Kodak Quality Control Slipping?

[Photo Engineer]

... and there are thousands of test that COULD be run if you knew there was a need for them. I'm sure this issue 'blind sided' the small QC staff remaining.

The initial acceptance tests would have run them and from then on, a smaller subset would have been used. This is what happened way back when. Those thousands of tests were only used as spot checks.

PE

 

[DWThomas]

(As this thread keeps popping up it occurs to me perhaps when when the 2nd Bandit/Outlaw icon gets deleted they could replace it with the animated whip beating the prostrate horse! )

 

[Mike Kukulski]

p.s. "Could you please attach here a quick visual reference to the negative, both the affected area shown and the keycodes as well? I would be very grateful"

Best!

I do not believe that 120 film has key codes, just 35mm and 16mm. My negatives only have frame numbers on the edges, and my negatives show the same printing artifacts you could see in my posted image.

 

[DWThomas]

I do not believe that 120 film has key codes, just 35mm and 16mm. My negatives only have frame numbers on the edges, and my negatives show the same printing artifacts you could see in my posted image.

On the edge of the 120 film with the frame numbers, next to the 11 frame number, on the side toward number 12, should be a stamped emulsion number. It is actually stamped with some sort of edged fine metal font, not printed (and I didn't believe it the first time I heard about it either! )

 

[Craig]

The initial acceptance tests would have run them and from then on, a smaller subset would have been used.

A statistically sound way of doing it, as I would have expected. It's just too bad that something was missed between specification and testing that allowed this to slip through the cracks.

 

[Chadinko]

That would be my bet - especially if the film was exposed to high humidity conditions.

What about dry warm temperatures? Everyone seems to rabbit on about high humidity levels. We don't get those here in Arizona, and it was my original post that started this rant-fest.

And for that I sincerely apologize

It is these relentless rants and public vendetta that killed any sympathy that I had had. The offender has gone on anti-Kodak rants in the past and the tantrums run on for months. At this point they have much the same consideration as background radiation in a normal environment.

I already raised my children, so it is not my job to train the offender.

Amen.

 

[LAG]

"Could you please attach here ... the keycodes as well? I would be very grateful"

I do not believe that 120 film has key codes,

On the edge of the 120 film with the frame numbers, next to the 11 frame number, on the side toward number 12, should be a stamped emulsion number.

Thank you DWThomas

 

[LAG]

"Could you please attach here a quick visual reference to the negative? I would be very grateful"

... my negatives show the same printing artifacts you could see in my posted image.

So your answer is No, thank you

 

[LAG]

... a smaller subset would have been used.

Falls within the probabilities, indeed

 

[Lachlan Young]

For what it's worth here are a few backing papers of some Kodak C-41 120 films I processed on Tuesday - exp 2007 160VC on left, exp 2011 160nc in middle, exp 08/2018 Portra 160 on right. The new printing style is clearly obvious & there is no evidence of offsetting etc from any of the films on the high-res scans I have done (Hasselblad X5 for reference). The older films were given to me shortly before Christmas & I bought the Portra 160 pro-pack about 1 month ago. The ink density on the 08/18 is in the range of Ilford's 120 films I think.

 

[LAG]

For what it's worth here are a few backing papers of some Kodak C-41 120 films I processed on Tuesday - exp 2007 160VC on left, exp 2011 160nc in middle, exp 08/2018 Portra 160 on right. The new printing style is clearly obvious & there is no evidence of offsetting etc from any of the films on the high-res scans I have done (Hasselblad X5 for reference). The older films were given to me shortly before Christmas & I bought the Portra 160 pro-pack about 1 month ago. The ink density on the 08/18 is in the range of Ilford's 120 films I think.
View attachment 171076 View attachment 171077

There are other examples of backing papers (there was a url link here which no longer exists) even with the papers appreciated under ultraviolet light.

Very kind of you to share this anyway, should you have any other information about that, do not hesitate to share, I would be grateful

Thank you Lachlan

 

[Prof_Pixel]

What about dry warm temperatures? Everyone seems to rabbit on about high humidity levels. We don't get those here in Arizona, and it was my original post that started this rant-fest.

Did you store the film in your refrigerator at any time?

 

[MattKing]

For what it's worth here are a few backing papers of some Kodak C-41 120 films I processed on Tuesday - exp 2007 160VC on left, exp 2011 160nc in middle, exp 08/2018 Portra 160 on right. The new printing style is clearly obvious & there is no evidence of offsetting etc from any of the films on the high-res scans I have done (Hasselblad X5 for reference). The older films were given to me shortly before Christmas & I bought the Portra 160 pro-pack about 1 month ago. The ink density on the 08/18 is in the range of Ilford's 120 films I think.
View attachment 171076 View attachment 171077

The irony inherent in your post (which is still much appreciated by me) is that to the best of my knowledge the backing papers you show are outside what I understand to be the problem batch(es). 2007 and 2011 develop before dates are too old, and 2018 is too recent.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The irony inherent in your post (which is still much appreciated by me) is that to the best of my knowledge the backing papers you show are outside what I understand to be the problem batch(es). 2007 and 2011 develop before dates are too old, and 2018 is too recent.

Should've put that in my post - the point was to show that the problem is (hopefully) in the past.

 

[Chadinko]

Did you store the film in your refrigerator at any time?

Not that film, I don't believe. I bought it and I shot it over the next few days and it stayed on a shelf at room temperature after that until it was developed. In the summertime my air conditioning is set to 77 degrees an in the winter usually around 72. If film sits in 72-77 degrees and has issues, then I would be surprised if ANYONE used that film. The only film I have in my fridge is a 20-sheet box of unopened, 2-year-expired Provia 4x5 that I'll use next time I go to the high mountains.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Not that film, I don't believe. I bought it and I shot it over the next few days and it stayed on a shelf at room temperature after that until it was developed.

Any idea on how long the exposed film sat around before developing?

 

[LAG]

Should've put that in my post - the point was to show that the problem is (hopefully) in the past.

And also it was good to see a backing-paper reference

 

[LAG]

Any idea on how long the exposed film sat around before developing?

If I remember correctly (Chadinko mentioned it before) it was more or less five months

 

[LAG]

If film sits in 72-77 degrees and has issues...

This is unlikely to occur indeed

 

[Prof_Pixel]

If I remember correctly (Chadinko mentioned it before) it was more or less five months

So it sat around for 5 months outside the Kodak sealed foil package. I don't remember any complaints from folks who immediately processed their film- were there any?

 

[mshchem]

I have been lucky that, (So far) I haven't been burned by this. I get most of my film through B&H, I shoot a lot of TMY. I have to believe, that the product coming out of Rochester today, doesn't have this problem. Maybe I'm wrong, and will regret it. I shoot a lot of Ilford film too, especially sheet film, since I can't afford Kodak, (8x10 Tri-X WOW). I am getting ready to place my spring, before it gets hot, order. I will be buying TMAX 400 120 film, I love it. But I will be buying Ilford film and paper at the same time.

Everyone is going bananas about Ektachrome and just the mention of Kodachrome (they will bring back the brand not the film). I think it is critical that we try to help resolve these issues with the few companies that are willing to cater to this medium. Going nuts and ranting about a company that has contributed so much to our avocation/profession doesn't do anyone any good.

Best Regards, Mike

 

[LAG]

So it sat around for 5 months outside the Kodak sealed foil package...

Right! As I understand this backing-paper problem I consider that the most important time/factor is "the time since the film is opened and during its use and its final storage" (wherever it may be - temperature/place) but well isolated to light (at any time).

It's true that both the time before use and the time after use & before development, could be another time/factor however in this case slightly more imperceptible and certainly not causative but as the usual "chemical fog" (any film suffers from its manufacture) that can increase the marking sensation problem only.

Everyone is going bananas about Ektachrome and just the mention of Kodachrome (they will bring back the brand not the film). I think it is critical that we try to help resolve these issues with the few companies that are willing to cater to this medium. Going nuts and ranting about a company that has contributed so much to our avocation/profession doesn't do anyone any good.

Best Regards, Mike

That's how I see it too!
Thanks Mike

 

[RattyMouse]

I have been lucky that, (So far) I haven't been burned by this. I get most of my film through B&H, I shoot a lot of TMY. I have to believe, that the product coming out of Rochester today, doesn't have this problem. Maybe I'm wrong, and will regret it. I shoot a lot of Ilford film too, especially sheet film, since I can't afford Kodak, (8x10 Tri-X WOW). I am getting ready to place my spring, before it gets hot, order. I will be buying TMAX 400 120 film, I love it. But I will be buying Ilford film and paper at the same time.

Everyone is going bananas about Ektachrome and just the mention of Kodachrome (they will bring back the brand not the film). I think it is critical that we try to help resolve these issues with the few companies that are willing to cater to this medium. Going nuts and ranting about a company that has contributed so much to our avocation/profession doesn't do anyone any good.

Best Regards, Mike

Check your lot numbers. My last bad batch came from B & H, bought last November. Hopefully I got the last bad roll, but I would not count on it.

 

[Mike Kukulski]

LAG & DWThomas:

Re: 120 Film key codes / emulsion numbers...

You are both correct, I checked closer on the negatives and found the emulsion numbers. The Portra was dated 03/2015, batch no. 6081 015 on the box, emulsion no. A6101011. The Ektar was dated 03/2016, batch no. 1202 011 on the box, emulsion no. A1221012.

I got a response to my initial email complaint from Mr Thomas J Mooney, Film Capture Business Manager at Kodak Alaris in Rochester, and have forwarded this same information per his request.

 

[Peter Schrager]

Tmy400 if used properly is probably the best film kodak ever made...we people in the know continue to use it and support kodak everyday
I'm almost through 100 rolls I bought several years ago and about to buy another 100
People vote with their dollars not words...
Have a nice day everyone
Peter