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

[Sirius Glass]

RattyMouse said: ↑
I do- the problem still exists, despite Kodak's "fix".

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.

+1

To the point that the Mouse sounds like a badly broken record. He even disparages the Kodak scientists and engineers with out one scintilla of fact. Rather he bases all his anger on one problem with a Kodak product in over 100 years of successful business.

 

[aldevo]

+1

To the point that the Mouse sounds like a badly broken record. He even disparages the Kodak scientists and engineers with out one scintilla of fact. Rather he bases all his anger on one problem with a Kodak product in over 100 years of successful business.

To be fair - he isn't the only one who has experienced these problems. I have, too.

I'm not at all certain the backing paper issue is fully-resolved. The latest incident certainly resembles those experienced by with the backing paper change. I don't really doubt Kodak's earnestness in attempting to resolve the problem - but the effectiveness of this fix is still questionable. They appear to "have lost a few mph on their fastball" as the saying goes...

 

[removedacct1]

+1

To the point that the Mouse sounds like a badly broken record. He even disparages the Kodak scientists and engineers with out one scintilla of fact. Rather he bases all his anger on one problem with a Kodak product in over 100 years of successful business.

And I for one have heard enough of it. How about we pick on Fuji Acros next, for its built in proneness to airbells?

 

[BrianShaw]

And I for one have heard enough of it. How about we pick on Fuji Acros next, for its built in proneness to airbells?

That should be a separate thread. Please feel free to start the discussion.

This problem appears to be quite real and getting further informed is to all of our advantage.

 

[keenmaster486]

The real solution to this problem is to just not give a damn.

 

[Craig]

To the point that the Mouse sounds like a badly broken record.

That's because the problem is still happening after it was supposedly "fixed". If it really was fixed, there is nothing to talk about except how much people enjoy TMY. Do you blame him for being critical of Kodak when he has had photos ruined and Kodak has been unable to solve the problem for years? Especially when other manufactures have not had a problem?

 

[pentaxuser]

Do we know how many others have experienced a problem since the emulsion number quoted? I think we know about one, namely Ste-S from Birmingham U.K who bought from an Amazon seller before Christmas but we don't know about the background to that seller such as, is the seller a photographic retailer which might give a clue about where the seller got the rolls and how they were stored. I feel we need to know more about the seller to determine if possible what blames lies there.

We have people here who only need to hear anything negative about Kodak to further condemn it and whose only solution to the problem is to suggest we buy Ilford instead. The joke about the "evil bo'sun" springs to mind. It is one of my favourites but I'll only elaborate on this if requested.

We need to approach the problem highlighted by Ste-S from a "seekers of wisdom and truth" perspective, don't we, rather than forming groups into attack and defence?

pentaxuser

 

[DWThomas]

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

Yet we know that similar problems have appeared with other brands over the years. FWIW, for a couple of years now since this stuff reared its head, I have alternated between 400TX and HP-5, sometimes on a roll by roll basis, for my faster film; and since Kodak dumped 125PX (to my disappointment), I've bounced back and forth between FP-4 and Acros for the slower, finer grain applications. At one point I was intending to give 400Tmax a go (I did shoot 5 or 6 rolls in 35mm during 2017) but put that idea aside for 120. I am well aware there are quality products from other than the Great Yellow Father.

In early 2016 prior to a trip, I learned I had some 400TX that was from a suspect emulsion batch for which I got replacements from Mr. Mooney. I have used it (intermixed with HP-5) and not so far seen a problem. I later shot locally several of the possibly suspect rolls without problem, although I have no plans to use them on once in a lifetime projects.

I still have the impression (after more than one of these threads over the last three years or so) that the problem may be more prevalent among certain film types within The Big K, and perhaps related to additional handling and storage vulnerabilities beyond normal shipment and use. Whatever those external conditions are, they may not be universal around the globe. I do now record emulsion numbers and expiration dates in my records of film purchases just to have a redundant source of that data, as I often remove the outer box and put the sealed roll in those black tubular containers. It still feels to me as if there is no certain understanding of what the problem mechanism actually is, yet we know several makers don't seem to currently have the problem.

 

[Sirius Glass]

+1

To the point that the Mouse sounds like a badly broken record. He even disparages the Kodak scientists and engineers with out one scintilla of fact. Rather he bases all his anger on one problem with a Kodak product in over 100 years of successful business.

To be fair - he isn't the only one who has experienced these problems. I have, too.

I'm not at all certain the backing paper issue is fully-resolved. The latest incident certainly resembles those experienced by with the backing paper change. I don't really doubt Kodak's earnestness in attempting to resolve the problem - but the effectiveness of this fix is still questionable. They appear to "have lost a few mph on their fastball" as the saying goes...

That's because the problem is still happening after it was supposedly "fixed". If it really was fixed, there is nothing to talk about except how much people enjoy TMY. Do you blame him for being critical of Kodak when he has had photos ruined and Kodak has been unable to solve the problem for years? Especially when other manufactures have not had a problem?

Yes the problem is a legitimate one and it is very frustration, however the mouse has been carrying that Kodak have never done anything right since it was founded. Also he has taken on criticizing Kodak workers, scientist and engineers vomiting claims that have no basis and of which he has no knowledge. As former Kodak systems engineer I take that as insults and I will not longer tolerate crap from him.

 

[faberryman]

Yes the problem is a legitimate one and it is very frustration, however the mouse has been carrying that Kodak have never done anything right since it was founded. Also he has taken on criticizing Kodak workers, scientist and engineers vomiting claims that have no basis and of which he has no knowledge. As former Kodak systems engineer I take that as insults and I will not longer tolerate crap from him.

Well, at least you acknowledge that the problem is a legitimate one.

 

[RattyMouse]

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.

Only the defective products. I'm a long time user of HC-110. You won't see me say a bad word about that product. Not even one.

 

[RattyMouse]

That's because the problem is still happening after it was supposedly "fixed". If it really was fixed, there is nothing to talk about except how much people enjoy TMY. Do you blame him for being critical of Kodak when he has had photos ruined and Kodak has been unable to solve the problem for years? Especially when other manufactures have not had a problem?

And the ranters forget that Kodak TMAX400 was my GO TO film for ISO400 speed for 6+ years until I was relentlessly burned by poor quality film. Those who continue to attack me think I was born with a beef with Kodak. That simply is not true. I have my opinions for a reason.

 

[RattyMouse]

Yet we know that similar problems have appeared with other brands over the years.

Yet we dont see multiple threads about Ilford or Fuji issues with backing paper. Nope.

It still feels to me as if there is no certain understanding of what the problem mechanism actually is, yet we know several makers don't seem to currently have the problem.

Exactly why I recommended alternate brands.

 

[mshchem]

I take Kodak's technical gurus at their word when they say the problem is fixed. I buy and shoot Kodak 120 films with confidence. Because I like fresh film I buy from B&H. I also buy film and paper in the coolest parts of the year. All this talk about technical or manufacturing incompetence on Kodak's part is not well founded.

The vendor base for making film has been blown to hell. Kodak and some of us (not me ) got burned.

Remember old George Eastman? One of his early lots of dry plates were defective, he almost went broke, but he replaced and made good on the lot.

If we want Ilford and Fuji to keep making film, we all better support Kodak too.
Best Regards Mike

 

[mike c]

I have bought the newly corrected TMX 120 and found it fine, the backing paper is different, kinda like it has a coating of plastic on it, different than the old paper and that of the new TMY 400 also.

 

[aldevo]

I have bought the newly corrected TMX 120 and found it fine, the backing paper is different, kinda like it has a coating of plastic on it, different than the old paper and that of the new TMY 400 also.

Yes, as Kodak support indicated, there was an additional problem unique to TMX in 120 that needed to be worked out and, presumably, that explains the plastic coating on the paper. I doubt that their solution came cheap and I don't really doubt Kodak's commitment in trying to fix these issues - but time and experience will tell if they have been successful in these efforts or not.

 

[mnemosyne]

First, I want to remind you that when Kodak said they had addressed the backing paper problem with TMY they did not say that they had fixed (= identified and eradicated) the problem. They rather said they had taken steps to ensure to minimize the chance that this problem would occur in the future. Such a statement clearly does not rule out the possibility that the problem could still show under certain circumstances and my guess is this is just what happened in the recent, alleged "post fix" case reported by a forum member in this thread. Also, as far as I am aware, they never made any official announcements that claimed film from certain batches was "affected" or "safe". All lists of batch numbers affected or announcements that claimed that the problems had been fixed with certain batches were put together by individuals.

Second, incidents of problems with backing paper HAVE occurred in the past, before Kodak's recent great backing paper blunder, and will probably continue to occur in the future. Issues like mottling, ink transfer and others have been reported from manufacturers Ilford, Foma and probably others. I personally have had this issue with some Ilford FP4+. These incidents have been mostly explained as a isolated "freak" cases, caused by adverse storage conditions (humidity, heat) or improper handling. This is important to bear in mind, because unlike some drama queen suggests, we have NOTHING at hand that supports that the recent problem reported here is more than just THAT, namely an isolated, single incident of a backing paper problem caused by adverse conditions. At least with me the word "Amazon seller" is not exactly causing associations of credibility and trustworthiness. To be fair, except for the claim of the poster, we haven't even seen any evidence indicating that it is "THE" backing paper problem AT ALL. Let me remind you that there have been reports of backing paper numbers showing on pictures in the past that claimed to be caused by THE backing paper problem and later turned out to be rather caused by irregular exposure through a "ruby window". So, at least as far as I am concerned, until we get further evidence, the verdict is still out in this most recent case.

My personal, completely uneducated guess is that the reduced ink backing paper introduced by Kodak 1 1/2 years ago was just a short term, easy to implement countermeasure that Kodak came up with while they were still in the middle of identifying the root of the problem. I suspect that if there is any "fix" in the sense of the word that the original problem was isolated and corrected, than it is in the new TMX backing paper, and I would not be surprised to find that this backing paper is also introduced with the remaining types of Kodak film over the next months.

 

[RattyMouse]

I take Kodak's technical gurus at their word when they say the problem is fixed. I buy and shoot Kodak 120 films with confidence. Because I like fresh film I buy from B&H. I also buy film and paper in the coolest parts of the year. All this talk about technical or manufacturing incompetence on Kodak's part is not well founded.

The last 40 rolls of TMAX400 I bought was from B & H. I bought them in Nov. of 2016, shot 20 rolls almost immediately and processed them in 2 weeks. Virtually every frame had numbers and KODAK imprinted on them. An entire family vacation's worth of photos ruined.

The vendor base for making film has been blown to hell. Kodak and some of us (not me ) got burned.

Somehow Fuji and Ilford have done very well during this time.

If we want Ilford and Fuji to keep making film, we all better support Kodak too.
Best Regards Mike

Ilford's future is not dependent on Kodak.

 

[BrianShaw]

The OP has been quite forthcoming with info on the latest reported experience. Perhaps one more piece? What camera were you using?

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

Latest Instagram from Kodak has a 1 minute video ending with the statement, “we’re bringing it back.” This is reference to Ektachrome.

 

[Cholentpot]

The last 40 rolls of TMAX400 I bought was from B & H. I bought them in Nov. of 2016, shot 20 rolls almost immediately and processed them in 2 weeks. Virtually every frame had numbers and KODAK imprinted on them. An entire family vacation's worth of photos ruined.


Somehow Fuji and Ilford have done very well during this time.


Ilford's future is not dependent on Kodak.

Hey Rats,

You're letting Kodak have free rent in your head.

You may hate them with every fiber of your being but I don't think they ever think about you.

 

[faberryman]

You're letting Kodak have free rent in your head. You may hate them with every fiber of your being but I don't think they ever think about you.

Yeah, the question is who do they think about? Their shareholders did well this week.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well, at least you acknowledge that the problem is a legitimate one.

I always have. Look at my post history.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I take Kodak's technical gurus at their word when they say the problem is fixed. I buy and shoot Kodak 120 films with confidence. Because I like fresh film I buy from B&H. I also buy film and paper in the coolest parts of the year. All this talk about technical or manufacturing incompetence on Kodak's part is not well founded.

The vendor base for making film has been blown to hell. Kodak and some of us (not me ) got burned.

Remember old George Eastman? One of his early lots of dry plates were defective, he almost went broke, but he replaced and made good on the lot.

If we want Ilford and Fuji to keep making film, we all better support Kodak too.
Best Regards Mike

Me too.

 

[faberryman]

I always have. Look at my post history.

Some are in denial and taking umbrage at the mere mention of the issue.