There is a surge in the uptake of Fuji 220-format E6 in Australia at the moment; it started in September lasts year and is still going. It is very considerably more expensive than 120.
Kodak Quality Control Slipping?
-
A
- Thread starter Chadinko
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy WTB: Toyo Field 45CF
- Started by Jessxi
-
For Sale Deardorff 5x7 (V5) Camera
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale Deardorff 5x7 (V5) Camera with 4x5 Back
- Started by Barlow
-
Free 3 kits of kodak flexicolor developer, Free in Portland Oregon
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale Horseman 6x12 roll film back
- Started by OlliJ
Forum statistics
OP
OP
Hijacking my own thread... it's either Kodachrome or 616 format. My dad has tens of thousands of 616 negatives and 35mm slides, though he wasn't that picky about what emulsion they were. My ex-wife's uncle, a retired Kodak chemist, chuckled when I mentioned the whole Kodachrome thing and said that it'd been obsolete for 30 years, but still made because people were so stupid about it.
Where would the imprint come from, if not the backing paper?
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2008
- Messages
- 2,816
- Format
- 35mm
Nowhere.....could be just some kind of processing artifact which happens to look like a "6" ? The supposed "imprint" seems very, very, faint, compared with the obvious examples of print-through seen in other threads. Is it in the right place, and is it the same style and size of lettering as on the backing paper ?
My questions too. I looked at a 120 backing paper and the 6 does strongly resemble the Kodak 6, though there are some differences. The lower loop of a Kodak 6 is a closed loop, most noticeably, but perhaps that part just didn't show up since the whole thing is so faint.
Does the 6 appear on frame 6? Didn't feel like rereading the whole thread to see if that's been answered yet.
OP
OP
OP here -- It is not on frame 6. But there is also "Kodak" showing on the right side of the negative, faint but clear. It is not an artifact that happens to look like a 6.
Whether it's on frame 6 or not isn't really relevant, since Frame 6 on a 120 film is entirely dependent upon what camera you are using. This was a 6x6 but the 6 would fall on a different location on the backing paper if I were using my Diana, my Voigtlander Bessa, my baby Graphic with either of two roll backs, a 6x7 or a 645.
So that cannot be used as a measure for judging whether it's really there. I can see it just fine on my desktop computer and my laptop computer, so I would guess that your monitor or calibration is preventing you from seeing it.
I wasn't doubting you, just questioning. I can see the six just fine in your enhanced image and noted its similarity (and differences) to the Kodak 6. I missed wherever you mentioning the word Kodak being in the frame prior to this post.
Indeed the way things must be done (and thirdly, make it public). Indeed another reason "behind" to think about!
Among others ...
And a "k" on the left side, before the 6 (I forgot to blink it on #22, but it's clearly visible)
That's it, indeed! (Camera or back-mask used where appropriate)
As far as tracing the particular rolls, they would have some idea of emulsions and batches, but not which set of backing got used with which film batch. If, as is surmised, the problem is more with the backing than the film, the system to track the film (based on batch and emulsion) is not going to help track the backing.
Bethe, if you read Bob Shanebrook's book, you will find that Kodak could probably find the area the roll came from to within a few inches by the bar codes on the film and paper backing.
PE
PE
They can tell where it was in the roll(s) at the plant, but not where it has been during shipping and sales. Nor can they tell what conditions it was exposed to after it left the plant.
PE
PE
But that would mean that all batches that already showed to could be harmed are critical, as we neither know the storing conditions of the past nor of the future for these films.
There is no reason to assume these conditions in their variability have change over the last decades.
There is no reason to assume these conditions in their variability have change over the last decades.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
what i find to be strange is that kodak can figure out exactly where on what roll &c the problem was
and knowing the lot and batch numbers &c yet when someone has rolls of film WITHIN those batch and lot numbers
that aren't told to send the rolls in and exchange them but to waste their efforts , time, materials &c to verify they are screwed up
when it is already known they are within "the numbers / known batches" that were messed up.
suggesting they didn't handle the whole problem well is an understatement, the person who mentioned ot me their problem
wasn't from a year and 1/2 ago or a year ago, but during the time a handful of months ago when everyone was being asked to look at the boxes
and determine if their film was part of the group that would be replaced. what is funny is that he still bought a TON ( $$$ ) of special order sheet film
after that, so its not like someone who buys/uses 3 rolls a year and complains ...
and knowing the lot and batch numbers &c yet when someone has rolls of film WITHIN those batch and lot numbers
that aren't told to send the rolls in and exchange them but to waste their efforts , time, materials &c to verify they are screwed up
when it is already known they are within "the numbers / known batches" that were messed up.
suggesting they didn't handle the whole problem well is an understatement, the person who mentioned ot me their problem
wasn't from a year and 1/2 ago or a year ago, but during the time a handful of months ago when everyone was being asked to look at the boxes
and determine if their film was part of the group that would be replaced. what is funny is that he still bought a TON ( $$$ ) of special order sheet film
after that, so its not like someone who buys/uses 3 rolls a year and complains ...
I agree with you in part John, but AgX is wrong. What happens if a large batch went to 3 outlets - NYC, LA and Tokyo. On the way to LA, the refrigerated truck breaks down and the film goes bad. They have no way to know which you bought and which actually went which way.
In the end, they should have jumped right up and yelled about it and recalled the film. They did not. But, just because there was no post on APUG, don't be surprised. We often overrate our importance here.
PE
In the end, they should have jumped right up and yelled about it and recalled the film. They did not. But, just because there was no post on APUG, don't be surprised. We often overrate our importance here.
PE
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
As Bill the cat would say, "pblllltttt!".
PE
PE
But such sure happened in the past too. And no customer complaint. So something must have changed.
If that batch showed surprising artefacts after some time, and people at Kodak assume it was related to the transport but are not knowing details then the whole batch should be recalled not only the part that is affected. That as you pointed out cannot be traced seperately anyway.
Just because under such assumption there is a chance that the so far unaffected parts will undergo such circumstances at other times and places and may these be at the consumer.
I may be harsh on Kodak (whoever of the two), but as already said they are not Impossible, not Maco but the world leader of the past.
On January 22, 2007:
Today:
You mean Kodak still uses those green refrigerated trucks to deliver film? I've been buying as much of my film during cool months as possible for no reason?
we are the most important people in the whole entire world !
I agree but some of us are more important than others.
MattKing
Moderator
John:
I've heard of only one single example of someone not receiving replacement film after they contacted Kodak (the one we discussed). I have the feeling there is something unusual about that example that would cast doubt on the story.
Kodak has not used the Kodak green trucks outside of Kodak Park for years and years. They use commercial shipping. You all should know that.
Kodak does not know the details of shipment from Adorama or Freestyle (no offence meant there, just picking random examples OTOMH) once the film leaves the factory. Not a bit!
The problem is (was) not reacting publicly to the proven first event(s). There must be more than one to prove an event! And, one thing is certain... People are forgetting how to handle analog products. Just remember the sheets of photo paper exposed on Ebay to show it is (authentic and still good)!
PE
Kodak does not know the details of shipment from Adorama or Freestyle (no offence meant there, just picking random examples OTOMH) once the film leaves the factory. Not a bit!
The problem is (was) not reacting publicly to the proven first event(s). There must be more than one to prove an event! And, one thing is certain... People are forgetting how to handle analog products. Just remember the sheets of photo paper exposed on Ebay to show it is (authentic and still good)!
PE
As I understand it, the basic problem is that the film manufacturers allowed those companies that made backing paper to either die out or be absorbed into one. The US federal government has a very wise policy -- they will not buy a product unless two or more separate manufacturers make it. To discourage monopolies they deliberately buy from several companies. They thus avoid a single supplier problem. Pity that Kodak and the other film companies do not have the same philosophy.
The rash of paper problems is exclusive to Kodak, and particularly TMAX 400. If the problem was in fact caused by paper, then it would appear across different companies at the same rate. It has not. Blaming the problem on paper is entirely wrong.
I developed two rolls of TMAX 400 yesterday. I'll be scanning them today and I'm holding my breath that they are OK. I've been stunk by this problem on 3 separate batches of TMAX 400.
Nope....burned again. Paper imprints all over my negatives.
Goodbye TMAX 400....I'll miss ya, but my one and only trip to Washington DC has been RUINED thanks to defective film (purchased Nov, 2016).
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |