Tmax 100 in 120 format

MultiFormat Shooter said:

I love Acros; it is a great film.

I have pretty much stopped shooting medium format due to this backing paper fiasco, as I've heard that all film manufacturers are using 120 backing paper from the same source, and I don't want to risk a ruined shoot. Are there any known issues of any Fuji (color or B&W) medium format films having backing paper issues? It would be nice to break-out the Mamiya, again.

Click to expand...

I think for all the people shooting medium format that's it's safe to come out of the dark and start using the film again...
I've used delta100/120 recently bought with ZERO PROBLEMS!

MultiFormat Shooter said:

I've heard that all film manufacturers are using 120 backing paper from the same source, and I don't want to risk a ruined shoot.

Click to expand...

I keep seeing that in these threads, but I am way less than convinced that is the case. Even if it is, there is the paper itself, then there is coating and printing on it, which appears as though it is a two step process. There are also radical differences in the surface finish of the papers from various film makers. Each film maker has a different design of numbers and lead-in symbols. Some films have the film type printed directly on the backing paper, some don't. So if all of that is literally coming from one place, it's being done to some sort of contracted specification (and thus could vary between "brands"). I think it's more likely that either the film producer or an intermediate contractor does some of the middle steps which means potentially different results between brands.

I had some 400TX from a batch number that was flagged which I had yet to use, but it was bought for a major auto tour, so I contacted the aforementioned Mr. Mooney and he sent replacements. I shot a number of rolls of the replacement film on my trip, but also interspersed some HP5 to spread the risk. All was fine, and this stuff saw temperatures well over 100ºF in Arizona along the way. Admittedly those temperatures occurred under very low humidity however -- that's another potential variable.

At any rate, this year for some "photo walks" with a local group through local sites I've been to before and can easily get back to again, I have shot some of the original rolls from the potentially bad batch -- and not seen a problem. I know other makers have had the problem years back (before I was shooting any medium format) but I have used Delta 100, FP4 and HP5 from Ilford and still shoot a fair amount of Acros from Fuji, as well as a minor sampling of color films a few years back, without seeing this problem.

I no longer shoot color film, mostly because of processing expense and hassle (vs "other technology") but I have yet to see a problem with numbers on B&W. Admittedly, I have shot no recent vintage Tmax films, which seem to have been the leader in showing the problem.

I suspect (old retired engineering type here!) that the problem is a complex one in which specific emulsion chemistry, storage temperatures, humidity levels, and handling post exposure may play a role. The Great Yellow Father has obviously made changes in their numbering, reducing the amount and density of the inked numbers. I would say a smart move would be to buy a quantity from one batch and try it a roll or two before traveling. If they're OK, go with it. But I would think if you're going to spend two months in some sort of tropical rain forest environment, some 35mm/sheetfilm/electrocuted bits as backup might be wise. I also suspect under those conditions that has always been a possibility.

There's my rambling 1.3 (after tax) cents ...

I imagine they want to get it right, so that is why it has taken so long getting it on the shelves. I respect that.

Wow, I posted about this problem almost 2 years ago, sad to see this is still not fixed...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Then I discovered the same issue was occuring in Portra 160 (120)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Anyone know what's Kodaks stance on this is?

moodlover said:

Wow, I posted about this problem almost 2 years ago, sad to see this is still not fixed...
Then I discovered the same issue was occuring in Portra 160 (120)

Click to expand...

That is exactly why I've all but given-up on medium format. If this mess is proven to resolved across all manufacturers, I'll get the Mamiya out again...otherwise it'll continue to be 35mm, 4 x 5 and 2.25 x 3.25 in sheets.

MultiFormat Shooter said:

That is exactly why I've all but given-up on medium format. If this mess is proven to resolved across all manufacturers, I'll get the Mamiya out again...otherwise it'll continue to be 35mm, 4 x 5 and 2.25 x 3.25 in sheets.

Click to expand...

Hey now, this is no reason to give up on the best format. Just find a retailer who has good batches, keep shooting

MultiFormat Shooter said:

That is exactly why I've all but given-up on medium format. If this mess is proven to resolved across all manufacturers, I'll get the Mamiya out again...otherwise it'll continue to be 35mm, 4 x 5 and 2.25 x 3.25 in sheets.

Click to expand...

It's a great idea..you get all the bad batches and I get the good stuff...there is something to be said about negativity...the more you feed it the bigger the flame..and on and on and on
Better yet send all your my gear!

Oops.. send me the gear!!

RattyMouse said:

It's been out of stock for 1 year. Where have you been?

Click to expand...

I usually shoot color -Velvia.

Thanks everyone for your ideas and suggestions. In any case, I decided to try some Tmax 400. Maybe I can get some handheld shots of people with my RB67?

Peter Schrager said:

...there is something to be said about negativity...

Click to expand...

There's also something to be said about spending significant time and money on a shoot and having big numbers imprinted on all of your images...which is negative, too (no pun intended).

Alan Klein said:

I usually shoot color -Velvia.

Thanks everyone for your ideas and suggestions. In any case, I decided to try some Tmax 400. Maybe I can get some handheld shots of people with my RB67?

Click to expand...

Hope your TMax 400 comes-out well! Did you ever have any issues with the Velvia you shot?

Peter Schrager said:

Tmax100 will be available again...Kodak will be making it long after you are all under 6 feet of dirt....
in the meantime use Delta100....beautiful film..
go make pictures!!!

Click to expand...

Agree, Peter. The best thing to do to improve our photographs is to shoot and print more. No film can trump that.

The wrapper offset problem may very well have been fixed for films manufactured more recently (at least several months) in that the changes implemented by Kodak may have reduced the re-occurrence to the same frequency as would have been described as "normal" three years ago. I do not think I've seen a report from anyone who has had this wrapper offset problem with the latest version of the backing paper.
The problem with wrapper offset will continue to show up at least infrequently, because the problem has always been there. It has happened to all manufacturers, at various times and with various products. Frequency of occurrence wasn't large, but neither was it zero. Some manufacturers (like Ilford) had greater problems earlier, and revised their backing paper and ink accordingly. That is why Ilford film used to be harder to use with red window cameras than Kodak's, because Kodak had darker numbers.
Around three years ago (??) Kodak ran out of the backing paper it had always produced for itself, and started buying new backing paper from a high end paper supplier capable of supplying special purpose paper.
For some reason, the ink on that new backing paper interacted with some of the films, in some circumstances, at a frequency that was greater than Kodak films had suffered in the recent past. Not on every roll of film, or even the majority of film, but in a very small minority of cases, and for no clear reason. And the effect showed up earlier for some films than others. The reports about the colour emulsions seemed to appear later, but that may be due to Kodak having run out of the colour film backing paper at a different time than they ran out of the black and white backing paper. Remember, that there used to be different printing for each emulsion, whereas in recent times they were forced to go to a single common backing paper. Or it may be that the interaction between the ink and the colour emulsions is slower. In any event, it is a problem with the same batch(es) of backing paper. I could be wrong, but I don't think it has been seen with every 120 emulsion, but it may have been. As it is almost certainly the result of the film emulsion reacting to the ink, it is almost certainly emulsion dependent.
So the backing paper and ink combination has been changed a couple of times.
There are still a few rolls out there with the intermediate, potentially problematic backing paper and ink combination. And the same small percentage of that slightly older film may suffer the problem, even if most won't. Any report of a "new" problem is most likely a problem with film that has that backing paper.
I've got a number of rolls of TMY2 left from that problem batch which I kept after Kodak Alaris sent me replacements. I've exposed two from the problem batch - one shows very faint signs of wrapper offset with very high magnification scans enhanced for visibility of the numbers, but doesn't show any signs when I print the film optically. The other roll shows no signs of the problem.
I am sure, unfortunately, that the changes invoked by Kodak have made the films harder to use with some red window cameras, and impossible to use with some others (there numbers are both less dark, and there aren't as many sets of them).

DWThomas said:

I keep seeing that in these threads, but I am way less than convinced that is the case. Even if it is, there is the paper itself, then there is coating and printing on it, which appears as though it is a two step process. There are also radical differences in the surface finish of the papers from various film makers. Each film maker has a different design of numbers and lead-in symbols. Some films have the film type printed directly on the backing paper, some don't. So if all of that is literally coming from one place, it's being done to some sort of contracted specification (and thus could vary between "brands"). I think it's more likely that either the film producer or an intermediate contractor does some of the middle steps which means potentially different results between brands.

I had some 400TX from a batch number that was flagged which I had yet to use, but it was bought for a major auto tour, so I contacted the aforementioned Mr. Mooney and he sent replacements. I shot a number of rolls of the replacement film on my trip, but also interspersed some HP5 to spread the risk. All was fine, and this stuff saw temperatures well over 100ºF in Arizona along the way. Admittedly those temperatures occurred under very low humidity however -- that's another potential variable.

At any rate, this year for some "photo walks" with a local group through local sites I've been to before and can easily get back to again, I have shot some of the original rolls from the potentially bad batch -- and not seen a problem. I know other makers have had the problem years back (before I was shooting any medium format) but I have used Delta 100, FP4 and HP5 from Ilford and still shoot a fair amount of Acros from Fuji, as well as a minor sampling of color films a few years back, without seeing this problem.

I no longer shoot color film, mostly because of processing expense and hassle (vs "other technology") but I have yet to see a problem with numbers on B&W. Admittedly, I have shot no recent vintage Tmax films, which seem to have been the leader in showing the problem.

I suspect (old retired engineering type here!) that the problem is a complex one in which specific emulsion chemistry, storage temperatures, humidity levels, and handling post exposure may play a role. The Great Yellow Father has obviously made changes in their numbering, reducing the amount and density of the inked numbers. I would say a smart move would be to buy a quantity from one batch and try it a roll or two before traveling. If they're OK, go with it. But I would think if you're going to spend two months in some sort of tropical rain forest environment, some 35mm/sheetfilm/electrocuted bits as backup might be wise. I also suspect under those conditions that has always been a possibility.

There's my rambling 1.3 (after tax) cents ...

Click to expand...

Well - D WThomas as you mentioned some
films - I decided I like this very much what you just stated.

Often thoughts : If the day would come manufacturer disontinues bw films - like
we saw with E6.
It should not be such a catasthropy.
Not if only Ilford offeres films at least.

With the 3 "old" emulsions one can work
in a perfekt way. In the past 30 years ago
they were Not Old. (many improvements).

There you have only this 3 from Ilford - just remenber it.

So the world will not be crashed If you will have somewhere in the future only
this 3 legends of bw film.
Additional Delta would gave you an absolut sufficient full sortiment.

Thats great even in the worst case .

with regards

Peter Schrager said:

Tmax100 will be available again...Kodak will be making it long after you are all under 6 feet of dirt....
in the meantime use Delta100....beautiful film..
go make pictures!!!

Click to expand...

Yes it is - remenber Ilford has got completely skint at about 3 times in the past.
As a result they fired many of their outstanding trained employees.
What a desaster.
But they got the chance to restructurate
their business therefore 3 times in the
past.
Hartmann the new company with new financial omnipotent proprietors behind
jacked up the prices several times (every 3 month) on higher levels than of
Kodak prices.
But let us notice the impotent fact of
new structures today :
Each film Ilford ever made is avaible today.
And it will be avaible in the next years.
(hope).

What is with legend Kodak bw emulsions
today?
It is indeed a shame on Kodak not be able to produce simple bw films in the quantities the marked demands.

(my first an my last constructive critism to fellows in rochester)

with regards

I had no problem buying some TMX 100 - 120 at my local camera shop last month. But I have found that TMY2 is just about the same and for me a better tonal range. All my TMAX films are developed by me in TMAX developer 1:4.

In 50 years of shooting 120/220 I never had a backing issue. Usually those problems are caused by the camera.

RichardJack said:

I had no problem buying some TMX 100 - 120 at my local camera shop last month. But I have found that TMY2 is just about the same and for me a better tonal range. All my TMAX films are developed by me in TMAX developer 1:4.

In 50 years of shooting 120/220 I never had a backing issue. Usually those problems are caused by the camera.

Click to expand...

In case you had missed the event, this is a two year old issue that Kodak has owed up to; they have a problem with the backing paper - the text and numbers on the backing paper imprint on the emulsion chemically and remain post development, which is a colossal problem. Many people have been affected by this, and the availability of TMax 100 is a likely effect of this issue.

Any news about TMX availability in Europe? I finished my last roll and i need a 100 asa film for long exposure. I do not want to switch to Acros 100

foen said:

Any news about TMX availability in Europe? I finished my last roll and i need a 100 asa film for long exposure. I do not want to switch to Acros 100

Click to expand...

Same procedure - I can't definitivly not imagine what happens.
So as boing is unable to produce tribble 7....Daimler could not deliver any roadster and coke can't be sold due to
production problems.........

So Kodak can't produce TMX at this time.

Last info is : TMX should be avaible in 120 again at 07/2017 perhaps we better
add + 3 month ...

with regards

Delta 100

Andrew O'Neill said:

Delta 100

Click to expand...

I have had some 120 TMax100 on order for almost two years now. I still want to try it and intend to if I live long enough. Meanwhile I have ordered and received some Ilford Delta 100 in both 120 and 135. I have read great things about this film. Haven't tried it yet but will. Also have some 4x5 in the same film........Regards!

oldtimermetoo said:

I have had some 120 TMax100 on order for almost two years now. I still want to try it and intend to if I live long enough. Meanwhile I have ordered and received some Ilford Delta 100 in both 120 and 135. I have read great things about this film. Haven't tried it yet but will. Also have some 4x5 in the same film........Regards!

Click to expand...

TMX in Xtol 1+1 is quite nice...and so is Delta 100. I do hope that we see TMX 120 on shelves soon!

Andrew O'Neill said:

TMX in Xtol 1+1 is quite nice...and so is Delta 100. I do hope that we see TMX 120 on shelves soon!

Click to expand...

Yes, I fear for the health of the good folks at Mobberley. If they keep getting this kind of news about Lucky prices, no Tmax100, Fuji discontinuing lines etc then there comes a point when Pemberstone's celebrations has to start affecting their livers

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

Yes, I fear for the health of the good folks at Mobberley. If they keep getting this kind of news about Lucky prices, no Tmax100, Fuji discontinuing lines etc then there comes a point when Pemberstone's celebrations has to start affecting their livers

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Oh yes, this has to be a big positive for those folks. I wonder just how much their sales has increased? I know I've help them in that department. Truth is, I have never used much Tmax 100, but TMY2 400 is a different story. Still, I'm using HP5+ a lot more than ever and liking real well.

I can't believe the kodak BS.

What a shit company, really.

NB23 said:

I can't believe the kodak BS.

What a shit company, really.

Click to expand...

Who makes the best film in the world. Can't have everything ya know...