Kodak Quality Control Slipping?

[removed account4]

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.

i know what you mean matt
but the guy who tried to return his film
is pretty much a "straight shooter" he isn't the type
to pull a fast one, and when i approached KA they didn't exactly deny
the story. it still seemed kind of strange on both sides of the film box ..
and the stranger part of the story was that even after he wasn't refunded / exchanged film
he bought a large/expensive order of another format ( big sheets ) sold by KA ... if it was me, not sure if i would have
done that if the company had jilted me ... ...
i did check the calendar to make sure it wasn't 4/1 ..

 

[LAG]

...I've been stunk by this problem on 3 separate batches of TMAX 400.

... my one and only trip to Washington DC has been RUINED thanks to defective film (purchased Nov, 2016).

Knowing the above, it seems like it was not a very bright decision on your part.

 

[RattyMouse]

Knowing the above, it seems like it was not a very bright decision on your part.

Well said.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

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...

We do. That's why I included a smiley after my joking "question."

 

[Sal Santamaura]

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...

Where to begin. The problem has appeared previously in Ilford films; it's not exclusive to Kodak. After a decade of tightly-controlled private ownership, HARMAN's finishing materials inventory was undoubtedly much smaller when the paper issue surfaced, thus its ability to rectify things in relatively short order.

Kodak, on the other hand, had probably been working down a much larger backing paper stockpile, so likely didn't discover the issue until later. Recall that it had a full year's supply of acetate base material on hand when the decision to outsource that component was announced. Unlike the "good old days" of vertical integration, Kodak is just as much at the mercy of paper suppliers as any other 120 film manufacturer. Ilford doesn't make color film. TMAX 400 should be expected to suffer stronger artifacts than lower-ISO speed emulsions. Appearance of the wrapper offset problem across different companies at different rates should be expected. Root cause analysis took both Ilford and Kodak to the paper, ink or some combination of those. Assigning blame there isn't wrong, it's correct.

 

[RattyMouse]

From film purchased from B & H last November. (Shot that month too). Developed yesterday.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...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).

Knowing the above, it seems like it was not a very bright decision on your part.

Well said.

Well said indeed. But not for the reason you seem to imply, i.e. that using 120 TMAX 400 is unwise.

Rather, it wasn't bright because, having full knowledge of the wrapper offset issue from numerous APUG threads, you purchased that film at retail two months ago, didn't check its emulsion number, didn't take the simple step of sending an email message to Thomas Mooney at Kodak Alaris (which would have resulted in free replacement with 120 TMAX 400 made using the new backing paper) and then consciously used film from a known bad batch to make images on your big trip.

Sometimes one's desire to denigrate a particular film manufacturer can backfire. Your actions hurt only you. Your posts on the subject are transparently anti-Kodak; those reading them can discern motivation, ignore the trash talk and know enough to take advantage of the extraordinary product that TMY-2 is.

Over the years I've been and continue to be a very vocal supporter of HARMAN. My appreciation and use of TMAX 400 (in 120, 4x5 and, if a few more people make commitments to the special order, 5x7) does nothing to diminish that.

 

[Photo Engineer]

As noted before, this rash of problems is not exclusive to Kodak. See the other threads. If you have a defect, and the emulsion # is posted on APUG, you have no one but yourself to blame for not heeding the warning.

PS. I cant seem to see your problem in the picture!

PE

 

[Cropline]

PE, just started reading this thread at your response. Look in/on the childs forehead.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Thanks. I see it now.

PE

 

[Sirius Glass]

You need to step back and take a breath. Ilford had the problem too. So Kodak is not the only one with the problem. Think about it. There is now only one company that makes the paper. They print the paper. If they screwed up on the ink, then both Kodak and Ilford will have the problem.

 

[RattyMouse]

You need to step back and take a breath. Ilford had the problem too. So Kodak is not the only one with the problem. Think about it. There is now only one company that makes the paper. They print the paper. If they screwed up on the ink, then both Kodak and Ilford will have the problem.

The problems posted are by far shown to be with Kodak. Where is the problem with Ilford? What lot numbers are affected? Where is the statement that they are aware of the problem and are working on it? I dont see it, but perhaps I have missed it.

I havent seen a single example of a roll of Fuji film showing this problem.

 

[RattyMouse]

Well said indeed. But not for the reason you seem to imply, i.e. that using 120 TMAX 400 is unwise.

Rather, it wasn't bright because, having full knowledge of the wrapper offset issue from numerous APUG threads,

The last time I had this problem was in 2015. Since then I have moved my family to a new continent and started a new phase in life. I seriously forgot that this was an issue. I havent shot much film since moving back to the states. This last November was my first USA travel in 15 years so was able to shoot some film.

you purchased that film at retail two months ago, didn't check its emulsion number, didn't take the simple step of sending an email message to Thomas Mooney at Kodak Alaris (which would have resulted in free replacement with 120 TMAX 400 made using the new backing paper) and then consciously used film from a known bad batch to make images on your big trip.

All after the fact.

Sometimes one's desire to denigrate a particular film manufacturer can backfire. Your actions hurt only you. Your posts on the subject are transparently anti-Kodak; those reading them can discern motivation, ignore the trash talk and know enough to take advantage of the extraordinary product that TMY-2 is.

Abject nonsense. If I were anti Kodak, I wouldnt even be using TMAX 400. Nor would my current film stash include several boxes of Portra 400 and Ektar 100. I've got a good 20 rolls of Kodak film in my fridge, if not more.

One can be very upset with Kodak, believe that they have very poor quality (based on personal experience), and not hate them. It's not a zero sum game.

It probably does look ridiculous on the outside as to why I use Kodak film since I have clear proof that I keep ending up with defective film. I've shot TMAX 400 film ever since I fell in love with the results I got while shooting in Japan over 6 trips throughout the years. It's hard to let go, I just instinctively buy TMAX 400 when I want this ISO speed film. I should move on and I will now. Clearly Kodak doesnt care about quality. How hard would it be to call up B & H, give them the lot numbers and say, "if you have any of this film, send it back and we'll get you the good stuff"???

That's all it would have taken to prevent me from buying defective film. They have gone through the work to identify which batches are bad, why not USE that information? B & H and a few other places like Freestyle and Amazon.com probably sell 80% of their film in the US. Recall it! At my company, when we identify a bad produce of ours, we move HEAVEN and EARTH to get it out of the customer's hands. We value our brand, we value our products and won't accept the possibility that our customer might have a problem due to our fault.

I wish Kodak had that commitment to quality.

If B & H is still passing bad film onto customers as late as 11/2016, then you can bet your last dollar that plenty of other customers are getting burned bad by their defective film. It ain't just me.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The problems posted are by far shown to be with Kodak. Where is the problem with Ilford? What lot numbers are affected? Where is the statement that they are aware of the problem and are working on it? I dont see it, but perhaps I have missed it.

I havent seen a single example of a roll of Fuji film showing this problem.

Harmon posted on APUG that they have the same problem with the 120 Ilford film. So the manufacturer has confirmed the problem.

 

[Photo Engineer]

And, Kodak may well have contacted dealers to recall the affected batches. We don't know. Those dealers are really anonymous at this point.

PE

 

[RattyMouse]

Harmon posted on APUG that they have the same problem with the 120 Ilford film. So the manufacturer has confirmed the problem.

I must have missed the dozens of posts showing the problem.

Same with Fuji.

 

[RattyMouse]

And, Kodak may well have contacted dealers to recall the affected batches. We don't know. Those dealers are really anonymous at this point.

PE

PE, if they contacted B & H, I wouldnt have been able to buy defective film.

I can't believe that I work for the only company in the world that cares about customers. This is basic stuff folks. We've got a recall going on right now, trying to get back every drum of product we have sold from a batch that has been found to be defective. Right down to the last 5 gallon pail for the smaller customers, we WILL get it back as long as it is in the customer's hand.

 

[Photo Engineer]

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

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

And, Kodak may well have contacted dealers to recall the affected batches. We don't know. Those dealers are really anonymous at this point.

PE

Kodak Australia took back an entire cross-haired batch from retailers last year (August?). I think there is still some affected films circulating around eBay with private resellers, IDK. It certainly would not have been a proper business decision to leave the affected batch for sale in dealers. I had a lot to say about this when I visited Kodak in person in Hawthorn, despite their peculiarly blasé and willowy disposition!

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Harmon posted on APUG that they have the same problem with the 120 Ilford film. So the manufacturer has confirmed the problem.

I must have missed the dozens of posts showing the problem...

You started a 31-post thread on this very problem with Ilford film you used:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)​

 

[Arctic amateur]

It's possible to attach all manner of data loggers, sensors and indicators to freight. Let's hope Alaris now slaps humidity/temperature loggers on shipments to major distributors.

 

[LAG]

... it wasn't bright because, having full knowledge of the wrapper offset issue from numerous APUG threads, you purchased that film ...

Well said

... are transparently anti-Kodak

The word "Anti" is a transparently double-edged sword

If I were anti Kodak, I wouldnt even be using TMAX 400. Nor would my current film stash include several boxes of Portra 400 and Ektar 100. I've got a good 20 rolls of Kodak film in my fridge, if not more.

One can be very upset with Kodak, believe that they have very poor quality (based on personal experience), and not hate them. It's not a zero sum game.

Not necessarily! our words - and personal experience - speak for ourselves. What is clear is that "you can lead or take a horse to the water but you can’t make it drink". Anyway, there should be nothing - and nobody - to prevent us from using the film we want.

It probably does look ridiculous on the outside as to why I use Kodak film since I have clear proof that I keep ending up with defective film.

No offense, but "ridiculous" just because you took it "to a one and only trip". That's exactly what I wanted to say with the "not very bright" part.

Clearly Kodak doesnt care about quality...

Clearly the word quality is too large and it points out different aspects, let's hope we're talking here about "quality Control"and not about the inherent "quality Product engineering itself", one thing does not rule out the other. Although you're almost right, a stitch in time (saves nine), something that Kodak - whatever the source of the problem - should have handled better, publicly.

when we identify a bad produce of ours, we move HEAVEN and EARTH to get it out of the customer's hands.

Sometimes it's not always that easy as Photo Engineer said before, but again you're almost right. I believe that we don't have that "global-moving" sensation by the Kodak Company.

Clearly Kodak can't turn back time, and when the cat’s away the mice will play.

Kind regards!

 

[RattyMouse]

You started a 31-post thread on this very problem with Ilford film you used:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)​

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.

 

[RattyMouse]

It certainly would not have been a proper business decision to leave the affected batch for sale in dealers. I had a lot to say about this when I visited Kodak in person in Hawthorn, despite their peculiarly blasé and willowy disposition!

Agree completely. The defective film should have been recalled.

 

[RattyMouse]

Well said



The word "Anti" is a transparently double-edged sword



Not necessarily! our words - and personal experience - speak for ourselves. What is clear is that "you can lead or take a horse to the water but you can’t make it drink". Anyway, there should be nothing - and nobody - to prevent us from using the film we want.

A bizarre statement since no one is trying to prevent you from using any film.

Sometimes it's not always that easy as Photo Engineer said before, but again you're almost right. I believe that we don't have that "global-moving" sensation by the Kodak Company.



Kind regards!

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.