TMAX400 120 watermark defect - current status?

[tomfrh]

I just put a roll through and it has the dreaded KODAK and numbers watermarks. Its expiry is Feb 2017.

Any idea what's happening with this issue? Has kodak acknowledged it? Do we know which batches are affected?

 

[paul ron]

kodak watermark defect? i just shot 4 rolls of tmax 400 and dont see any watermarks. this is fresh film i bought last week from b&h... got 50 rolls.... id hate to think there are defective rolls in there.

can you post a pic of the watermarks?

 

[photog_ed]

I googled this and found an extensive thread on the subject here:

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

 

[Trond]

I use lots of T-Max 400, and have never seen or heard about this problem. More information: examples of problem, camera, storage of exposed rolls, etc, would be interesting.

Trond

 

[Trond]

Looks like this has been covered it great detail already...

Trond

 

[BrianShaw]

"I just put a roll through..."

Through what?

 

[paul ron]

i agree with the backing paper numbers bleeding through due to a light leak in the camera.

ill bet if you put the film back on the paper, the marks will line right up.

maybe aliens looking at your picfures before they were processed?

 

[paul ron]

btw... which camera?

Is this throughout the entire roll or just a few frames?

 

[JW PHOTO]

Based on the last thread, barring user error/camera problems etc. Kodak explained this offset issue could potentially be caused by exposure of the film to high heat levels.

I still haven't seen any credible evidence of a manufacturing fault.

Michael,
My question to and answer like that is, "Why now"? I'm sure heat has reached many rolls of Tmax 400 / TMY2 before this. Why didn't we hear of this problem before? Like two, three, four or more years ago if it doesn't have something to do with a manufacturing change???? No, I believe the problem is on Kodak's end and not the consumers end. I just wish Kodak would say whether or not they have the problem solve. I have not bought a Kodak product since this issue was announced and won't until I know it's solved. I hear people on this forum tell other folks who buy cheap film not to waste their time and money on inferior products 'cause their pictures are to valuable. Well, that sure seems to fit here, but Kodak ain't cheap. Ilford and Ultrafine Xtreme until then for me. John W

 

[MattKing]

It could have been a single truckload destined for B&H that got stuck somewhere in the sun.

A lot of retailers in other parts of the world buy from the New York sources rather than their own, local sources.

 

[JW PHOTO]

It could have been a single truckload destined for B&H that got stuck somewhere in the sun.

A lot of retailers in other parts of the world buy from the New York sources rather than their own, local sources.

Matt,
I really don't know for sure if heat is the problem or not. Your theory might be right, but what I'm saying is what about all those folks out there that have left their cameras or film in the glove box of their cars on a hot, sunny day. Those car interiors get extremely hot and you'd think we'd have seen this problem crop up way before this. I'd say it's definitely a problem in the paper/number paint area. Kodak changed something and now "bingo", we have problems. Could the new numbers paint + heat be the problem? Sure could, but then it puts the problem back in manufactures (Kodaks) lap and not us consumers. Maybe Kodak will have to have a warning label attached to TMY2's box stating, "Keep out of hot sun - only use below 95 degrees". Just like the Surgeon Generals warning on a pack of smokes.

 

[MattKing]

I'm quoting Kodak when it comes to the attribution of this to heat damage.

It isn't a new problem - wrapper offset due to heat or other storage problems is a problem that has been around for a long time with paper backed rolls.

The newer paper may have played a part in it, or it may be a coincidence.

What is true though is that the world of film sources is much smaller than it once was (i.e. not nearly as many sources) while the world of immediate worldwide distribution of information is upon us.

 

[Sirius Glass]

These is an issue: The handling of the film prior to purchase and possibly the handling of the film after the purchase. The hot summers that Australia has been experiencing can be exacerbating the problem. I would suggest that you question your film supplier about how they handle and store the film before they sell it.

 

[tomfrh]

According to Kodak in their reply email to me there is "an issue with the backing paper".

I don't understand why so many of you are denying the issue exists.

 

[MattKing]

According to Kodak in their reply email to me there is "an issue with the backing paper".

I don't understand why so many of you are denying the issue exists.

Can you give us a bit more of the reply. I'd like to compare it with the reply I received some time ago when I drew the earlier thread to Kodak's attention.

No one is denying that there is some damaged film out there.

The question is whether it is a manufacturing problem or whether it arose because of handling errors by other parties.

 

[paul ron]

btw... which camera?

Is this throughout the entire roll or just a few frames?

If there was an issue with the backing paper, why haven't there been more complaints? I shoot at least 4 rolls a week. Ive had the same expiration date lot you did, as well as a new batch bought recently with no problems nor have I ever had any problems like this.

Not denying its a real problem.. but so far, by your evidence, I dont see it as Kodak's fault. Seems more like user error somewhere between the Kodak plant n you. Im sure Kodak worded their response as it may be possible, but not as a matter of fact world wide problem.

so once again..
is this in a few frames of this particular roll?... the entire roll?.... the entire batch of this exp date you have?

 

[RattyMouse]

It could have been a single truckload destined for B&H that got stuck somewhere in the sun.

A lot of retailers in other parts of the world buy from the New York sources rather than their own, local sources.

I had this problem with TMAX400 in both China and Japan bought film. I'm done with this film since the quality is no longer there. A real shame as I *always* used TMAX400.

 

[paul ron]

I had this problem with TMAX400 in both China and Japan bought film. I'm done with this film since the quality is no longer there. A real shame as I *always* used TMAX400.

was it just a few frames on one roll? was it a few rolls? was it the entire batch you bought?
its easy to say you had a problem but not enough information to isolate a problem.

.

 

[tomfrh]

Kodak said to me "Yes there seems to be an issue with the backing paper, we will replace the film for you".
That is all they said about it.

I don't understand the defensiveness over it. You lot are being more defensive than Kodak themselves!

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Hey Tom...

We Americans are proud of our EKC and are saddened by it's near demise and severe weakening. It's like when someone criticizes your child when he/she misses a goal and you tell them to STFU. Sure, they goofed but you'd better STFU anyway.

 

[paul ron]

not defensive... its problem solving.

so???? few frames... few rolls? need more info to help isolate the cause. need to hear the details. camera, conditions... etc.

there has to be more than youre telling us.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I don't care one way or the other about Kodak's response or lack there of. What I do care about is whether or not they fixed the damn problem. Sure seems like they could put out some kind of press release as to whether it's solved or not? Of course that would be like telling the world they screwed something up and they might not want to do that..

 

[MattKing]

I don't care one way or the other about Kodak's response or lack there of. What I do care about is whether or not they fixed the damn problem. Sure seems like they could put out some kind of press release as to whether it's solved or not? Of course that would be like telling the world they screwed something up and they might not want to do that..

That is assuming it is a solvable problem with the film, and not a result of heat damage due to the actions of someone (distributor, middleman, retailer or customer) who bought the film and then shipped or stored it improperly.

 

[paul ron]

if its heat... ill put a roll in the oven n see if its a reproduceable problem...

answer my questions?
is it a real problem?... lets solve it?... duplicate it?

so few frames, rolls what?

 

[MattKing]

if this film is so uniquely sensitive to Tibor parking his delivery van in the sun then why mark the paper in the first place?

All films are sensitive to heat. Wrapper offset due to bad storage conditions has been an infrequent but not unknown problem with 120 and other paper backed film since there has been paper backed film.

The paper backing needs numbers in order that the film be usable in all those cameras out there that still use a (usually red) window to control the film advance spacing.