Poor quality Kodak Portra400: Does anyone have the same problem

In this year, I have been troubled by serious quality problems with the portra400. I have fog problems with the portra400 I purchased.
The pictures are of portra400 that I purchased from two different sellers within a month of each other, stored in the same box, and developed in the same tank. One roll worked fine, but the other was severely fogged up.
I reported back to the seller, and the seller did a good job with the after-sales service, but it was a pity that I couldn't get the good pictures I shot. This problem is not unique, my friends often encounter the same situation.The seller couldn't give us a reasonable reason and only told us "batch problem"

I've been searching for what causes this problem to occur.
Guess 1:
In my country, many sellers may not purchase the film through Kodak agents, buy in the US and ship to Asia yourself for maximum profit. During this period, there may be improper storage, X-ray scanning, etc., resulting in film fog.
Guess 2:
Some batches of film made by Kodak had problems with fogging before leaving the factory.

I would like to know if anyone living in the US has encountered the same problem with portra400? To rule out whether it is caused by poor international transportation conditions.

Strange thing: I never had the same problem with the Ektar100, Gold200 and Portra160.
There is only Portra400, so I have doubts about the factory quality of Kodak Portra400, but it is difficult to get proof.

Coastal Film Lab posted in August about issues with Amazon purchased Portra 400.

I just received a fresh box of Porta 400 purchased from B&H Photo on Saturday. The box is labeled:

EMUL 1181 11 01/2026

I plan to shoot with it on Sunday for World Pinhole Photography Day. I have a fresh Arista liquid C-41 kit for processing. I'll try to report my results back here in a week or two.

LomoSnap said:

Some batches of film made by Kodak had problems with fogging before leaving the factory.

Click to expand...

Excessively unlikely. There's no way this would ever get through quality control.

Xray damage or simply expired film is far more likely.

skylight1b said:

Amazon purchased Portra 400.

Click to expand...

See above; I see Coastal are blaming Amazon's storage, but that would hardly produce this degree of fog. It's more likely IMO that someone along the chain has started doing CT scans for some reason (probably security/anti-drug trafficking measures).

koraks said:

Excessively unlikely. There's no way this would ever get through quality control.

Xray damage or simply expired film is far more likely.



See above; I see Coastal are blaming Amazon's storage, but that would hardly produce this degree of fog. It's more likely IMO that someone along the chain has started doing CT scans for some reason (probably security/anti-drug trafficking measures).

Click to expand...

Agreed, but it is interesting to see in the comments that another lab has noticed a significant problem as well with the Portra 400 they see coming through. It would be nice to figure out the common denominator.

skylight1b said:

Coastal Film Lab posted in August about issues with Amazon purchased Portra 400.

Coastal Film Lab on Instagram: "Important! We Recently discovered that alarmingly bad results have been coming back from film purchased from Amazon. Recent orders of Portra 400 have been occasionally coming out wiith heavy base fog and low sensitivit

503 likes, 32 comments - coastalfilmlab on August 14, 2023: "Important! We Recently discovered that alarmingly bad results have been coming back from film purchased from Amazon. Recent orders of Portra 400 have been occasionally coming out wiith heavy base fog and low sensitivity, so we took it...

www.instagram.com

Click to expand...

Not the first time I heard or read about problems with film purchased in Amazon, B/W and instant film included. I avoid to buy anything there.

Can you find any extra edge printing on the film? Typically it is numbers, in very small text, near the last few frames. That would provide information about batch numbers.

koraks said:

Excessively unlikely. There's no way this would ever get through quality control.

Xray damage or simply expired film is far more likely.



See above; I see Coastal are blaming Amazon's storage, but that would hardly produce this degree of fog. It's more likely IMO that someone along the chain has started doing CT scans for some reason (probably security/anti-drug trafficking measures).

Click to expand...

Yeah, I've always had confidence in Kodak's quality control. Until the chemical production it handed over to SinoPromise turned out to be defective

I found that only Portra400 has this problem, not even the higher-sensitivity Portra800, nor Gold/Ektar/Portra160, all of which were purchased from the same or different sellers. I think if it is caused by fog in CT scans, it should affect all types of film.

It appears one roll is 645, the other 6x7, could it be the camera?

LomoSnap said:

Until the chemical production it handed over to SinoPromise turned out to be defective

Click to expand...

Actually, the quality problems started out when it was in Kodak Alaris' hands and their contract manufacturer Tetenal suddenly went bankrupt. The rushed attempts to replace Tetenal with mostly USA based manufacture did not initially go very well.

mshchem said:

It appears one roll is 645, the other 6x7, could it be the camera?

Click to expand...

No,Both rolls are 6x4.5, shot with Pentax 645Nii, and confirmed that there is no problem with the camera.

LomoSnap said:

I found that only Portra400 has this problem, not even the higher-sensitivity Portra800, nor Gold/Ektar/Portra160, all of which were purchased from the same or different sellers.

Click to expand...

There's no guarantee all products went through the same logistics channel together.

koraks said:

There's no guarantee all products went through the same logistics channel together.

Click to expand...

This thread has come up in an off-site discussion.
Apparently this sort of fogging is consistent with some of the damage being seen now as a result of the newer CT scanning security systems.
Apparently film that is distributed through the standard Kodak Alaris controlled distribution to authorized distributors has the benefit of updated handling that is not subject to that type of scanning - other non-damaging checks are employed instead. Any film distributed outside the official channels doesn't enjoy the benefit of that.

MattKing said:

Apparently this sort of fogging is consistent with some of the damage being seen now as a result of the newer CT scanning security systems.

Click to expand...

It very much looks that way, yes.

You're confirming suspicions I voiced earlier. Coincidentally (or maybe not so coincidental after all), Chinese firms are rolling out inspection services over the world, in e.g. ports and probably also airports, for freight. These systems are apparently run as a black-box, turn-key solution and entirely managed by the Chinese firm that offers it; as e.g. harbor manager, you simply allot some space to such a company and they furnish an inspection process in that space. One of the selling points seems to be their effectiveness in spotting contraband - which implies that they use cutting-edge technology, and it's only logical that this involves at least strong xray and possibly CT. Moreover, I have a feeling that inspection rates are increasing as a result, reducing the odds of containers 'slipping through' without such inspections.

While thorough inspections in the past used to be based on sampling and indicators of problems, I expect that this is now changing into 100% hit rates. As such, I'm not surprised that we're starting to see problems that we hadn't seen before - keep in mind that the question "why does freight/mail apparently not get hit by xrays while hold baggage on airlines has always been a problem" has been with us for years already.

This situation creates concern in terms of questions about data ownership, but in terms of photography, I'm afraid it will also create new challenges concerning responsibility/accountability and control. Imagine you're a trader and your shipment of film was destroyed by overly enthusiastic CT inspection, who do you talk to in order to be compensated for your damages (fat chance, in all honesty), and more importantly: who's in a position to prevent sensitive materials to go through the same default inspection gates?

As a result, I expect that this problem will increase over the next few months. Undoubtedly the problems will be resolved in due course as well, but only after we've been hit by them.

And all this only fogs Portra 400. In 120 format.

?!

brbo said:

And all this only fogs Portra 400. In 120 format.

?!

Click to expand...

koraks said:

There's no guarantee all products went through the same logistics channel together.

Click to expand...

MattKing said:

Apparently film that is distributed through the standard Kodak Alaris controlled distribution to authorized distributors has the benefit of updated handling that is not subject to that type of scanning - other non-damaging checks are employed instead. Any film distributed outside the official channels doesn't enjoy the benefit of that.

Click to expand...

Apparently we're now looking at a batch of Portra 400 that went through a different (unofficial Alaris) distribution channel.

koraks said:

Apparently we're now looking at a batch of Portra 400 that went through a different (unofficial Alaris) distribution channel.

Click to expand...

It could be as simple as someone buying a batch somewhere and then selling it on Amazon, with shipping that isn't reliably safe from scanning.