Update 3: I contacted Kodak again, and they have agreed to send me two more pro-packs from batch 159. As soon as I receive them I will test a roll. Hopefully third time will be the charm!
Final update:
So I got the second lot of pro-packs from batch 159, have shot a test roll, and am relieved to say there is no sign of mottling on any of the frames! Hopefully this puts the issue to bed once and for all. It has been a frustrating experience, but in fairness Kodak fixed the problem and fully supported a customer. You can't reasonably ask more than that.
If I buy more TMY-2 in the near future I will be ensuring it is all batch 159 or above. I would recommend others do the same.
Here's an odd twist: today I got a five pack of TMY400 from B&H and was surprised to find it's 0157/ expiry 03/2020 and clearly the old backing paper. I'll test a roll tomorrow and see what happens.
Here's an odd twist: today I got a five pack of TMY400 from B&H and was surprised to find it's 0157/ expiry 03/2020 and clearly the old backing paper. I'll test a roll tomorrow and see what happens.
Batch 157 I also had the issue with, although it wasn't as severe. I'm going to test a roll from the first set of replacements I got sent (from batch 158). With any luck they will be OK.
KA explicitely stated 5 months ago that every film bought from then should be fine as the affected ones already would be outdated.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...-statement-on-the-backing-paper-issue.162710/
So, a final final update on this:
I got around to shooting a test roll from the batch 158 boxes (the original set of replacements I received, and the last batch made with the old backing paper). I am sorry to report the mottling is still there, despite Kodak's assurances. It is subtle (less visible than with any of the others), but still noticeable in parts of the frames with bright sky in them. The batch 159 roll I shot had absolutely none.
Just to underline the warning to others then: make sure you only buy TMY-2 from batch 159+.
I got around to shooting a test roll from the batch 158 boxes (the original set of replacements I received, and the last batch made with the old backing paper). I am sorry to report the mottling is still there, despite Kodak's assurances.
Yes, very disappointing to receive bad stock as refund.
At best one could assume that Kodak Alaris considered the issue as erratic and gave the consumer a second chance to try his luck...
Not only would it be difficult to prove, it would also be difficult to explain, it being a very far-fetched bit of conjecture that makes little sense. 'Industrial strength cosmic radiation'? X-ray exposure that only becomes visible and in fact problematically so with storage at higher temperatures? Someone has been reading too much sci-fi!Suppose the film is irradiated en route by industrial strength cosmic radiation (at 10K km height) which damages the emulsion, but the damage develops (pun intended) only when the film is stored at a relatively high temperature. If this were so, it would be very hard to prove
Now, it is assumed that since modern films can be developed at temperatures up to 32 C and above, they can also be stored at that temperature for extended periods of time that companies show on the box as expiration date.
This is a matter of bulk. The larger the quantity sent, the more economic/easy handling control becomes. Though modern logging devices enable control even of small units.First, what control the importers of film have over the conditions of air transportation?
Suppose the film is irradiated en route by industrial strength cosmic radiation (at 10K km height) which damages the emulsion,...
Now, it is assumed that since modern films can be developed at temperatures up to 32 C and above,
And which film was that? I am actually looking for one that is not hardened. I meant by 32 C and above, of course, the Ilford film XP2 Super, which is normally developed at 40 C.I have developd modern film above 89ºF and all the emulsion came off the film. Not sure who assumes this ( except me because I was bored ) and if they get better results.
Who assumes so?
This is a matter of bulk. The larger the quantity sent, the more economic/easy handling control becomes. Though modern logging devices enable control even of small units.
The problem of safe shipping was aware to manufacturers. Agfa once even went to court against shippers after one of their refridgeration container sat in the USA sun with the refridgeration off.
Cosmic radiation during air transport is no issue, that has been proved.
However another issue came up: various forms of shipment radiation due to control against contrabande etc.
Again this is rather a issue of non-bulk shipping.
The problem today is rather people ordering (often out of need) films from overseas.
However: the mottling issue is not linked to any form of known radiating.
Not only would it be difficult to prove, it would also be difficult to explain, it being a very far-fetched bit of conjecture that makes little sense. 'Industrial strength cosmic radiation'? X-ray exposure that only becomes visible and in fact problematically so with storage at higher temperatures? Someone has been reading too much sci-fi!
So, what is your take on mottling? You seem to be so sure that it is not connected to irradiation.
All cases of mottling I remember to have seen here at Apug over the last years I relate to an interaction between emulsion and backing paper.
Such general pattern has been described and explained already many decades ago by the industry.
The question though is whether this explanation from the past still aplies on the current cases.
But with the several threads on this we are going circles....
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?