T-Max 100 & T-Max 400 Backing Issue and Ektachrome 100 Update

[RattyMouse]

Bought a box of TMAX 400 from an Amazon seller just before Christmas and have had the backing paper issue, luckily only noticeably on one frame out of three rolls so far. It was on a shot that didn't work out either, so no biggie really. Makes me nervous for shooting the remaining two rolls though, will check the batch numbers when I get home.

People continue to be burned by this. I would be VERY nervous about the remaining rolls and would not use them for any shooting that has any significance whatsoever. I have been burned on many occasions by poor Kodak quality film. I always buy TMAX400 in pro packs of 5. When I found a bad roll, in every case all 5 rolls from that pro pack were bad. Every. Time.

 

[BrianShaw]

Bought a box of TMAX 400 from an Amazon seller just before Christmas and have had the backing paper issue, luckily only noticeably on one frame out of three rolls so far. It was on a shot that didn't work out either, so no biggie really. Makes me nervous for shooting the remaining two rolls though, will check the batch numbers when I get home.

There still appears to be old film from the “affected batches” out there...

Was the film you just bought, St-S, within the batch numbers identified as problematic?

 

[Minoltafan2904]

Probably wasn't the latest batch, you'd think Kodak knows people want that backing paper issue gone.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Tmax 100 in 120 roll backing paper issue is fully resolved and they are back in production. They start with the first emulsion 0983.

T-Max 400 had the backing issue resolved before and the correct film started with emulsion 0153.

 

[benjiboy]

I prefer Fuji Provia 100F to Ektachrome, and. I have a lot of it in my film freezer.

 

[Ai Print]

I prefer Fuji Provia 100F to Ektachrome, and. I have a lot of it in my film freezer.

How do you know if they have not released it yet?

I went through the TMY2 backing issues a bit ago but it has since been resolved, it's by far my favorite film and I rely on it heavily.

 

[benjiboy]

How do you know if they have not released it yet?

I went through the TMY2 backing issues a bit ago but it has since been resolved, it's by far my favorite film and I rely on it heavily.

It's not going to be chalk and cheese from the previous Ektachrome.

 

[Ste_S]

Tmax 100 in 120 roll backing paper issue is fully resolved and they are back in production. They start with the first emulsion 0983.

T-Max 400 had the backing issue resolved before and the correct film started with emulsion 0153.

Mine is 0155/001, so past the fixed batch number. Whilst the backing paper numbers/letters are definitely there, it's a bit of an outlier. One shot on three rolls shows it, and it was the longest exposure I've attempted across those rolls - a 5min exposure which didn't work out. A 3min exposure on a different subject was fine.
So *shrugs* not sure what to make of it.

 

[RattyMouse]

So *shrugs* not sure what to make of it.

I do- the problem still exists, despite Kodak's "fix".

 

[faberryman]

The problem exists only if a customer is unlucky enough to purchase old inventory, which some merchants still offer. The new inventory does not have this problem! Why is it you seem determined to believe that all Tmax film continues to be plagued by this years-old problem, when there’s plenty of evidence to demonstrate that the new inventory is fine?! Its like you’ve got this bone between your teeth and you’re just not letting go. Give it a rest!
What bothers me about it is that some folks will read your remarks and believe that brand new rolls of Tmax will suffer from defect, which I am certain it will not.

All a customer has to do is look at the expiry date and batch number on his purchased rolls and they will immediately know if they’ve bought film from the older affected batches.

Ste S reported the backing number issue on new film (batch 0155).

 

[BrianShaw]

I do- the problem still exists, despite Kodak's "fix".

And, perhaps, they never fully understood the causal factors so didn’t know exactly what to fix.

 

[RattyMouse]

And, perhaps, they never fully understood the causal factors so didn’t know exactly what to fix.

Very likely.

 

[DWThomas]

Just a thought reading this latest revelation. The mention of some possible correlation with length of exposure makes me wonder if this instance of the problem is somehow different from the previously discussed wrapper offset problem -- although I have no idea what an alternate mechanism could be.

Just for the sake of a full data set, would @Ste_S please mention what camera he was using, and how much time elapsed between exposure and development?

It may also be this just confirms my general bias against purchasing film from anyone except big name photographic retailers! ePrey and the Amazonians can potentially encompass lots of dubious sources that could include project overruns and unhappy storage environments involving heat, and vapors, etc.

Most of my film shooting is 120, so I do get nervous when I read these threads!
Thanks!

 

[BrianShaw]

... and how the film was stored between exposure and development...

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, I'm not sure I've seen any other example where the problem was limited to a single frame.
Are the numbers and letters more dense or less dense in the negative?

 

[aldevo]

FWIW, I'm not sure I've seen any other example where the problem was limited to a single frame.
Are the numbers and letters more dense or less dense in the negative?

I shot about 3 rolls of TMY2 in 120 from that same batch number (I keep records of such things) about 6 months ago. FWIW, I did not experience any issues.

I did experience this problem on a single frame in 2011 (yes, that long ago) with TMY2. But it is my understanding that the change in backing paper that gave rise to these issues occurred somewhat after that.

 

[pentaxuser]

... and how the film was stored between exposure and development...

and maybe how the film was stored before or by the seller on Amazon which we are never likely to get to the bottom of, unfortunately

pentaxuser.

 

[RattyMouse]

Most of my film shooting is 120, so I do get nervous when I read these threads!
Thanks!

Shoot Ilford film and rest easy knowing you're going to get a quality product.

 

[removedacct1]

Shoot Ilford film and rest easy knowing you're going to get a quality product.

Its a good thing for Photrio readers that your agenda to discredit and disparage Kodak products is so obvious. We might otherwise take you seriously.

 

[faberryman]

Its a good thing for Photrio readers that your agenda to discredit and disparage Kodak products is so obvious. We might otherwise take you seriously.

Do you take Ste S's report seriously?

 

[removedacct1]

Do you take Ste S's report seriously?

Yes, but it’s worth pointing out that his experience was with an older batch, not the current production run.

 

[faberryman]

Yes, but it’s worth pointing out that his experience was with an older batch, not the current production run.

Perhaps you misread his post.

Mine is 0155/001, so past the fixed batch number.

 

[cmacd123]

Any reports of this issue should include the batch numbers. if one of the batches listed as effected is involved, then yes you may encounter the problem. if it is encountered on a batch number higher than the ones given the "all Clear" then yes you should provide as much info as possible ot both APUG and Alaris.

 

[Ste_S]

All photos taken with a Mamiya C330. All shots from the same roll. Stored at room temp (15-22C), it's winter here in the UK so no extremes in heat here.
Developed two weeks after exposure.

The photo in question. A failed shot at roughly 5min exposure.

Second, another shot from the same roll. 3min exposure

And another image from the same roll, sub 1min exposure

 

[Craig]

In your first shot, is the mottling in the sky a scanning artefact, or on a wet print also? The sky pattern almost looks similar to X Ray damage.
Difficult to tell from the third photo if there is anything there at all. It might be, but swallowed up by the dark sky.