.
PE
It may be a good IDEA to remove those films, but it's not a requirement.
I look at Kodak's announcement
of potential compromise of film more of the SB type than the AD -- were it guaranteed that there would be an issue with an entire batch of film, then a notice would have been issued and a recall made. If it wasn't, then Kodak probably could not statistically predict exactly where potentially affected films would have ended up, and a business decision was made somewhere to replace film piecemeal instead of eighty-sixing entire batches. In my eyes (and I like to think I would believe this way even if I had run some of the bad film through my cameras), that was a smart business decision.
Your mileage may vary, however.
This would have been an excellent time for Kodak to demonstrate a commitment to the customer, make a statement about their commitment to quality. They took a pass.
I work for a chemical company with less than a 200 million dollar market cap. If our products have even the possibility of impacting the customer, we take full action to get them back. Why? Because we have busted our ass to establish our brand as standing for a quality product. All it takes is ONE incident to get a black eye in the industry and customers will look at us with totally different eyes. Therefore, we have a quality process that is constantly vigilant. If we find a problem and the customer is still oblivious to it, we take action to notify them, get the defective product back, and replace it with product we have confidence in that won't compromise our quality.
It is unthinkable that we would have identified a product that has a known defect and the potential to impact a customer and just sit on our hands. Unthinkable!
What announcement? Has there been one? Can you provide a link to a Kodak Alaris site that notifies customers of this potential issue? You cannot. I see NONE and so instead of Kodak notifying customers about this issue, they are sitting on their hands, hoping no one will notice. Only people with direct access to Kodak Alaris employees are getting an announcement and replacement film. Is Kodak respecting its customers acting this way? I think not.
This was an appalling decision by Kodak Alaris. You are 100% right, this was a business decision. A decision was made to A) Make no public statements that there was a potential problem and B) Make no attempt at getting film known to be suspect off the shelves. The decision was made to sacrifice quality and the customer in exchange for keeping costs low. Sometimes you have to eat costs in order to save your customers a problem. Kodak Alaris had that opportunity and quietly declined to stand behind their product's quality.
Dually noted.
However since it appears for more than one Kodak film AND also Ilford it must be something in either that backing paper and/or the ink OR something commonplace like the temperature and humidity the film was exposed to. Blaming Kodak or Ilford serves no purpose. The problem is caused by the single supplier of paper for both companies. Aim your brinkbats at the paper company.
My interpretation...
if the answer were just the paper and ink then everyone would see the problem. I suspect some user involvement.
I also believe that some are not forthcoming in admitting that they may have abused the film. Since such an admission might effect whether the offending rolls(s) are replaced.
I have only experienced this problem once and that was many years ago with some very old film. But there was definite printing of the paper numbers to the film. However, there's something else going on here because if the answer were just the paper and ink then everyone would see the problem. I suspect some user involvement. For example one poster said that they immediately remove all rolls from their foil wrapping. I thought this rather ill advised. The wrapping is designed to protect against environmental pollutants and light exposure! The seal from my experience between the paper and the spool ends is not perfect. There is sometimes light leakage in bright light.
I personally appreciate Kodak's dilemma. Having worked for some years delivering software products nothing is harder to diagnose than a problem that only occurs infrequently. I also believe that some are not forthcoming in admitting that they may have abused the film. Since such an admission might effect whether the offending rolls(s) are replaced.
I'm not going to argue this. There's no point, because it makes absolute sense.
I myself have had to issue DO NOT FLY THIS AIRCRAFT warnings to customers when necessary. However, I would hazard a guess that your company knows each individual customer, especially if you deal with industrial chemicals or some such.
I know all my customers whose planes we work on, because every day we take their very lives in our hands. Kodak does not have that luxury. Heck, when a store asks my phone number I always give a fake one.
All I can see is Vizzini as played by Wallace Shawn: Inconceivable!
I cannot provide a link.
That said, my own belief is that if Kodak had issued a notification, it would have been tantamount to a general recall. And regardless of how many people your small chemical company doesn't blow up each year -- and how my small aircraft service center doesn't crash each year -- I still believe that a general recall by Kodak was NOT necessary, but dealing with the problem on a case-by-case basis was the best way to go.
Respecting its customers? Make a good product, sell it at a reasonable price and deal with me fairly when I have an EXISTING problem, that's all I need.
Appalling? I don't know. "Appalling" to me would be, for example, General Motors' ignition switch debacle and its refusal to acknowledge fault even though it had known the cars were dangerous for at least ten years, or Guidant's implanted defibrillator disaster. That's "appalling." "Appalling" hurts or kills people.
This is really, in the grand scheme of things, relatively minor. My interpretation of the decision is that it was not to sacrifice quality; from my standpoint, I believe the decision was made to reduce the impact on BOTH the customer and Kodak, in that customers who had purchased the bad film would notify Kodak about it anyway, and those who hadn't got defective rolls would happily shoot those films and then when they heard about the problem they would have said, "Well, I didn't have a problem," thereby leaving hundreds of thousands or millions of perfectly serviceable rolls of film in circulation and dealing individually with the bad ones.
Kodak's decision made many people unhappy, I gather. But a business decision is a business decision and they are the ones who bear the brunt of the consequences of that decision. They have their people who are paid to look at the numbers and determine what percentage of failure is acceptable. and that is the decision they made. Your decision is now whether to continually jump up and down like a Jack Russell Terrier yelling Kodak's BAD! Kodak's BAD! and get out the torches and pitchforks, or to keep shooting, deal with it, stop buying Kodak film or not, and move on. If it makes you that upset, there are myriad different other films and makers you can patronize.
And, by the way, as I have said, I don't shoot Kodak film often, so I'm definitely not a shill for Kodak. I had a problem with TWO frames on ONE roll of Ektar 100 and I today received a box of five rolls of Ektar 100 from Kodak Alaris. I do not know anyone at Alaris; in fact, before I started this thread, I didn't even know that Alaris EXISTED. I did not ask for replacement film. The representative merely asked my address and sent me a box. I would certainly call that "taking care of the customer." But now I'm going to have to go shoot some more color. Damn!
Why don't you go do the same?
PS-- It should be "duly noted," not "dually noted" unless you're driving a big American pickup with a single four-wheel axle in the rear.
Another unwise decision. In a small fraction of the time you've spent here composing and posting diatribes against Kodak's approach to the problem you could have researched the emulsion numbers, sent a brief message to Thomas Mooney, then received film with the latest backing paper and avoided all your issues....I have *never* once tried to obtain replacement film from Kodak Alaris. I have zero interest in spending any time dealing with Kodak and I have simply dumped my excess defective film (around 18 rolls) into the garbage...
Globally my company has under 300 people and in excess of 20,000 customers in every continent except Africa. Yes, we know everyone. It's not easy tracking that and it takes time, sometimes a lot of time, to locate them all but we have records of where our products go.
Right. You know why you can't provide a link? Because Kodak Alaris NEVER notified customers that there is a potential problem with several lots of film. Never. They sat on their hands and are hoping to ride this out and let the customer fend for themselves. That is despicable.
There IS a general recall *IF* you contact Thomas Mooney at Kodak Alaris. Posts here at Apug show that if you contact this guy, you can exchange bad film for good. It's a silent recall, only available to people who search this guy out and make an extreme effort. Why arent all of Kodak Alaris' customers allowed to do this? Why keep this information hidden?
That is nothing but contempt for the customer.
There is no solution after the fact Sir. Bad film destroys the past shoot. I had this problem with the film I shot on my final walk while in China. I lived in Shanghai almost 7 years and I took Kodak TMAX400 on my final walk through the city in 2015. I shot 3 rolls and developed them after I moved back to the US. I see KODAK stamped all over my images along with various numbers. All images ruined. Kodak can't do anything to help me after the fact. Giving me $15 worth of film does nothing to make this situation right.
Fast forward to Thanksgiving last year. I take my kids to Washington DC. I brought freshly bought Kodak TMAX 400 and after developing them find the word KODAK stamped on my daughter's forehead. Again, replacement film does NOTHING to replace all these destroyed images from my family trip.
I've got 25 rolls of Fuji Acros film to develop. Let's see how many of these are ruined by bad backing paper. Care to place bets?
Appalling: inspiring horror, dismay, or disgust
I am dismayed at Kodak's poor quality and disgusted by their lack of action to remove defective film from store shelves. The word fits perfectly.
What makes you think I dont? I shoot PLENTY of film, both color and black and white. Waaay more than most people who are not pros.
Bid deal. Talk to my auto correct. Pointing this out says more about you than my spelling.
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?