Kodak Quality Control Slipping?

[Chadinko]

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?

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.

I still fail to see what the problem is with letting it sit for five months in a dry, temperature-controlled environment before processing. I have a shelf in my office where I set these things after I shoot them until I can get to processing them; it's behind any direct light (sunlight or artificial light) as well. My cameras all wind the film tightly on the spool and with some minor exceptions I manage to keep the film light-tight on the spool when sealing and storing it as well. And it doesn't really make sense to think that a light leak anywhere might cause this imprinting rather than appearing as a standard light leak, with the traditional streaking and fogging, because outside of the imprinting the negatives are beautiful. Combine that with the fact that this shelf where I park film has held film for much longer than that which has developed perfectly.

I'm neither a scientist nor a chemist, but it seems to me that if five months outside the foil packet after exposure causes film to react with backing paper and cause it to freak out like this, then expiration dates are completely irrelevant anyway. I'd be interested to know -- and I'm sure there's someone who can tell me -- what the difference is between the chemical composition of the film's emulsion prior to exposure and after exposure, but before processing.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I'm neither a scientist nor a chemist, but it seems to me that if five months outside the foil packet after exposure causes film to react with backing paper and cause it to freak out like this, then expiration dates are completely irrelevant anyway. I'd be interested to know -- and I'm sure there's someone who can tell me -- what the difference is between the chemical composition of the film's emulsion prior to exposure and after exposure, but before processing.

One possibility is that the film exposure from a taking a photograph acts like a 'pre-flash', making the emulsion more sensitive to chemicals in the ink and the longer the contact time the more the 'chemical fogging' takes place.

 

[Sean]

Please try to stay on topic, accounts bickering will be removed from the thread. We're going to try cleaning this up now. Thanks

 

[LAG]

... what the problem is with letting it sit for five months in a dry, temperature-controlled environment before processing.

If it is sealed to light, as for the paper No problem at all Chadinko! (...) As I said before "the problematic time period - for that defective paper - starts from the time you open the film until you close it. Is in that lenght of time when the control of the backing-paper becomes essential, and I am not only talking about being careful about the light (in any expression and moment, which includes of course the exposure time as well) but also some other factors mentioned (heat, humidity ...) while still in use.

In any case, artifacts may occur at any stage.

And it doesn't really make sense to think that a light leak anywhere might cause this imprinting rather than appearing as a standard light leak, with the traditional streaking and fogging, because outside of the imprinting the negatives are beautiful. Combine that with the fact that this shelf where I park film has held film for much longer than that which has developed perfectly.

Not a light-leak (as we usual understand it, like a low-dose light filtration) but as a global light paper effect, not only by the light. You find the rest of the negatives beautiful because where there are no ink reference - or is lower in intensity - that defect of "transparency" (or weakness of the paper) has affected the film in a uniform way.

Now, the problem with letting the film sit for X time after exposure or letting the film X time before the exposure, has to do with the fact that the film suffers in both cases an uncontrolled and involuntary fog, that leisurely increases because the silver crystals have no neutralizing element in themselves, then it will last that X time. In the first case (after exp.) that deterioration factor affects the quality of the latent image and it is faster than the other case - because the light has already been in the house -. In the second case (before exp.) the deterioration is slower and indistintly.

Generally speaking, the higher the changes & time during storage are (in both cases), the more drastic the type of deterioration will be.

Best

 

[LAG]

Please try to stay on topic, accounts bickering will be removed from the thread. We're going to try cleaning this up now. Thanks

Thank you!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Please try to stay on topic, accounts bickering will be removed from the thread. We're going to try cleaning this up now. Thanks

+1

 

[Chadinko]

Please try to stay on topic, accounts bickering will be removed from the thread. We're going to try cleaning this up now. Thanks

Thank you. There's interesting information in here and the bickering got to be just so much white noise to be filtered out.

 

[ignatiu5]

I checked my film boxes in the fridge. The bad Portra was dated 03/2015, batch no. 6081 015, and the Ektar was dated 03/2016, batch no. 1202 011. That finished off that box of Portra (no problems with any other rolls from this box), but I had just started the box of Ektar. My other Portra and Ektar in the fridge is dated late 2016 and 2017.

Apologies if an updated emulsion list exists elsewhere; I didn't come across it. My latest affected stash (I've had both Tri-X and TMY2 with this ink offset issue previously) is emulsion batch 3221 013, date 04/2017. This propack has already been replaced promptly by Kodak, but if anyone wants the three remaining rolls of Portra 400, they're yours for the cost of shipping (from Philadelphia, USA). Send me a PM if interested.

 

[LAG]

...but if anyone wants the three remaining rolls of Portra 400, they're yours for the cost of shipping (from Philadelphia, USA). Send me a PM if interested.

Sent. Thanks!