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...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.
I prefer Fuji Provia 100F to Ektachrome, and. I have a lot of it in my film freezer.
It's not going to be chalk and cheese from the previous Ektachrome.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.
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.
So *shrugs* not sure what to make of it.
Ste S reported the backing number issue on new film (batch 0155).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.
And, perhaps, they never fully understood the causal factors so didn’t know exactly what to fix.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.
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?
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... and how the film was stored between exposure and development...
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.
Do you take Ste S's report seriously?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?
Perhaps you misread his post.Yes, but it’s worth pointing out that his experience was with an older batch, not the current production run.
Mine is 0155/001, so past the fixed batch number.
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?