Temporary shortage of T-Max 100 has begun.

I noticed that my usual online camera store as well as several others were sold out of medium format-sized Kodak T-Max 100ASA, so I reached out to Adorama on Facebook. I asked them when the stock would be available and this is the response that I received:

Hi again, Alex; this is the response we received from Kodak: it looks as though the delay in supply could last for a few months.
In recent months, we’ve heard from some customers about frame numbers appearing as latent images on the negatives of specific batches of our 120 format B&W films. We believe the affected films may have seen some abnormal keeping after leaving the factory. A design change was implemented in January to prevent this issue from reoccurring.
We are still working through some material component issues that are specific to T-Max 100. The delay in supply could last for a few months, but we are working hard to get it back into production as quickly as possible. We apologize for the inconvenience, but hope you can appreciate that we would rather err on the side of protecting our B&W film customers.
In the meantime, we hope you will be able to recommend our 120 format T-Max 400 film as a suitable alternative in the short term.
Thank you for your patience in this matter and for your ongoing support of our traditional photographic film products.

I'm a little disappointed, but I suppose I can't blame Kodak for being cautious with their quality control.

I got a similar response a few weeks ago -- almost verbatim in places; I suspect they're cutting and pasting this to a lot of people! Meantime, I'm being patient and hopeful.

Maybe time to break out the 135 or large format cameras for a while, and continue to shoot TMX with it? I'm planning on supporting Kodak by buying my 135 film from them while they are having trouble with their 120 film. It won't give them much financial assistance, but it's all I can do.

There is another thread on this which I can't find at the moment.

Thanks for sharing in its entirety the response you received from Adorama.

Oh don't worry, I'm hoarding T-Max 400 and Portra 160 like they're going out of style. I'm doing my part to keep the lights on.

AlexBC said:

Oh don't worry, I'm hoarding T-Max 400 and Portra 160 like they're going out of style. I'm doing my part to keep the lights on.

Click to expand...

I would love to hoard TMY2, but I'm still leery or the dreaded numbers bleeding. When I'm sure that it is no longer a problem I'll be buying for the freezer.

but if one company makes the paper for various brands, why is kodak the only one effected?

paul ron said:

but if one company makes the paper for various brands, why is kodak the only one effected?

Click to expand...

I think Ilford had some of the same issues, but different film manufacturers are mitigating in different ways. For Kodak, that meant a supply gap.

paul ron said:

but if one company makes the paper for various brands, why is kodak the only one effected?

Click to expand...

Possibly because Kodak does the printing & master-roll conversion in-house? I have a suspicion that some of the ink issues may have been caused by a move from a traditional solvent-based ink to a soy-based ink - done for perfectly sensible reasons, but with unforseen consequences.

On the matter of QC issues, we'd do well not to forget that Ilford's Multigrade Classic FB disappeared for several months shortly after introduction because of issues with the 2nd batch.

Wish if i kept shooting film since a while, but i will try sooner or later to shoot more with film and i will buy more of TMAX films, i already have plenty of them in the fridge, so i need to almost finish those first before i buy more, and TMAX is one of my favorite films out there.

Delta100 or Panf are nice films Kodak are milking the cow!

Delta 100 is a very serviceable substitute for TMAX 100 but be careful, you may decide you actually prefer it.

In medium and large format, AEU or Fomapan 100 is very inexpensive with wonderfully fine grain and tonal scale. The only time I really use TMAX 100 is in 135.

AlexBC said:

I noticed that my usual online camera store as well as several others were sold out of medium format-sized Kodak T-Max 100ASA, so I reached out to Adorama on Facebook. I asked them when the stock would be available and this is the response that I received:

Hi again, Alex; this is the response we received from Kodak: it looks as though the delay in supply could last for a few months.
In recent months, we’ve heard from some customers about frame numbers appearing as latent images on the negatives of specific batches of our 120 format B&W films. We believe the affected films may have seen some abnormal keeping after leaving the factory. A design change was implemented in January to prevent this issue from reoccurring.
We are still working through some material component issues that are specific to T-Max 100. The delay in supply could last for a few months, but we are working hard to get it back into production as quickly as possible. We apologize for the inconvenience, but hope you can appreciate that we would rather err on the side of protecting our B&W film customers.
In the meantime, we hope you will be able to recommend our 120 format T-Max 400 film as a suitable alternative in the short term.
Thank you for your patience in this matter and for your ongoing support of our traditional photographic film products.

I'm a little disappointed, but I suppose I can't blame Kodak for being cautious with their quality control.

Click to expand...

At least they are working the print through problem seriously and systematically.

AlexBC said:

Oh don't worry, I'm hoarding T-Max 400 and Portra 160 like they're going out of style. I'm doing my part to keep the lights on.

Click to expand...

Do not hoard. Do what I do. That is buy up film to keep it out of the hands of the hoarders.

I just got a box of TRI-X from Kodak. They replaced the box of TMAX 100 in 120 i bought that had the frame numbers on the film issue. I posted a sample shot here on this site of one shot. The Kodak rep told me that TMAX 100 would not be available for another 8 Weeks.

Not sure how temporary this was in Aug of 2016. It's July of 2017 and no 120 T-Max 100 in sight... I've stocked up on some Delta 100 and some Fuji Neopan Acros 100. Any other suggestions?

Lachlan Young said:

Possibly because Kodak does the printing & master-roll conversion in-house? I have a suspicion that some of the ink issues may have been caused by a move from a traditional solvent-based ink to a soy-based ink - done for perfectly sensible reasons, but with unforseen consequences.

On the matter of QC issues, we'd do well not to forget that Ilford's Multigrade Classic FB disappeared for several months shortly after introduction because of issues with the 2nd batch.

Click to expand...

Wonder why I hadn't heard this theory before. Would be amusing if the soy ink turns out to be the real root cause and it's the old problem of mustard growing in the same fields.

Meow7 said:

Not sure how temporary this was in Aug of 2016. It's July of 2017 and no 120 T-Max 100 in sight... I've stocked up on some Delta 100 and some Fuji Neopan Acros 100. Any other suggestions?

Click to expand...

This is a truly strange situation. We were given advance warning or maybe imminent warning that Tmax 100 was in temporary shortage. It is now almost 12 months later and nothing seems to have changed - in the U.S. In the U.K. most stockists still seem to have TMax100. There are some who don't but as I wasn't looking at stock 12 months ago I cannot tell if those stockists had no shortage then but have now or if some stockists are simply not bothering to stock because compared to Ilford the price is now uncompetitive and there is little point in stocking film that you cannot sell.

If a shortage highlighted 12 months ago is still extant then what is the problem that Kodak has been unable to solve in a year?

I used to think that it was only a few members who were harshly and unfairly judging Kodak in that for them Kodak had to run fast to be judged that it was at best standing still but I do now wonder.

pentaxuser

Not a word from Kodak about the status of TMAX 100, even after 1 year of waiting.

RattyMouse said:

Not a word from Kodak about the status of TMAX 100, even after 1 year of waiting.

Click to expand...

Well - it is a never ending story - the fact that Kodak has a lot of exellent emulsions, they made more and more
research to improve their films.
At the end we can see films with enormious characteristics - the best of all the time in history of photography.
So some photographers of the youngest
generation change from digital to film.
And companies like Ferrania have a very hard time to come in the near to the quality of Kodak films.
Sure they will reach it - but it is NOT so easy.
AND NOW KODAK IS NOT WILLING TO SELL US THEIR STUFF ?
PERHAPS THEY ARE WAITING FOR INCREASING THEIR PRICES MUCH MUCH MORE ?
In the past they have done it - we all know
what happened caused from this.

with regards

In my company, if we suffer a disruption to any of our products, a press release is issued directly to customers who use the product, and to the industry in general, to potential customers. Kodak keeps 100% silent.

How are we to know if there will ever be a Kodak TMAX100 in 120 size again? When is the product discontinued? If not after 1 year, then how many? Two years? Three years?

Sadly, it seems that despite concerted efforts, they haven't solved the wrapper offset problem with 120 size T-Max 100, and they may never be able to without a complete re-work of the film, which they probably don't have the resources for (given projected sales).
They probably can't even justify the expense of a separate run of number and lettering free backing paper, which would solve one problem, at the expense of disappointing a bunch of photographers.
We may never see another roll of medium speed Kodak black and white film in 120 - which would be sad.

MattKing said:

Sadly, it seems that despite concerted efforts, they haven't solved the wrapper offset problem with 120 size T-Max 100, and they may never be able to without a complete re-work of the film, which they probably don't have the resources for (given projected sales).
They probably can't even justify the expense of a separate run of number and lettering free backing paper, which would solve one problem, at the expense of disappointing a bunch of photographers.
We may never see another roll of medium speed Kodak black and white film in 120 - which would be sad.

Click to expand...

Matt you may have explained this wrapper offset problem that affects TMax 100 but presumably not TMax 400 or Tri-X but just briefly can you give a quick explanation. My alternative interpretation to your post is that while the re-work to TMax 400 was justified on sales grounds it may not be justified on the same grounds for TMax 100.

I am assuming your last line mentioning medium speed refers to TMax100 only and is not the obituary to all Kodak 120 films? My confusion arises as I had always counted TMax100 as slow speed and TMax 400 as medium speed.

Thanks

pentaxuser

The problem with wrapper offset is a problem of interaction - between the film (emulsion), the paper and the ink. Different emulsions will react in different ways or amounts.
T-Max 100 is a significantly different emulsion than the other Kodak products. One indicator of that being that it is the only one with a UV blocker built in (thus making it unusable for a lot of the traditional and alternative printing processes).
It may be that T-Max 400 and Tri-X was not substantially re-worked - the change in the ink densities and distribution on the new paper may have been sufficient.
The same may apply to the colour negative materials.
And I've always considered 100-200 ASA/ISO to be medium speed, but then I first shot when Kodachrome was ASA 25!

MattKing said:

Sadly, it seems that despite concerted efforts, they haven't solved the wrapper offset problem with 120 size T-Max 100, and they may never be able to without a complete re-work of the film, which they probably don't have the resources for (given projected sales).
They probably can't even justify the expense of a separate run of number and lettering free backing paper, which would solve one problem, at the expense of disappointing a bunch of photographers.
We may never see another roll of medium speed Kodak black and white film in 120 - which would be sad.

Click to expand...

Sorry Matt , I have a different theory for understanding problems of all manufacturers of films today.
By the time - I did not believe the wrapping paper issue to 120 films just while the first 5 minutes.
May be there have been quality problems - but that could not the reason to get short with 120 films.
Worldwide we still see a big paper industry - they are not able to manufacture wrapping paper from specifications Kodak will tell them???
That will produce so enourmious costs Kodak is not able to handle?
In my thoughts film manufacturers to each time were in business with film in this way : First reserches to design emulsions with massive costs.
2.) Test runs with massive cost in regard of scratch films.
3.) Production runs with the logic : the more film in general the less costs in comparision to investments I mentioned
before.
4.) Freezing of the masterrols and temporarily short storage of THE MOST
emulsions (many emulsions of Kodak hasn't big demands in the very past).
4a.) Assembling in different formats and
immedeately shipping of Kodak's bestsellers films.
5.) Assembling of films with no high demand from time to time and shipping to worldwide warehouses after temporarily freezing (masterrols). AND this under varying circumstances of incomming orders for shipping.
Notice : Kodak with many production facilities in lots of countrys began to concentrate production units in asia and
europe in the 80th !! End of THE 80th as I remember correct.
6.) New production of films wich were off
meanwile.

What is the logic of this ? It is simple clear : With such methods manufacturers
were able in the past to have a very bricht
spectrum of and kind of special films wich much less demand in comparision
to Kodak Gold 100 - 400 in all formats for
example.
Because the Gold family never saw a freezer at Kodak plants.There was no need for.
But what was the issue to all other films ?
You will not belive but my guess is : the demand was much to less.Even in the 90th before the digital caused crisis.
There was no way to produce films in amounds of less that an equivalent of
50.000.000. rolls at one production run in
economical ways.
So Kodak added the possible demand of one special emulsion to x years and began big production runs with this emulsions. Just in my theory of cause - I may be wrong but I don't think so.
I would like to have it done in that way.
And now it is a logical result of Nonsence
Discontinue of films with MOST demand
to consumers first !!!!!
They are all ( Kodak and Fuji ) off with masterrols. Because manufacturing was to expensive in smal amounds after production has
ended many years ago.
So wy we can not have Tmax in 120 ?
Bad calculation is the answer.Some tons
of 135 films with higher and higher increasing prices as a corrective to too much demand but no 120 films and no
remaining masterrols out of 2008 to cut new 120 films - am I right ?
Perhaps some Apug members "Ex Kodak"
can tell us if this theory is real ?
I have no other answer to
BACKING PAPER PROBLEMS ........

with regards

Sorry (smarphone) one correction :
"...to have a very bright spectrum of any kind of special films "

with regards