Kodak Quality Control Slipping?

[RattyMouse]

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 would have thought film purchased on a few months ago from one of the highest volume film sellers would have had the latest paper.

Do you find complaining more satisfying than obtaining the pictures you seek?

My pictures are gone. Nothing I say here or any action Kodak takes after the fact will bring them back.

If not, what is your motivation? Simply repeating lectures about how Kodak 'should' have dealt with the situation won't answer these questions.

The world isn't the way I'd like it to be. Reality sucks, but it's real. After 63 years of dealing with reality, I've learned to cope with it instead of fighting it. The results are better and my existence is more peaceful. Something to consider.

Angry customers can and DO change companies. Complacent customers who coddle under performing companies do not. There are a multitude of examples in history that show this to be true. I have gotten a good half dozen PM's from various forum members agreeing with me in this discussion and informing me that they will not buy Kodak film again, all because of Kodak Alaris' response to this problem. I can see clear evidence that I am not a lonely voice in this issue.

Angry, unsatisfied customers are agents of change.

 

[AgX]

Chadinko and RattyMouse, you better stop it.

 

[Chadinko]

Chadinko and RattyMouse, you better stop it.

You're quite right. As of now, I have stopped it.

 

[LAG]

[Joke modeON]

Mellow greetings, RattyMouse. What seems to be your boggle?

This morning I was in a 2 hour meeting inside my own company and the topic was how to recall 1900 gallons of product that was found to be defective. I kept thinking to myself, why doesnt Kodak have these meetings? ...

Why on earth would they want to do those meetings? having the option of reading this threads on APUG to learn it all here from you ...

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.

...instead of Kodak notifying customers about this issue, they are sitting on their hands, hoping no one will notice.

Kodak Alaris had that opportunity and quietly declined to stand behind their product's quality.

Excuse me these three quotes, could you please answer this question: Why? (since Kodak do not report anything about them, I think that you can give us the answers yourself, by the way you speak it seems that you know more about Kodak than themselves)

[Joke modeOFF]

... I have simply dumped my excess defective film (around 18 rolls) into the garbage.

It's a pity RattyMouse, I'd have liked one or two of them, but do not get me wrong not because the film is Kodak, because I would have liked to have some affected rolls to do some tests myself! (Let's say I am silly, if you ask)

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.

Compare company policies I do not think it's very accurate.

I like your persistence attitude, that reminds me on a saying from the book "The Quixote" ... I can not translate the text literally, but more or less comes to say: "speak of me, even if it is bad, but speak. The more fights you have, the more fun the affair gets, the more often you'll hear my name"

What I do not like is your rough behavior, but again I'm sure is my bad when reading.

Best of luck!

My pictures are gone. Nothing I say here or any action Kodak takes after the fact will bring them back.

If your problem can be solved, what are you complaining about? And if it can not be solved, what are you complaining about?

 

[Photo Engineer]

This problem has arisen over the years, but not with Kodak film. Yes, of course, Kodak film 30 or 50 years old had a problem, but not this type using fresh film. And the reason is that until just recently, Kodak made its own paper and compounded its own inks. Recently (in the scheme of things about 10 years) they began to outsource it.

Now, as I understand it, the tests of this new paper gave it a "pass" but now rather random samples are turning up with these images. As of now, no one is sure what the problem is, paper, ink, storage and etc and what combination. Some are bad and some good.

Yes, they handled it poorly. But I can assure you there were meetings galore on this one trying to figure it out. AFAIK, they are still not sure, but I am poorly informed at best.

PE

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...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 would have thought film purchased on a few months ago from one of the highest volume film sellers would have had the latest paper...

Rather than "thought" a better word would be "assumed." We both know what A-S-S-U-M-E stands for.

...Do you find complaining more satisfying than obtaining the pictures you seek?...

...My pictures are gone. Nothing I say here or any action Kodak takes after the fact will bring them back...

Exactly. Is it satisfying to say such things anyway? Venting?

...If not, what is your motivation? Simply repeating lectures about how Kodak 'should' have dealt with the situation won't answer these questions.

The world isn't the way I'd like it to be. Reality sucks, but it's real. After 63 years of dealing with reality, I've learned to cope with it instead of fighting it. The results are better and my existence is more peaceful. Something to consider.

...Angry customers can and DO change companies. Complacent customers who coddle under performing companies do not. There are a multitude of examples in history that show this to be true. I have gotten a good half dozen PM's from various forum members agreeing with me in this discussion and informing me that they will not buy Kodak film again, all because of Kodak Alaris' response to this problem. I can see clear evidence that I am not a lonely voice in this issue.

Angry, unsatisfied customers are agents of change.

Methinks you and the six others who've sent you PMs are engaged in a very dumb exercise wherein you cut off your noses to spite your faces.

Kodak Alaris made a business decision on how to handle the backing paper issue knowing full well what its market is. That it might "lose" seven customers, when traded off against the cost of doing things your way instead, was undoubtedly part of its decision-making process. I'd argue that anyone who stops using TMY-2 as a result of their own failure to perform due diligence (given readily available information) is indeed the 'biggest loser' in this situation.

Kodak has for many, many decades included a LIMITATION OF LIABILITY disclaimer on its film which states "This product will be replaced if defective in manufacture or packaging. Except for such replacement, this product is sold without warranty, condition or liability even though defect, damage, or loss is caused by negligence or other fault." If you think you're going to change Kodak via an APUG-driven boycott, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Good luck!

 

[AgX]

Kodak Alaris made a business decision on how to handle the backing paper issue knowing full well what its market is. That it might "lose" seven customers, when traded off against the cost of doing things your way instead, was undoubtedly part of its decision-making process. I'd argue that anyone who stops using TMY-2 as a result of their own failure to perform due diligence (given readily available information) is indeed the 'biggest loser' in this situation.

It is bit more complicated by involving Kodak too, they too have a brand to be secured, especially as they still have consumer products in their range. They should have a decent interest in Kodak Alaris not spoiling the Kodak brand.

 

[MattKing]

It is bit more complicated by involving Kodak too, they too have a brand to be secured, especially as they still have consumer products in their range. They should have a decent interest in Kodak Alaris not spoiling the Kodak brand.

How do you know that it is Kodak Alaris who are blocking a recall? It could be that Kodak Alaris wants to do the recall, but the manufacturer (Eastman Kodak) refuses to contribute, and Kodak Alaris may not have the resources to do it themselves.
Or it could even be their respective insurers who are blocking a recall.
Or the various distributors.
We don't know.

 

[AgX]

I only can repeat myself: it is Kodak Alaris who bring these film into the market, thus it is them to blame.
And all contributors fall in their responsibility as they have chosen them.

And the fault of not communicating correctly cannot be put on their contributors anyway.


We all did discuss at what stage something could have happenerd to great extend here. Thus that it is a complex situation is without question.

 

[RattyMouse]

Chadinko and RattyMouse, you better stop it.

If you dont want to read this thread, GO AWAY.

We, Chadinko and myself, are having an exchange of ideas, which is the entire point of a forum.

 

[RattyMouse]

This problem has arisen over the years, but not with Kodak film. Yes, of course, Kodak film 30 or 50 years old had a problem, but not this type using fresh film. And the reason is that until just recently, Kodak made its own paper and compounded its own inks. Recently (in the scheme of things about 10 years) they began to outsource it.

Now, as I understand it, the tests of this new paper gave it a "pass" but now rather random samples are turning up with these images. As of now, no one is sure what the problem is, paper, ink, storage and etc and what combination. Some are bad and some good.

Yes, they handled it poorly. But I can assure you there were meetings galore on this one trying to figure it out. AFAIK, they are still not sure, but I am poorly informed at best.

PE

PE, I am sure the scientists at Kodak are working hard on this. I know from experience what they are going through. I have to design a product that has years of shelf life, but I dont have tests that run years in length! Test design in these situations is very critical.

The part where Kodak really fell down was in the business end, where they left the customers out to dry. They continue to do this TO THIS DAY.

 

[RattyMouse]

Kodak has for many, many decades included a LIMITATION OF LIABILITY disclaimer on its film which states "This product will be replaced if defective in manufacture or packaging. Except for such replacement, this product is sold without warranty, condition or liability even though defect, damage, or loss is caused by negligence or other fault." If you think you're going to change Kodak via an APUG-driven boycott, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Good luck!

As is typical from one who thinks they are so superior to others, you invent statements and attribute them to me that I NEVER said. My impact on Kodak is as strong as my impact on who is president of the USA. Beyond miniscule. Using your feckless logic, no one should vote, right?

Collectively, customers can and do change companies. Rolling over and letting rich companies abuse customers might make you happy, but not me.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The part where Kodak really fell down was in the business end, where they left the customers out to dry. They continue to do this TO THIS DAY.

Years ago I worked in R&D for a company. The marketing and sales division would sell products that did not exist. Hey if the customer wants it we will give it to him. If sales thought to do so they would give R&D 3 months lead time to develop the product. Unfortunately sales sold a product that could not be made. The lead salesman lost his job. My point is that it is rare for engineers and business people to speak. They reside in different universes.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

They are too busy trying to resurrect Super 8 and Ektachrome to bother.

Kodak has not made a decent camera since 1950`s. Super 8 will be same plastic fantastic.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Angry customers can and DO change companies. Complacent customers who coddle under performing companies do not. There are a multitude of examples in history that show this to be true. I have gotten a good half dozen PM's from various forum members agreeing with me in this discussion and informing me that they will not buy Kodak film again, all because of Kodak Alaris' response to this problem. I can see clear evidence that I am not a lonely voice in this issue.

Angry, unsatisfied customers are agents of change.

...Kodak has for many, many decades included a LIMITATION OF LIABILITY disclaimer on its film which states "This product will be replaced if defective in manufacture or packaging. Except for such replacement, this product is sold without warranty, condition or liability even though defect, damage, or loss is caused by negligence or other fault." If you think you're going to change Kodak via an APUG-driven boycott, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Good luck!

As is typical from one who thinks they are so superior to others, you invent statements and attribute them to me that I NEVER said. My impact on Kodak is as strong as my impact on who is president of the USA. Beyond miniscule. Using your feckless logic, no one should vote, right?...

Nothing I've posted invented anything. Nothing I've posted claimed superiority. You referenced seven people who are planning to boycott Kodak. You directly followed that with talk of changing how Kodak handles things. Politics belongs in the Soap Box, not here. If you'd like to discuss voting, I suggest doing it there. Do note, however, that ad hominem attacks (which demean only the attacker) are prohibited even in that relatively hands-off category.

...Collectively, customers can and do change companies. Rolling over and letting rich companies abuse customers might make you happy, but not me.

Seven customers is one hell of a collective. Describing Kodak's approach to the 120 backing paper problem as 'customer abuse' is quite a stretch. Those who desire to shoot film in the digital age should, in my opinion, be prepared to cope with challenges. When the 120 film is TMY-2, it's worth the trouble of coping. Unless, of course, one is enamored of third-tier products, e.g. Foma. Should that be your preference, go for it. Or have fun shooting all the 400-speed black and white film Fujifilm manufactures today.

 

[Craig]

When the 120 film is TMY-2, it's worth the trouble of coping.

Seriously? I know some people love Tmax, but it's not that great. I've never got anything out of it that particularly impressed me. Where I am, T Max is approximately double the cost of Ilford Delta films, and in 30 years of using Ilford I've never had a single failure. I can't say that about Kodak products. I've had some great things off Ilford films, so why would I pay double for "meh" out of T max?

 

[Craig]

Or have fun shooting all the 400-speed black and white film Fujifilm manufactures today.

Like this one? http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/Neopan400.pdf

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...When the 120 film is TMY-2, it's worth the trouble of coping...

Seriously? I know some people love Tmax, but it's not that great...

Seriously. In my opinion, it is that great.

...in 30 years of using Ilford I've never had a single failure...

I guess you were lucky not to suffer the wrapper offset problem when Ilford had it. You're more fortunate than RattyMouse was in that regard.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Or have fun shooting all the 400-speed black and white film Fujifilm manufactures today.

Like this one? http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/Neopan400.pdf

Nope. That's a discontinued product not manufactured today.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Where I am, T Max is approximately double the cost of Ilford Delta films...why would I pay double for "meh" out of T max?

Since 120 TMY-2 is the subject of this thread, let's check prices at what is undoubtedly the world's largest retailer of it and Ilford's related product:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/29135-USA/Kodak_1695568_TMY_120_T_Max_400.html​

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...1780668_Delta_400_Professional_120_Black.html​

It seems that TMY-2 is 50 cents US cheaper per 120 roll than 120 Delta 400. Many in Canada purchase their film from B&H. If the Canadian Kodak distribution system reverses the price relationship between those two films, I suggest switching to B&H as your supplier.

Again, I've been a very vocal HARMAN supporter for a long time, but facts are facts.

 

[Chadinko]

If you dont want to read this thread, GO AWAY.

We, Chadinko and myself, are having an exchange of ideas, which is the entire point of a forum.

Actually, we were busily disagreeing with each other. I don't think either of us is or was planning to budge in our self-importance and inflated opinions.

 

[Chadinko]

Since 120 TMY-2 is the subject of this thread, let's check prices at what is undoubtedly the world's largest retailer of it and Ilford's related product:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/29135-USA/Kodak_1695568_TMY_120_T_Max_400.html​

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...1780668_Delta_400_Professional_120_Black.html​

It seems that TMY-2 is 50 cents US cheaper per 120 roll than 120 Delta 400. Many in Canada purchase their film from B&H. If the Canadian Kodak distribution system reverses the price relationship between those two films, I suggest switching to B&H as your supplier.

Again, I've been a very vocal HARMAN supporter for a long time, but facts are facts.

I like that stuff Ok but it's over a dollar a roll more than the arista/fomapan I order through freestyle. That dollar a roll allows me to indulge in my 2.25x3.25 and 4x5 sheet film habit.

120 is only a gateway drug.

 

[Chadinko]

Seriously? I know some people love Tmax, but it's not that great. I've never got anything out of it that particularly impressed me. Where I am, T Max is approximately double the cost of Ilford Delta films, and in 30 years of using Ilford I've never had a single failure. I can't say that about Kodak products. I've had some great things off Ilford films, so why would I pay double for "meh" out of T max?

I feel this way about FP4+. Flat and featureless. And that's really, really difficult to do in the Arizona sun.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Anyone who will be boycotting Kodak should let me know so that I can buy up the film that they are boycotting. The less you buy the more there is for me.

 

[Craig]

It seems that TMY-2 is 50 cents US cheaper per 120 roll than 120 Delta 400. Many in Canada purchase their film from B&H. If the Canadian Kodak distribution system reverses the price relationship between those two films, I suggest switching to B&H as your supplier.

At my local photo store, T Max is $18.21 a 120 roll, Delta is $6.90 per 120 roll. B&H's price for Delta converts to about $7.45 Canadian, plus shipping, duty, brokerage and GST. Why would I spend more to wait for it to arrive when my local friendly camera store is a 10 min drive away and is cheaper?

I certainly don't regard Tmax to be so superior to jump through all those hoops to get it vs Ilford products. It was the same when I needed 8x10 film, I could buy it off the shelf locally cheaper than B&H's price, before adding shipping etc plus I had it right away and supported my local retailer.

Rather than switching to B&H, I'll stay with Ilford and my local supply chain, with the added bonus of knowing each frame won't be contaminated. Seems like a reasonable thing to do, no?