Kodak Quality Control Slipping?

[Chadinko]

I remember a while back there was a quality issue with a Kodak B&W film (Tri-X? Tmax? I forget) in which the numbers on the backing paper came through onto the film. I'm wondering if that "feature" has migrated to Ektar 100 as well, based on at least one image in the last set of rolls I shot. I have not yet fully inspected all the negatives to see whether this happened with them as well, but on one image I just scanned there is a very distinct number 6 in the upper left corner. I'm wondering whether the backing paper number may have somehow ended up printed on the neg...

Here is the image in question. The particulars, not that I think it matters, are:

Kodak Ektar 100
Norita 66 body, 40mm f/4 lens
Commercially developed, scanned on Epson 4490 scanner.

The full image.

Here is the image with the number 6 circled. It's very faint but quite distinct when you see it.

Here's the number in its natural state, and then next, outlined so you can compare.

I tortured the colors a bit in Photoshop to try to bring the six out a little more.

Any ideas as to what happened here? As time permits, I'll be going back through the rest of the negatives and checking them, and I'll report further if there are other developments.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It is hard to see, but it is there. The problem could be the same paper backing problem we saw earlier. Let Kodak know, but they are probably aware to the problem since the problem had already risen on black & white films.

 

[Chadinko]

Does Kodak actually respond to this sort of thing?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yes, they often replace film that had a problem.

 

[Chadinko]

OK i'll figure out how to contact Kodak. It's not that big a deal, but it's annoying since I can't print that image commercially without scanning it.

 

[MattKing]

OK i'll figure out how to contact Kodak. It's not that big a deal, but it's annoying since I can't print that image commercially without scanning it.

The email address to use is : Profilm@kodakalaris.com
Note that it is not Eastman Kodak, but rather Kodak Alaris, because they hold the exclusive world wide rights to market Kodak still film. Eastman Kodak just manufactures it and fills Kodak Alaris' orders.
Here is one thread, that references other threads and lists the first known problem batches of B&W film: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Can you share the batch number and expiry date of your film?

 

[Chadinko]

I genuinely have no clue about batch and expiry. I don't record that stuff; I know I shot that particular image in August on my birthday and just last week had it developed. It's been sitting on my desk in a dark bag with other rolls between the shooting and developing. That's all I know.

I sent an e-mail to Kodak through their site, but I'll email Alaris too, since I'm guessing that that's where I'll get the fastest response. Thank you for that information.

 

[MattKing]

I sent an e-mail to Kodak through their site, but I'll email Alaris too, since I'm guessing that that's where I'll get the fastest response.

You won't get any response from Eastman Kodak. They have no involvement with end users, retailers, distributors or any user of film. All they do now is contract manufacturing for Kodak Alaris.

 

[Chadinko]

Thanks for that heads-up. I just dropped an email with the images in question to Alaris and we'll see what happened. I'd hate for someone to get that on an image shot for publication or for a serious project.

 

[LAG]

It's very hard to see indeed ... but in my humble opinion I don't think that this kind of issues migrate between films and I would also dare to say that it has nothing to do with expiry date.

...I'm wondering whether the backing paper number may have somehow ended up printed on the neg... Any ideas as to what happened here? ...

However, looking at the shadows in the scene I'd venture to say more or less the hour of the day that you took the photograph, and that in addition to the month you've mentioned, it brings us back hard light and perhaps a very hot summer day ... would you be kind to answer a couple of questions, please? (I am not saying that those are the reasons to the issue, just out of curiosity, and perhaps to help you think about it)

Did you cover the eyepiece (or the back of the camera) from that light (hot) at the time of the exposure? How was the camera temperature at that time? How is (or could have been) the state of the film preasure plate, hard/soft (hot)?

Was this photo the only one you took that day, that time of day? If not ... Have you find any other number trace (within the rest of the roll under the same conditions?

Do you usually throw away the backing paper? If not ... Have you brought the two elements together afterwards to check for any other possible mirror issues?

Sorry for the interrogation, and thank you in advance for your time.

By the way, a great photo! (extra: Did you use any kind of filter?)
Best of luck!

 

[MattKing]

It's very hard to see indeed ... but in my humble opinion I don't think that this kind of issues migrate between films and I would also dare to say that it has nothing to do with expiry date.

LAG:
You need to read through the really long threads on this.
In some ways, it isn't actually a problem with the film, but rather a problem with the backing paper and the printing on it.
It started appearing when Kodak and its backing paper supplier changed the 120 backing paper.
There is now one, single type of backing paper used for all Kodak 120 paper. It comes from the single, remaining paper manufacturer who has the capability of making this type of paper - none of the film manufacturers have this capability any more.
Some with knowledge of the printing industry have opined that the problem may be due to the new soy based inks that the printing industry has changed to, due to environmental and other concerns.
The ink appears to be interacting with the film emulsion - where the numbers and words are, the emulsion seems to become more sensitive, the negatives are slightly more dense, and light coloured images appear in prints.
The reason for the reference to "develop before" dates is that they give you a reference to the production date for the film. Kodak and its backing paper supplier have changed the backing paper to try to counteract this problem - the "develop before" dates help in determining whether the film is likely to have the oldest (no problem) backing paper, the next oldest (lots of problems) backing paper or one of the more recent versions of the backing paper.
All the film with the oldest, pre-change paper will now be past its "develop before" date. It is unlikely that that older style of backing paper can be economically manufactured any more.
To give you some sense of the challenge involved in this, Ilford/Harman have indicated in the past that it costs them more to buy the backing paper from the manufacturer than it does to make the film that goes with it, and the minimum order requirements are such that they have to buy months (years?) of supply each time.

 

[AgX]

If I was in charge of this at the manufacturer I would have rejected it as non issue.

 

[Roger Thoms]

I can read Kodak in the sky on the right side.

Roger

 

[Chadinko]

I can read Kodak in the sky on the right side.

Roger

Wow, now that you mention it, so can I.

LAG, Thank you for the kind words regarding the image. It's a negative scan but otherwise it's straight out of the camera. No filter on the lens, no filters in scanning, just a slightly underexposed shot of a cool street scene in northern Arizona.

I didn't do anything differently in shooting and handling this film to what I do in shooting and handling any film. This was a box I purchased specifically for this trip; I shot two rolls and the rest stayed in my bag and I shot them off over the next couple of months, then they sat on my desk in my office (which has no overhead lights, just desk lamps, and they were in a dark brown plastic bag. I understand the reason for the expiry date question; I just don't have it as I don't keep a huge backstock of film to shoot so my film is always shot years before its expiry.

It's always hot in Arizona in August (most Europeans have not the first clue what HOT really means). I have never once seen ambient heat affect film, even at 118-120 degrees fahrenheit. I'm sure that others have had a different experience, but as an experiment I left film in my car for a week in the summer last summer, where it can reach 175-200 degrees F during the day, and it's not been affected much if at all. Granted that wasn't color Ektar but still.

I never cover the eyepiece on any camera I shoot with, and I never have seen a problem. And in Arizona, where we have 350 days of clear sunny days a year, that's saying something. In fact, I don't own an eyepiece cover for these cameras; if you can find me one I might use it, but I've never seen one and I've never heard of one ever having been made for this camera -- Norita 66 parts and accessories are damn near impossible to find. If this problem was caused by light leaking in from behind, it would not cause KODAK and 6 to be burned into the film, anyway. The film would show some indications of light leak.

This is not the only photo I shot that day... um, do you go out and shoot only one image and then go home? The other negatives are all too busy to be able to see any anomalies. I shot two negatives of this scene and the other one may show some evidence of ghosting, but I can't be sure as I don't know what the backing paper looks like for Ektar to match it up to the pattern.

AGX, I am not bothered if the manufacturer does reject my negative as a non-issue. One instance of an issue may well be a fluke, mishandling of film, something that caused it. But if others are having the issue as well, then it's a problem. A friend of mine works at a camera shop in town -- we have a large film-shooting community here -- and when the black and white film issue was popping up, she recommended the store management remove the film from the sales floor. They refused at first, until she pointed out that a lot of our film people use film in weddings, and it would be BAD to sell someone film for a wedding that had a known problem.

 

[AgX]

In the past I have discussed a lot of artefacts and explained some. So I am not biased.

It may be me, it may be my monitor.
But I do not see it.

 

[faberryman]

I feel like a member of the crowd as the emperor walks by. I don't see it either but didn't want to say anything, since it may just be the quality of the scans and my laptop screen.

 

[Roger Thoms]

Both the 6 and Kodak show up on my IPhone 5s. That being said if didn't no to look I would have missed them. I bet they show up nicely on a light box. I've been lucky so far, haven't had any issues with the Kodak 120 film I've been shooting.

Roger

 

[LAG]

LAG:
You need to read through the really long threads on this.
In some ways, it isn't actually a problem with the film, but rather a problem with the backing paper and the printing on it.

Thank you Matt for your time and your explanation, and the advice to read (I don't mind reading long threads, and I'll do it when I have the time), but I hope it doesn't bother you if I tell you that I would like to hear the answers to my questions anyway (if Chadinko is so kind).

I didn't say that it was a problem with the film - it's obviously the relation between both paper/film (in that order) with light, and consequently with all that it is marked on the first one -, but with the same obviousness exacerbated by other factors, and with different treatment depending on the film structure, of course.

Some with knowledge of the printing industry have opined that the problem may be due to the new soy based inks that the printing industry has changed to, due to environmental and other concerns.

<<Some with knowledge ... opined that the problem may be>> that sounds strange to me, and not very reliable. If they are not sure, it seems that my questions (misguided assumptions if you prefer), even though unanswered, are at the same level, (and sorry to say, with the same strenght).

The ink appears to be interacting with the film emulsion - where the numbers and words are, the emulsion seems to become more sensitive, the negatives are slightly more dense, and light coloured images appear in prints.

<<The ink appears to be>>, again with the same reliability. Of course numbers, words and guidelines interact but they do as a space reservation "added" (acting as a mask) to that protective second skin, and therefore at the moment of exposure the Light integration treat both (skin & skin/ink) differently.

Perhaps we are talking about the same thing.
Kind regards!

If I was in charge of this at the manufacturer I would have rejected it as non issue.

Me too!

 

[Chadinko]

Both the 6 and Kodak show up on my IPhone 5s. That being said if didn't no to look I would have missed them. I bet they show up nicely on a light box. I've been lucky so far, haven't had any issues with the Kodak 120 film I've been shooting.

Roger

I didn't catch the Kodak at first but it's definitely there. The original scan is at 4800 ppi so it's very high resolution, but I can see it Ok on the lower res scans as well. It might be your monitor, or.maybe your eyes? When my eyes were tired last night I had a difficult time seeing it too.

 

[macfred]

I can see the 6 on the left and also parts of a a lettering on the right side of the sky - for me it's better visible with -slightly- reduced monitor brightness.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Where Kodak has identified backing paper print transfer to the emulsion, it will have advised affected emulsions by batch range. Typically, this has been the case with a large batch of TMax 100 (et al) emulsions in 120 format.

I am not aware that Kodak has issued an advisory, nor have dealers, relating to backing paper print transfer to emulsion in any of Kodak's colour products.

In your case, there is insufficient visual impact evidence at either normal or high resolution to warrant concern. I venture to suggest, having viewed the images on no less than 4 specialist monitors, that it is a non-issue.

The images posted do not prove that the film has a fault commonly known to TMax emulsions. Your film may have been subject to other circumstances that may or may not have affected the film including but not limited to improper storage and use (deep frozen to in-camera too quickly), exposure to heat after exposure... any number of things. And this can apply to all films, not necessarily or exclusively Kodak's.

Historically, professional users of Kodak's products have returned defective films to their dealer, who then advises the local Kodak distributor of returned products and withdraws only the returned products from sale. If an effective batch is still in the dealer fridge, it is not removed by sole reason of a couple of rolls or so being returned as faulty, because individual films in the blighted batch may actually be fine, while others are not. It is very much a game of chance.

In my case, 2 rolls of obviously faulty TMax 100 120 rolls were returned to the dealer (who then marked them with a large red 'X'). Personal (and sustained!) follow-up with Kodak (not through the dealer) resulted in 4 rolls of TMax 100 being provided to me free of charge. This was in July of 2016. No problems were found with these replacement emulsions.

 

[LAG]

There is another "k" before the "6"

 

[Sirius Glass]

I cannot see the 6 nor the Kodak on my screen. All that counts is what is on a print, because if you cannot hold a print or slide, it is not a photograph.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Starting with the basics, how about we tighten and tidy up composition a bit?
This is I think where the concern should be. A lot of wasted asphalt, blank featureless blue sky and large swathes of stucco.

 

[LAG]

... I have never once seen ambient heat affect film, even at 118-120 degrees fahrenheit. I'm sure that others have had a different experience, but as an experiment I left film in my car for a week in the summer last summer, where it can reach 175-200 degrees F during the day, and it's not been affected much if at all. Granted that wasn't color Ektar but still.

Hot affects paper (important in this case) - but let me add that hot affects film too! -

I never cover the eyepiece on any camera I shoot with, and I never have seen a problem. And in Arizona, where we have 350 days of clear sunny days a year, that's saying something. In fact, I don't own an eyepiece cover for these cameras; if you can find me one I might use it, but I've never seen one and I've never heard of one ever having been made for this camera -- Norita 66 parts and accessories are damn near impossible to find. If this problem was caused by light leaking in from behind, it would not cause KODAK and 6 to be burned into the film, anyway. The film would show some indications of light leak.

Light leaking from behind, hits paper (also important in this case). I haven't got a clue where you can find those accessories for the Norita, sorry. But I do know (and I am sure you too) how to cover and protect any camera from unsuitable light ...

This is not the only photo I shot that day... um, do you go out and shoot only one image and then go home? The other negatives are all too busy to be able to see any anomalies. I shot two negatives of this scene and the other one may show some evidence of ghosting, but I can't be sure as I don't know what the backing paper looks like for Ektar to match it up to the pattern.

Chadinko, to ask your question: I do sometimes stop my car, take a photo and continue my journey, I cannot know exactly what you did, that's why I asked. In fact, you took two of this scene, and that's what I really wanted to know, unfortunately (as you've said) is too busy ... (but it can be a possibility to take only one in one day)

Thanks for your answers