T-Max 400 - Mottling in negatives

[warden]

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!

If my experience is any indicator, third time will definitely be the charm for you.

 

[removed account4]

Sorry to sound inconsiderate but he more and more I hear about these stories the more and more I think Messrs. Horowitz Horowitz and Fienstein have been running the finishing and returns adn fulfillment departments !

 

[GLS]

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.

 

[warden]

Excellent. Thanks for sharing!

 

[warden]

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.

 

[GLS]

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.

 

[AgX]

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/

 

[warden]

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/

I guess we'll see if that is correct. I hope it is.

 

[warden]

Just developed the first 0157 roll with the old backing paper and no issues found, for what it's worth.

 

[GLS]

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+.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Good to know. Thanks GLS!

 

[warden]

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+.

That's disappointing news but good to know. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[AgX]

Yes, very disappointing to receive bad stock as refund.

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.

At best one could assume that Kodak Alaris considered the issue as erratic and gave the consumer a second chance to try his luck...

 

[Pixophrenic]

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...

The problem may be that the issue is systemic. In fact so systemic that no one dares to address it. I am not sure if anyone noticed that on film box there is a pictogram, showing thermometer with temperature not to be exceeded in storage. Some of these film boxes show 20 C, some 24 C, Fuji Neopan 400CN shows 10 C! 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. I believe no one refrigerates BW films in the shops, but squeaky fresh film may have an expiration date up to 4 years into the future! First, what control the importers of film have over the conditions of air transportation? These days all films except bulk Foma (and Arista) come in cardboard boxes, wrapped in paper or sealed in thin foil, which make them vulnerable to strong radiation. 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; besides, Kodak films would display this phenomenon in Europe, and European made films in North America.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Interesting, since I've been shooting rolls of TMX, TMY, and Ektar and Portra color all along, with never a single problem. The quality control has been excellent. But I'm careful with my suppliers, so never received any suspect batches. And the new backing paper does look different.

 

[koraks]

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

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!

 

[AgX]

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.

Who assumes so?

First, what control the importers of film have over the conditions of air transportation?

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.

Suppose the film is irradiated en route by industrial strength cosmic radiation (at 10K km height) which damages the emulsion,...

Cosmic radiation during air transport is no issue, that has been proved.

However another issue came up: various forms ofshipment 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.

 

[removed account4]

Now, it is assumed that since modern films can be developed at temperatures up to 32 C and above,

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.

 

[Pixophrenic]

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.

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.

 

[Pixophrenic]

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.

I would expect bulk shipment scanners to be more powerful than those used in hand luggage scanning, won't you agree? In contrast, film parcels received by regular post by individuals, may get disproportionately intense irradiation during inspection. So, what is your take on mottling? You seem to be so sure that it is not connected to irradiation.

 

[Pixophrenic]

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!

It is just a suggestion, thinking out of the box. The discussion so far revolves around the problem being associated with particular brand, packaging, or emulsion number. I have seen, before this discussion even started, variable amount of mottling on the same film brand, which is normally developed at 40 C. It came down to understanding that the film does not even need to be fully processed to display the phenomenon, it is enough to dip it in an alkaline solution and then in an acidic one. How's that about too much sci-fi?
On the matter of who assumes that processing temperature equals permitted storage temperature. Even though we know that color films are in essence black and white films with color couplers, no one refrigerates BW film in the shops that I have seen around, including not refrigerating Ilford XP2, which is technically a color negative film.

 

[koraks]

Well, theorizing that xray exposure would somehow show up dependently from storage or processing temperature is a little far fetched, at least to my ear. Nothing wrong with a little out of the box thinking, but out of the box ideas don't always add up from a logical viewpoint. My apologies for wording that in a slightly crass manner earlier.

 

[AgX]

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 applies on the current cases.
But with the several threads on this we are going circles....

 

[Pixophrenic]

No problem. I am aware that it may seem more than a little far fetched, but you would agree that generally if a problem exceeds certain size (in terms of correction cost), it becomes easier to ignore it than to admit it. This is what made me thinking that the culprit may not amount to a simple "smoking gun" as a brand or an emulsion number. Also, why is nobody puzzled by the fact that recently Ilford changed all their film packaging design? It is a great service to the photographers, since now one can easily be alerted to look up the expiration date, when buying a film.

 

[Pixophrenic]

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....

It could also be explained by suggesting that people using medium format are more attentive to the quality of their results. I have seen the mottling effect also in 35mm, but apparently I am the only one with a magnifying glass, so I hesitated to report it.