Kodak Quality Control Slipping?

[LAG]

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

I disagree

 

[removed account4]

i didn't see the word or number in the sky until
the blinking image---then it stood out like a sore thumb.
bummer, i thought kodak fixed the leak in the boat, i guess not.
i know someone who got a hard time, instead of replaced film when he
contacted kodak with lots numbers &c. hopefully you won't be
given the same treatment when you contact them.
good luck getting your problem fixed !

 

[TimVance]

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.

View attachment 170062

This is your vision not his. Neither are wrong.

I had this same problem with portra 160 in 120 that expired in 2015. The film was developed and scanned by Richard Photo Lab. I was pretty annoyed/saddened to see this. I wonder if fresh portra 400 has this problem?

Anyway, I may switch to digital...

 

[MattKing]

<<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 world is changing, and although Kodak is the customer, they don't have full control of the manufacture of what they buy. The reference to the ink was made not to indicate a solution to the problem, but rather to indicate what sort of unknown variables are being dealt with.

<<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.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. What I was trying to indicate is that the problem isn't one where the ink is transferring to the film and blocking the light. That would result in the numbers and word being un-reversed but darker in a print. Nor is it one where the light is going through the paper, leaving a ghost image of the numbers and word. That would result in the numbers and word being both reversed and darker in a print. Instead it is one where the ink is causing the film to be more sensitive to light - thus giving us numbers and word being both un-reversed and lighter in a print.

 

[Chadinko]

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.

View attachment 170062

You're right about the composition but that's kinda not the point of this thread...

 

[Chadinko]

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.

Interesting assertion. I must ponder that. Because I suppose a digital image which has no mass nor physicality is merely technical magic. I'm not sure it would show up in a print, unless it was printed in such a way as to torture the colors and saturation.

 

[Chadinko]

This is your vision not his. Neither are wrong.

Should be "neither IS wrong."

I had this same problem with portra 160 in 120 that expired in 2015. The film was developed and scanned by Richard Photo Lab. I was pretty annoyed/saddened to see this. I wonder if fresh portra 400 has this problem?

Anyway, I may switch to digital...

I would hope not. Not all the rolls in this box had the problem as far as I know.

And i'm switching FROM digital.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

You're right about the composition but that's kinda not the point of this thread...

Quite so. And the suggestion was made in good faith.
But it deftly fixed a perceived problem!
Also, if the alleged imprint is not visible in printed form (rather than on a computer screen!), again it is a non-issue.

If you this backing paper issue is replicated over several frames and you also find it on another roll, the sensible action to take is to make contact with the dealer where you bought the film, noting the batch number and expiry of the film, and take the exposed and processed film to the dealer for inspection. But the burden of proof of a fault existing with the backing paper is yours, not that of the dealer or Kodak in the absence of knowing the film's history! Many things can happen to film over time, very much so film that is expired, improperly stored, subject to extreme sustained heat and very high or very low humidity.

Backing paper used in all films comes from just one manufacturer, and problems with poor visual identification of numbers in specific circumstances is but one of a litany that cannot be put down to a film manufacturer — it could also be the photographer and/or the camera(s)! It is no good poking an accusing finger at Kodak when they had no choice, save for the possibility (unproven) of improper storage or preparation on Kodak's part (again, how do you prove this?). It is worth noting that the backing paper transfer glitch at one time popped up on Fuji ACROS 100 but was never seen again. I have certainly not experienced that with my own ACROS use.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Interesting assertion. I must ponder that. Because I suppose a digital image which has no mass nor physicality is merely technical magic. I'm not sure it would show up in a print, unless it was printed in such a way as to torture the colors and saturation.

Print. The. Image. Then make a determination. Don't rely on computers for critical inspection.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

[...]

And i'm switching FROM digital.

Good to know. Digital presents its own litany of problems!

 

[Gerald C Koch]

If anyone remembers the actual backing paper problem the numbers were quite large and easy to see. certainly not the case in this post. I have no idea what caused the problem that the OP saw but it was not from the backing paper. If there is any doubt compare the backing paper with the artifacts to see if they are in the right places.

 

[MattKing]

If anyone remembers the actual backing paper problem the numbers were quite large and easy to see. certainly not the case in this post. I have no idea what caused the problem that the OP saw but it was not from the backing paper. If there is any doubt compare the backing paper with the artifacts to see if they are in the right places.

Gerald:
I have some un-exposed T-Max 400 that falls within the batch numbers that have been identified as problematic. Kodak Alaris supplied me with replacement film without requiring return of the film I had. I used one of the "problem" rolls for some pinhole exposure tests.
The "ghost" images are there, just like in the first examples we saw when the problem became apparent, but they are fairly faint. They only show up clearly if I closely examine scans of the negatives. They aren't easily visible if I inspect the negatives with a loupe. They might show up in a large enlargement, but I'm not going to do that with these negatives.

 

[Chadinko]

Quite so. And the suggestion was made in good faith.
But it deftly fixed a perceived problem!
Also, if the alleged imprint is not visible in printed form (rather than on a computer screen!), again it is a non-issue.

If you this backing paper issue is replicated over several frames and you also find it on another roll, the sensible action to take is to make contact with the dealer where you bought the film, noting the batch number and expiry of the film, and take the exposed and processed film to the dealer for inspection. But the burden of proof of a fault existing with the backing paper is yours, not that of the dealer or Kodak in the absence of knowing the film's history! Many things can happen to film over time, very much so film that is expired, improperly stored, subject to extreme sustained heat and very high or very low humidity.

Backing paper used in all films comes from just one manufacturer, and problems with poor visual identification of numbers in specific circumstances is but one of a litany that cannot be put down to a film manufacturer — it could also be the photographer and/or the camera(s)! It is no good poking an accusing finger at Kodak when they had no choice, save for the possibility (unproven) of improper storage or preparation on Kodak's part (again, how do you prove this?). It is worth noting that the backing paper transfer glitch at one time popped up on Fuji ACROS 100 but was never seen again. I have certainly not experienced that with my own ACROS use.

First off, I am not poking "accusing fingers" at Kodak for this. I'm primarily curious as to whether anyone else has had such markings show up on their negatives, because I know Kodak black and white film had been recalled because of such markings. I don't shoot Kodak black and white films often, nor do I shoot color often, so this whole thing is new to me. My primary film I use is Fomapan/Arista.edu and I've never had such markings show up on anything in any format, and these Noritas are my main go-to cameras for fun shooting. When I'm not using a Speed Graphic, of course.

About the non-issue bit, I both agree with you and disagree with you. Quality control issues, if they exist, are always an issue. Whether the consumer thinks they are important or not is the question, because the end-user's results are what matters. If I were planning to use these images in SCANNED form rather than print form, then it would take either a crop as above or some time in Photoshop cleaning them up, and if I were shooting on a tight deadline for a publication, then it may be a real problem because the print isn't what's important here but the scan. You might argue whether 120 color film is the correct medium for a digital image but that argument is for another time, place, planet, and forum.

From the perspective of a consumer who shoots color film every once in a blue moon, as opposed to once in a grayscale moon, it's a non-issue for me personally as I don't plan to do anything with these negatives but scan them and throw them into Photoshop, play with them a little and if I want to print one I'll send it to my pro lab that does all my digital printing for my professional work. So as such, it's no big deal. Genuinely I am not trying to get free film out of Kodak or whoever; I'm trying to let others know that this happened -- however it happened -- and maybe someone else knows about it or is having similar issues.

From the perspective of someone who works in a highly technical field, if I were the manufacturer I would want to know if one of my customers has weird things happening with my product, so as to be able to catch any manufacturing or handling irregularities before they become widespread and become a real problem. As such, I would take all such inquiries seriously and try to figure out what happened. If it requires the batch number and expiry date, great. If not, great as well. If it's caused by mishandling of the film somewhere in the supply chain, or by the consumer, or by the selling agent, then as best as possible identify what caused it and let the consumer know. Most customers who shoot 120 color film, I would imagine, can give a basic rundown of how the film was handled after purchase, though I doubt they could give times and temperatures and barometric pressure readings at altitude and exact geocoordinates of where the frames were shot and all that stuff.

I don't keep records of that stuff. I can figure out by my bank card transaction records exactly when it was purchased, and I know the retailer, but unless the retailer pays attention to that information and records it, there's no way to pull it out so that part of it is a dead end. And anyway, as I have said, to me it doesn't matter. But it may well matter to the manufacturer, which is why I sent them an e-mail.
I can see these markings on at least one other frame, and possibly more than that but I will have to examine them more closely in order to really confirm some of them.

Print. The. Image. Then make a determination. Don't rely on computers for critical inspection.

As I've said, I don't plan to print the image directly from the negative. I don't print color in my darkroom so all my color is done computeralogically. Therefore, the digital scan is the end of the process for me. And the digital scan is where these errant markings show up. Whether they show up in a print from this negative is irrelevant to me.

If anyone remembers the actual backing paper problem the numbers were quite large and easy to see. certainly not the case in this post. I have no idea what caused the problem that the OP saw but it was not from the backing paper. If there is any doubt compare the backing paper with the artifacts to see if they are in the right places.

I don't get the backing paper back when I have color film developed. Do you? Maybe I should start asking the develop lab to save it for me and mark which neg strips came from which rolls?

I can't imagine where ELSE these markings would have come from. My camera certainly has no Kodak branding, and a camera is a simple machine incapable of inscribing these markings on the film. And the only other Kodak things I own are 1930s-1950s folders, a couple of box Brownies, a baby Bakelite Brownie, and a Retina Reflex III. So I don't know what might have printed Kodak on the film except the backing paper.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

because I know Kodak black and white film had been recalled

Recalled ?
That's news to me.
Kodak was made acutely aware of the problem some time ago and acknowledged this (in TMax emulsions by batch) in a separate, long and tedious thread here on APUG in 2015-2016). A problem existed with the backing paper, possibly through improper storage prior to delivery, maybe too some other things. Some photographers had very serious proven problems with backing paper numbers (bigger, bolder and much more glaringly obvious) right up to print production, never mind about what is/was seen on-screen. Thus it was a simple arrangement to return the blighted films to the dealer and let the dealer and Kodak sort it out. As I have mentioned from previous experience, I was offered 4 replacement new batch TMax rolls in addition to 2 rolls of Rollei CR200.

Isolated cases of numbers etc appearing on film can be put down to many circumstances e.g. the post earlier about Portra 160. One roll out of ... how many successively?? Roll after roll after roll after roll constitutes a problem. Isolated frames over a roll could mean anything!!

The 'fault' in the digital scan is far too faint to be of a serious concern in your images. Others here have pointed out how difficult it is to see anything, and it requires a damned hard and strained look to pick out anything at all! I can see myriad dust spots; therefore, deal with those first.

Summarily, it is most likely not the fault that has been iterated at great length in separate threads on the subject.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

From the perspective of a consumer who shoots color film every once in a blue moon, as opposed to once in a grayscale moon, it's a non-issue for me personally as I don't plan to do anything with these negatives but scan them and throw them into Photoshop, play with them a little and if I want to print one I'll send it to my pro lab that does all my digital printing for my professional work.

If you have Photoshop, deal with minor blemishes like this, what you are taking issue with, as you would with the normal de-specking process, irrespective of whether it is for print or web.

 

[Chadinko]

Recalled ?
That's news to me.
Kodak was made acutely aware of the problem some time ago and acknowledged this (in TMax emulsions by batch) in a separate, long and tedious thread here on APUG in 2015-2016). A problem existed with the backing paper, possibly through improper storage prior to delivery, maybe too some other things. Some photographers had very serious proven problems with backing paper numbers (bigger, bolder and much more glaringly obvious) right up to print production, never mind about what is/was seen on-screen. Thus it was a simple arrangement to return the blighted films to the dealer and let the dealer and Kodak sort it out. As I have mentioned from previous experience, I was offered 4 replacement new batch TMax rolls in addition to 2 rolls of Rollei CR200.

OK maybe not recalled, but at the very least pulled from the shelves by the shops here in the Phoenix area. A good friend of mine was working at one of those shops and fought to have those batches pulled, and after they were I don't know what the outcome was. I'll ask her when I see her, just because I'm nosy that way.

Isolated cases of numbers etc appearing on film can be put down to many circumstances e.g. the post earlier about Portra 160. One roll out of ... how many successively?? Roll after roll after roll after roll constitutes a problem. Isolated frames over a roll could mean anything!!

I am not disagreeing with that. But I still believe that any manufacturer would want to know even the seemingly isolated incidents, as tracking isolated incidents can suggest a general trend, or not. And not is a good thing.

The 'fault' in the digital scan is far too faint to be of a serious concern in your images. Others here have pointed out how difficult it is to see anything, and it requires a damned hard and strained look to pick out anything at all! I can see myriad dust spots; therefore, deal with those first.

I agree. It's not a serious concern in my images. The dust, well... dust is dust. I may have to disassemble my scanner and blow it out.

Summarily, it is most likely not the fault that has been iterated at great length in separate threads on the subject.

I never claimed it was. I was wondering if it might not be something similar, if it were more widespread. And I try not to make tedious threads where people iterate at great lengths. They get tedious.

BTW I respect someone who knows the proper way to use a semicolon and the word "myriad." That partially restores my faith in humanity.

But only partially

 

[railwayman3]

Can we see the original negative lined up at the side of the backing paper to prove that the supposed "6" and the "Kodak" (I can't see the latter) are actually some kind of print-through from the backing. I'd then be more convinced that there is an issue.

 

[LAG]

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. What I was trying to indicate is that the problem isn't one where the ink is transferring to the film and blocking the light. That would result in the numbers and word being un-reversed but darker in a print. Nor is it one where the light is going through the paper, leaving a ghost image of the numbers and word. That would result in the numbers and word being both reversed and darker in a print. Instead it is one where the ink is causing the film to be more sensitive to light - thus giving us numbers and word being both un-reversed and lighter in a print.

I was trying to say that when there is a problem with the "backing paper", the problem is in the "paper" and not the conflict areas with ink (--> being the ink-trace the final visual problem, however is not the source). Let me put it this way, if the paper did not have any of these marks nowhere, the problem would still exist with light in a uniform manner for those poor-prepared papers, but without "trace/mirror" problem with ink, due to the fact that there is no such ink reservation for numbers, letters, dots, etc ... for the light to raffle.

Excuse my poor technical english.
Best

p.s. spellcheck

 

[LAG]

From the perspective of someone who works in a highly technical field, if I were the manufacturer I would want to know if one of my customers has weird things happening with my product, so as to be able to catch any manufacturing or handling irregularities before they become widespread and become a real problem. As such, I would take all such inquiries seriously and try to figure out what happened. If it requires the batch number and expiry date, great. If not, great as well. If it's caused by mishandling of the film somewhere in the supply chain, or by the consumer, or by the selling agent, then as best as possible identify what caused it and let the consumer know. Most customers who shoot 120 color film, I would imagine, can give a basic rundown of how the film was handled after purchase, though I doubt they could give times and temperatures and barometric pressure readings at altitude and exact geocoordinates of where the frames were shot and all that stuff.

That’s it, you are right! but bear in mind this, If I were the manufacturer (or even a simple user) I would be interested in all the information you can supply so as to be taken into account as an issue ... to help them, you and the rest, right?

I don't keep records of that stuff. I can figure out by my bank card transaction records exactly when it was purchased, and I know the retailer, but unless the retailer pays attention to that information and records it, there's no way to pull it out so that part of it is a dead end. And anyway, as I have said, to me it doesn't matter. But it may well matter to the manufacturer, which is why I sent them an e-mail.

I can see these markings on at least one other frame, and possibly more than that but I will have to examine them more closely in order to really confirm some of them. .

If you have had (seen) a problem with one exposure, I am almost completely sure that the whole roll (paper) is affected (I say "almost" because there is the possibility - though much more strange - of a partial paper damage), but another thing is that you can be able to see them all, because of the different light conditions (and the degree of light ink-fixing with it) at the time of the exposure (…and also as you’ve already said, because some of thems are too busy to appreciate it)

I don't get the backing paper back when I have color film developed. Do you? Maybe I should start asking the develop lab to save it for me and mark which neg strips came from which rolls?

Excuse me my trespass on your concerns, if I can answer that question, in my case, everytime I have sent film to a lab I asked them to return “everything” with it, and when it is a 120 type, that includes spool and paper.

 

[LAG]

Quite so. And the suggestion was made in good faith.

But it deftly fixed a perceived problem!

Excuse me Poisson Du Jour

As far as I am concerned with my “disagree” opinion, I must say that I’ve made it in good faith as well, I am so sorry if you got the wrong end of the stick.

Just out of curiosity, I have recently post (there was a url link here which no longer exists) and it seems that nobody wants to talk about it (or perhaps due to other reasons, or no one has ever found it or see it) I deeply respect your opinion (having the opposite).

Anyway, his image could be a start for you to post there (or any other) to talk about the way you do (see/look/analyze), I would be glad to hear your opinion (and others of course) in this subject

Best

 

[Chadinko]

Can we see the original negative lined up at the side of the backing paper to prove that the supposed "6" and the "Kodak" (I can't see the latter) are actually some kind of print-through from the backing. I'd then be more convinced that there is an issue.

No. For the simple reason that I don't have it. I don't shoot color often and i've never had an issue before so it never occurred to me to ask for spool and paper back.

 

[removed account4]

Anyway, I may switch to digital...

naah just don't use that manufacturer's film anymore -- there are other films on the market
that might work for you. if you absolutely love the images you made with this defective film
you might use the magic of hybrid printing or as it is called now, a commercial lab, to print your print
and ask them to retouch the sky a little bit if you can't do it yourself.
OR .... if you want to learn how to retouch the print yourself,
this might be of help too (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

good luck !

 

[Chadinko]

That’s it, you are right! but bear in mind this, If I were the manufacturer (or even a simple user) I would be interested in all the information you can supply so as to be taken into account as an issue ... to help them, you and the rest, right?

Yes I did say that too.

If you have had (seen) a problem with one exposure, I am almost completely sure that the whole roll (paper) is affected (I say "almost" because there is the possibility - though much more strange - of a partial paper damage), but another thing is that you can be able to see them all, because of the different light conditions (and the degree of light ink-fixing with it) at the time of the exposure (…and also as you’ve already said, because some of thems are too busy to appreciate it)

There's at least two other frames on that negative strip that I can see markings on, so I will assume that all 12 frames are affected, even though I can't see it clearly on the really busy frames.

Excuse me my trespass on your concerns, if I can answer that question, in my case, everytime I have sent film to a lab I asked them to return “everything” with it, and when it is a 120 type, that includes spool and paper.

This is a good thing to do. I'm going to do it this way too from now on. If for no other reason than to add to the large pile of spools I have stacking up in my darkroom. Can't have too many empty spools.

 

[pentaxuser]

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

 

[Chadinko]

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

The frame number on the bottom of this particular negative is 4. But that doesn't mean anything, I think, because frame numbers vary from 120 camera to 120 camera because of format; 6x9 is going to have a different frame number to 6x7 and 6x4.5 and 6x6 and toy cameras.