TMAX400 120 watermark defect - current status?

R.Gould · May 20, 2016

RattyMouse said:
I've had it happen to me once with Ilford film, but never with Fuji film, despite shooting 10 times more film from Fuji than Kodak or Ilford.

Statically speaking, for me, Fujifilm is the safest to use.

I have never had this happen with either Ilford or Foma, I never used Fuji so can't comment, but certainly Foma which is the film I use most, has a completely different backing paper to Ilford/Kodak, as does Rollei, they both use the same backing paper and it feels slightly thicker, feels more like the backing paper that was used in the fifties/sixties. Maybe that is part of the problem with Kodak, just a suggestion, but could a change of backing paper to something like Foma/Rollei help with the problem

removed account4 · May 20, 2016

maybe someone is selling used/recycled, dumpster dove
120 pre-ink bleed 120 paper on eBay
it just takes a "re-roll" ezpzlemonzqueezy

Old-N-Feeble · May 20, 2016

Too bad they don't make non-numbered rolls for those who don't need that feature. I wonder what percentage of 120 roll film users do need the numbers. Not that I want to see anyone doing without!!

R.Gould · May 20, 2016

Old-N-Feeble said:
Too bad they don't make non-numbered rolls for those who don't need that feature. I wonder what percentage of 120 roll film users do need the numbers. Not that I want to see anyone doing without!!

I for one need the numbers for at least 90% of my photography as I mostly use various folders. I have just 2 cameras that don't need numbers, my Rolleiflex and cord, and there are I think quite a few that use these wonderful old cameras,

DWThomas · May 20, 2016

Gulp! Yes, 3 of my 5 120/620 cameras need the numbers. Admittedly the Perkeo II only needs #1 to set the indexing. And I've used Fuji, Ilford and Kodak without a problem since 2006. I've not run one yet, but my most recent buy of TriX is in the bad batch number range -- guess I'll try one and see what happens. Henry P from B&H posted the dubious batch numbers in a thread on PhotoNet yesterday. I hope that means whatever questionable stock they may have had is expunged, although he didn't specifically say that.

Scary to be subjected to excess bat wing dandruff in the soy bean oil ink or whatever the problem is.

Xmas · May 20, 2016

Sal Santamaura said:
...Most of what's written on the subject in these threads is unadulterated speculation, nothing more.

We know that the Kodak UK pension fund was a significant creditor before exit from chapter 11.
And
Alaris got the Harrow factory.
Etc.,...
And as well exclusive marketing/sales rights to stills film, or no one else has been interested...
If Alaris' agreement was at normal resellers rates they were stupid.
If Eastmans selling it at factory cost they won't be making a loss.
Where it might actually be is anyone's guess as you suggest.
But the pension fund could claim they were borrowing money to pay pensioners etc. And extracted Eastman blood.

If I knew I could not say I knew.

The Harrow film building has not coated since 04 or it may not exist.

All the film staff long gone, the remaining staff gone or about to go.

The point was Trix used to be made at other sites than Rochester USA.

Xmas · May 21, 2016

Michael R 1974 said:
Who came up with this system in the first place? Why couldn't 120 film have worked the same way 135 does? Not that 35mm will necessarily be forever immune to problems - we know that Kodak stopped making its own acetate support so when it eventually has to outsource it who knows what other problems might come up.

And since you're stuck with backing paper, why does it need any markings on it at all?

A good old country boy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roll_film

Invented it.

220 roll film does not have backing paper only leader and trailer.
But it never was a marketing success so it was stopped rescently.

But Eastman and Alaris have just goofed upon the first problem (maybe before RattyMouse's) they should have done tests and pulled all delinquent batches and published a warning newspapers and web site.

They have annoyed customers for +6 months.

I've looked at my stash. I've only got Kodak plusx in 120.

This is marketing Kodak used to have a show case in every pharmacy now they only have 135 c41 in major pharmacies, Ilford still have HP5+ 120 (as well as 135) in our dominant pharmacy chain, some open 8/7.

I stopped buying Kodak 2003 cept expired or Lomo shop on Sunday. I only buy over the counter.

I'm happy without Kodak 120, I still have Leverkausen 120 APX400, Foma, Ilford etc.

bdial · May 21, 2016

DWThomas said:
...I've not run one yet, but my most recent buy of TriX is in the bad batch number range -- guess I'll try one and see what happens. Henry P from B&H posted the dubious batch numbers in a thread on PhotoNet yesterday. I hope that means whatever questionable stock they may have had is expunged, although he didn't specifically say that....

I have one roll that lies in the questionable range. I am debating whether or not it's worth it to send it back for replacement or just shoot it and hope. It was purchased from a large eastern retailer a couple of months ago, so it seems likely it hasn't been subjected to high heat. I am leaning toward just using it and seeing what happens.

MattKing · May 23, 2016

MattKing said:
I've got thirty rolls that fit within the batches that are reported to have had problems. As best as I can recall, most of them were purchased through the internet, including some through Amazon.ca. I have not yet experienced any problems myself, but I don't know that I've used any films yet from the identified batches.

I'll be interested to see how Kodak Alaris responds to the enquiry I've sent them about the films I have

I've had a response to my enquiry to Thomas Mooney (profilm@kodakalaris.com) about the 6 un-exposed pro-packs (30 rolls) of TMY-2 that I have that fall within the batches identified as problematic.

I quote:

"As of the beginning of this year, we’ve made some modifications to the backing paper which should minimize the potential for this type of issue moving forward. The first TMY-2 product made with this paper is emulsion 0153.
Please send me your address, and I will send you six (6) replacement ProPacks of T-Max 400 spooled with the new paper."

tomfrh · May 24, 2016

silveror0 said:
areas with lots of detail will tend to camouflage the dreaded numbers.

Best not to use it at all for any shots that matter.

foen · May 24, 2016

I mailed to mr. Mooney two days ago about a 0972 002 TMY2 batch but still without reply.

Jon Shiu · May 24, 2016

foen said:
I mailed to mr. Mooney two days ago about a 0972 002 TMY2 batch but still without reply.

Resend, note TMX or TMY?

foen · May 24, 2016

Jon Shiu said:
Resend, note TMX or TMY?

TMX I made a typo

MattKing · May 24, 2016

MattKing said:
I've had a response to my enquiry to Thomas Mooney (profilm@kodakalaris.com) about the 6 un-exposed pro-packs (30 rolls) of TMY-2 that I have that fall within the batches identified as problematic.

I quote:

"As of the beginning of this year, we’ve made some modifications to the backing paper which should minimize the potential for this type of issue moving forward. The first TMY-2 product made with this paper is emulsion 0153.
Please send me your address, and I will send you six (6) replacement ProPacks of T-Max 400 spooled with the new paper."

I've now received a notification from Mr. Mooney that my film will ship today.

pentaxuser · May 24, 2016

MattKing said:
I've now received a notification from Mr. Mooney that my film will ship today.

That's great but it just seem strange to me that it all has to be done through Mr Mooney rather than through the stockist from whom the films were purchased. Maybe the amount of potentially defective films are small enough for this to be the most efficient way but if not then this represents a solution which may be known to only a few Kodak users and I am back to the kind of conclusions I drew about better short-term costs for Kodak versus longer term loss of business which may be more damaging

pentaxuser

MattKing · May 24, 2016

pentaxuser said:
That's great but it just seem strange to me that it all has to be done through Mr Mooney rather than through the stockist from whom the films were purchased. Maybe the amount of potentially defective films are small enough for this to be the most efficient way but if not then this represents a solution which may be known to only a few Kodak users and I am back to the kind of conclusions I drew about better short-term costs for Kodak versus longer term loss of business which may be more damaging

pentaxuser

With so much film being bought over the internet, and frequently imported from other countries, the "stockist" isn't exactly handy.

I cannot tell you with exactitude which ProPack was purchased by me from which source. Almost all of it was bought over the internet, and much of that was impoorted by me from the US.

pthornto · May 25, 2016

I also had some propacks of TMY-2 that were in the affected lot numbers. I sent an E-mail to Mr. Mooney on Monday and today he confirmed that replacement film would be shipped today. If you didn't get a response from him promptly I would try again.

Paul

pentaxuser · May 25, 2016

Just as a matter of interest is Mr Mooney, U.S. based and if he is, does he also cover non U.S. territories? I am presuming that the batch numbers were not confined to the U.S.

Thanks

pentaxuser

Prof_Pixel · May 25, 2016

I assume he is based in Rochester, NY, but why not just email and ask HIM?

jerrybro · May 25, 2016

I have also emailed Mr. Rooney and received a reply. I will say that if there had been no reply that would have been end of me and Kodak film, but based on this I am willing to keep it going a while longer.

RattyMouse · May 25, 2016

It's ridiculous that Kodak is handling this via a half hidden recall. Absolutely ridiculous. What is this, amateur hour?

pentaxuser · May 25, 2016

Anyone know if the message we got here on APUG about the batch numbers via John Sexton is now on the Kodak website so anyone who is experiencing a problem with the film batch numbers know how to seek redress?

I appreciate that many now buy on the internet and I do not know what percentage of sales is via Kodak stockists on the internet but for those who use the likes of B&H etc and the stockists in the U.K. and rest of Europe via internet ordering I would have thought that a Kodak message might have suggested an approach via the stockist or an e-mail to Mr Mooney if the film was bought from other sources

What does Mr Mooney ask for in terms of proof of purchase and does he ask for a return of the film or is it enough to be able to simply state the batch number which everyone on APUG certainly including those who haven't actually bought the affected film can now quote if so minded?

pentaxuser

Prof_Pixel · May 25, 2016

pentaxuser said:
What does Mr Mooney ask for in terms of proof of purchase and does he ask for a return of the film or is it enough to be able to simply state the batch number which everyone on APUG certainly including those who haven't actually bought the affected film can now quote if so minded?

Why not just simply email him and ask HIM to get accurate information rather than getting second hand (or third hand) information here?

pentaxuser · May 25, 2016

Prof_Pixel said:
Why not just simply email him and ask HIM to get accurate information rather than getting second hand (or third hand) information here?

Well on APUG we are having a kind of "written" conversation with people who are in the same room so to speak and as there have been several APUGers with successful outcomes as a result of contacting Mr Mooney I thought that it might be quicker to glean what information Mr Mooney requires by asking here.

I thank you for your suggestion to contact Mr Mooney and I had not overlooked or worse still ignored it. It may be the best way but as he seems quite busy and may get even busier resolving customer issues I thought it prudent to seek others' experience.

pentaxuser

Prof_Pixel · May 25, 2016

If you want to insure accurate information, go to the source.

TMAX400 120 watermark defect - current status?

R.Gould

removed account4

Old-N-Feeble

R.Gould

DWThomas

Xmas

Xmas

bdial

MattKing

Moderator

tomfrh

foen

Jon Shiu

foen

MattKing

Moderator

pentaxuser

MattKing

Moderator

pthornto

pentaxuser

Prof_Pixel

jerrybro

RattyMouse

pentaxuser

Prof_Pixel

pentaxuser

Prof_Pixel

TMAX400 120 watermark defect - current status?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency