The most apparent defects were the watermarks, but it was way worst than that. The film was covered in blotches and streaks and unprintable with an enlarger.
“Oh well” doesn’t cut it.
The most apparent defects were the watermarks, but it was way worst than that. The film was covered in blotches and streaks and unprintable with an enlarger.oh well
happened mostly with iso 400 and had very little to do with iso 100 film
its not hard to remove the watermark from the film if you still have it ... sometimes its not unsalvageable
And HIE in Sheets!!!!Jeff Bezos will buy Kodak and bring back Ektalure, Azo, and Ektachrome in sheets and 120.
Kodak will survive, it has to survive.
But then the Klingons will catch wind and come and take our lives.I fully expect Kodak will discover a technology that saves the planet.
Time to go "all in" for KODK stock!
The most apparent defects were the watermarks, but it was way worst than that. The film was covered in blotches and streaks and unprintable with an enlarger.
“Oh well” doesn’t cut it.
More than 2,100 sheets of 5x7 320TXP have been in my freezer since Eastman Kodak's first bankruptcy was imminent....Should we be stocking up on Kodak film...
What "stuff?" Film? Underground? Did yesterday's Alaska earthquake have such widespread effects that there was liquifaction in Rochester and Bldg. 38 sunk to subterranean level?...Kodak...manufacture that stuff deep underground using specialized equipment...
Unless you have insider information and are likely violating a non-disclosure agreement, there's no way you can know what the agreement between Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris says about that. It's entirely possible that, should Eastman Kodak cease to exist and/or stop manufacturing still film, Kodak Alaris has the right to obtain film from other sources and market it under the Kodak Alaris branding.Kodak (US) makes the film; Kodak Alaris (UK) markets it. If Kodak (US) goes under, there is nobody to make the film for Kodak Alaris (US) to market.
I expect that there are many parties (including bankers, investors and the pension guarantee authorities in the UK) who know what the terms of the Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris agreement are.Unless you have insider information and are likely violating a non-disclosure agreement, there's no way you can know what the agreement between Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris says about that. It's entirely possible that, should Eastman Kodak cease to exist and/or stop manufacturing still film, Kodak Alaris has the right to obtain film from other sources and market it under the Kodak Alaris branding.
Poor Fatso! Photography comprises a complex chain of events from the numerous processes from making film through printing and mounting print. Streaks and blotches are more likely user error than of manufacturer. Poor storage of film? A mistake in processing? Rather than carping, he should try to figure out what went wrong. On another recent APUG thread on screw ups, I remarked that over 60+ years I was able to commit every screw up mentioned by every contributor, as well as some not mentioned. Experience is an expensive but effective teacher. And still something can go wrong. Photography is not as simple as drawings on a cave wall with a rock.
Years ago I took some fascinating pictures someplace I will never visit again. Developed in Leicanol (anybody remember Leicanol?) and got tiny flakelike specks that I tried and tried to get rid of to no avail. Maybe I can find negatives and fix with Photoshop. Could never figure out what caused specks. And only on that roll. All other rolls with same lot number.
The backing paper problem with Kodak 120 films was a real problem and a lot of photographers suffered loss because of it.
But it was a new iteration of an old problem that had been kept in check by quality control efforts that had been effective for years, but failed when Kodak changed from in-house production to out-sourcing. And it took a lot of time and money to both understand the mechanism of the new and surprising version of the problem and to control it. Time and money that Kodak no longer has a lot of.
Vengeance isn't exactly a solution, particularly in a world where there are extremely limited choices for 120 colour film.
I wouldn't go that far.And it's worth noting that Mr Kodahate is proving profoundly ignorant of the wrapper offset issue - nowhere was there a streaking problem. Sounds a lot more like inept processing too - or the film got damp.
If Kodak decides to get out of the film market, they'll sell it to another company who will pick up where they left off. They manufacture that stuff deep underground using specialized equipment that isn't good for much else. Between hipsters and Hollywood, there's money to be made there so long as other parts of your business aren't dragging you down. And film is so expensive to get into, there isn't really the threat of it becoming too competitive of a market. The biggest concern shouldn't be bankruptcy, but rather a long, slow death where Kodak continuously cuts film production until the machines get so little use that they break down and become too expensive to repair. Then it might be hard to find a buyer.
Meanwhile back in the real world..
But then the Klingons will catch wind and come and take our lives.
What part about Kodak manufacturing defect and manufacturing problem DIDN’T you understand ? It was a known problem. Get informed.
I knew that Kodak was under contract to sell the Flexographic Packaging division. Has it closed?Kodak recently sold a division to get some badly needed cash to cover debts. Kodak One is being sued over the bitcoin issue.
...Unless you have insider information and are likely violating a non-disclosure agreement, there's no way you can know what the agreement between Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris says about that. It's entirely possible that, should Eastman Kodak cease to exist and/or stop manufacturing still film, Kodak Alaris has the right to obtain film from other sources and market it under the Kodak Alaris branding.
Yes. All of whom are 'insiders' to the deal who were undoubtedly required to sign NDAs.I expect that there are many parties (including bankers, investors and the pension guarantee authorities in the UK) who know what the terms of the Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris agreement are.
The most apparent defects were the watermarks, but it was way worst than that. The film was covered in blotches and streaks and unprintable with an enlarger.
“Oh well” doesn’t cut it.
Yes. All of whom are 'insiders' to the deal who were undoubtedly required to sign NDAs.
Yes, won't that be the day. Kodak reselling Foma film as Kodak just like Freestyle sells it as Arista.More than 2,100 sheets of 5x7 320TXP have been in my freezer since Eastman Kodak's first bankruptcy was imminent.What "stuff?" Film? Underground? Did yesterday's Alaska earthquake have such widespread effects that there was liquifaction in Rochester and Bldg. 38 sunk to subterranean level?Unless you have insider information and are likely violating a non-disclosure agreement, there's no way you can know what the agreement between Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris says about that. It's entirely possible that, should Eastman Kodak cease to exist and/or stop manufacturing still film, Kodak Alaris has the right to obtain film from other sources and market it under the Kodak Alaris branding.
Is that a typo, Bob? I assume you mean “wives”.....
The Kodak "problem" was, as you say, well known, certainly among enthusiasts and professionals, and that is why I cannot understand why you regard a sensible pre-check of materials as something not to be expected in the "real world", particularly before you committed to something as important to your professional work as a month in Nepal ?
I have a friend who worked in professional movie productions (when real film was the norm)....the daily checking of materials, cameras and equipment was meticulous, several "takes" were made of every shot, not only to perfect the actors' performances but to ensure optimum film quality and avoid any defects, while regular sensitometry strips were processed with every batch at the labs . As he said, "the actual film is the cheapest part of making a movie"!
hmm
i hadn't heard or seen any reports of splotching and streaks due to the paper backing,
the two + years i read about the backing issue it was typically the transfer of
wrapper words/letters /symbols onto the negative, not splotches and streaks
in any case, it sounds like an unfortunate situation
did you do a random test of a few rolls before you went on your trip ?
hope you brought a 35mm or some other type of non MF camera and
had a little built in redundancy so all wasn't completely lost ...
and yes even splotchy &c stuff can be repaired using photoshop,
i've had to rebuild photographs for people
that looked FUBAR and they ended up not perfect but OK...
oh well, better luck next time..
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?