TMAX400 120 watermark defect - current status?

Prof_Pixel said:

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

Click to expand...

Well there's no arguing with the truth of that statement. I may continue to ask for information here on APUG but I accept that the matter is probably closed between us in the sense that both of us have explained our positions and we can best leave it there

pentaxuser

It's presently 4:30 Wednesday afternoon in Rochester, so if you email him now, he probably won't see it until Thursday morning. This will give him 2 days to respond. If you delay in writing, the weekend will come into play meaning you won't hear from him for 5 days (or more).

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?

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

I don't know what Mr. Mooney and/or Kodak Alaris needs, but I can tell you what I sent him.

Last fall, after coming across threads here and elsewhere, I realized that the numbers I saw on my TMY2 negatives were not a development/loading/handling mistake on my part. I emailed Mr. Mooney a scan of an affected negative, and a copy of the film purchase receipt from B&H. At the time, I hadn't seen talk of affected Tri-X, just TMY2, so I asked for replacement propacks of Tri-X. Those were sent promptly. It turns out that that Tri-X falls within the codes listed on John Sexton's site. I emailed Mr. Mooney about this on Tuesday (with snaps showing the codes on the propacks and foil wrapper), and replacement propacks of Tri-X arrived today.

RattyMouse said:

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

Click to expand...

Google
Kodak Alaris Tmax
Read all about it...

Xmas said:

Google
Kodak Alaris Tmax
Read all about it...

Click to expand...

Care to share a link? I looked at Alaris' web site and found nothing to show that Kodak is trying to help customers with the recent batches of defective film. I'm not saying it's not there, only that it's so well hidden that I can't find it.

R.Gould said:

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

Click to expand...

The problem is not the paper but the ink, or the combination of ink+ 'new' paper. The ink is the thing which leaves a mark on the film. Less ink, forced drying of the ink, new sort of ink, no ink at all (for cameras that need no frame-numbers) are all possibilities within a solution. If no numbers were to be applied then one could even use a non-printable material as backing to protect the film - even filmbase carrying only a black gelatine layer.

MartinP said:

The problem is not the paper but the ink, or the combination of ink+ 'new' paper. The ink is the thing which leaves a mark on the film. Less ink, forced drying of the ink, new sort of ink, no ink at all (for cameras that need no frame-numbers) are all possibilities within a solution. If no numbers were to be applied then one could even use a non-printable material as backing to protect the film - even filmbase carrying only a black gelatine layer.

Click to expand...

Again just a suggestion, but maybe they could learn something from Foma/Rollei. maybe they got it right, although I doubt that either Ilford or Foma/Rollei would like to give them what might be trade secrets, a lot of photographers, me included, need the frame numbers in a form that can be seen with red window cameras,so no numbers is not really an option, I have no doubt that they will find a solution, but if the solution is very light or no numbers then yhat would rule me out as a potential customer as 90% of my MF photography is with folders

RattyMouse said:

Care to share a link? I looked at Alaris' web site and found nothing to show that Kodak is trying to help customers with the recent batches of defective film. I'm not saying it's not there, only that it's so well hidden that I can't find it.

Click to expand...

+1

Please expand upon your suggestion, Noel, with some useful advise. If you know something we don't know... we are interested.

BrianShaw said:

+1

Please expand upon your suggestion, Noel, with some useful advise. If you know something we don't know... we are interested.

Click to expand...

+1 Most of us are simply "seekers of information here"

pentaxuser

I just called Freestyle, and they have had no reports of problems w/ their Kodak 120 TMax 400 films. They're out of stock on the 5 packs and expect to have those in sometime in June (the rep guessed that they were out because of problems Kodak had w/ the films), but they have the individual rolls in stock and have had no complaints on those. Nor did they have complaints on the 5 packs when they were in stock. Another good reason to buy from these folks. I won't buy new photographic supplies like paper, film, and chemicals from anyone but them and Photographers' Formulary.

So I've recently been shooting a bunch of TMY-2, along with other 120 film.

In understanding that it's a backing paper issue, I wanted to actually analyze the backing paper differences that might help people know if they might have an issue.

So...

Here are 6 rolls

2 HP5+
2 TMY-2 (pre-backing paper change)
2 TMY-2 (post-backing paper change)



It appears that there were differences even between batches of the new backing paper, not just the ink, but the white paper itself seems to be of different translucency levels (what I mean is that in one on the left you can clearly see through the white paper to the black backing, while another is "whiter" and less able to see through to the black backing.

There's also a difference between them in terms of the black edging where one has "bleed" and the other black edge ends and white paper beings before the edge.



Furthermore, there seems to be a difference in the ink amounts for sure.

EDIT: This is the post-change ink...



This is the ink on the more transparent roll that has full bleed to the edge with the ink.



And this is the one that the edge stops and then white appears before the edge. This is the one that seems to have the most ink, so much so that it almost is raised and has a visible texture to it, although it doesn't FEEL like it use a texture, there is a definite "shine" to the ink, more than the others and it seems thicker with more visible texture.



For comparison, here's the HP5+ which has so little ink that it has patches on the numbers where no ink exists, as if they were running out of ink (most likely on purpose to limit the amount of possible ink contamination).



EDIT: it appears that the paper that had the THICKER ink, is from before Kodak made its change over to the new backing company. And that the initial picture above is from the NEWER batches that have issues. I made an ass out of myself by ASSuming that the rolls that appeared to have a heavier ink must be the newer ones. I am thoroughly apologetic about this, however this is still going to be somewhat helpful I suppose when I develop since I do have one roll from batch 0151 002 date 11/2017 that is part of the list of "don't even bother" batch numbers. So I guess the lesson is, you can't always go by a visual inspection of the ink on the paper itself. END EDIT.

Hope this helps people.

I have NOT developed the film yet, but I'll let people know when I do, probably by Tuesday.

It will be interesting to see if the one with the heavy appearance of ink is the culprit or if I'll get something unexpected.

I hope this helps people in some way.

~Stone

Which emulsion batch numbers are which?

MattKing said:

Which emulsion batch numbers are which?

Click to expand...

That's an excellent question. Unfortunately I threw all the boxes away before the announcement about the issue was made, with the exception of ....

0151 002 dated 11/2017

Oh dear!!!! I've made a huge error...

It seems the heavy appearance ink is from BEFORE the backing paper change... Hmm.... (Going to correct the above post, wow do I feel foolish)

You will be able to tell the emulsion batch by carefully looking at the developed film's rebate - near "11".

Just be sure to keep the backing paper referenced to the film.

You do understand, do you not, that not all films within the problem batches show the problem?

In fact, it may be that only a tiny percentage of the films within the problem batches will show the problem, and then only when the film happens to have been subjected to some combination of circumstances that the batches are particularly susceptible to.

MattKing said:

You will be able to tell the emulsion batch by carefully looking at the developed film's rebate - near "11".

Just be sure to keep the backing paper referenced to the film.

You do understand, do you not, that not all films within the problem batches show the problem?

In fact, it may be that only a tiny percentage of the films within the problem batches will show the problem, and then only when the film happens to have been subjected to some combination of circumstances that the batches are particularly susceptible to.

Click to expand...

Thanks about the rebate info, I now remember reading that somewhere else but had forgotten until you said something.

Yes my rolls are clearly labeled and are the last images of my father before he passed so trust me I know which rolls are which and I always mark them on the sticky tape with info.

And yes I realize not all are affected, but since I always get mine from B&H and it seems that their delivery truck MAY have been the one affected, I'm preparing myself for the fact that this may have been one of the rolls at the top of the pile closest to the heat.

Thanks Matt for making me look more closely, thank you.

MattKing said:

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

Click to expand...

My replacement film was received today.

It was actually here yesterday, but I wasn't here to accept delivery from the courier.

It was shipped directly from Rochester, NY USA, and bears batch #0154 - 001, and a 09/2018 reference that I've always assumed means the "Develop Before" date - although it doesn't actually say that.

I recently ran my first roll of the new TMY400. Close inspection with a loupe reveals no problems. Damn I love TMY. If I had one film for the rest of my life, yeah, it's TMAX 400. Nice and crisp in D23.

ParkerSmithPhoto said:

I recently ran my first roll of the new TMY400. Close inspection with a loupe reveals no problems. Damn I love TMY. If I had one film for the rest of my life, yeah, it's TMAX 400. Nice and crisp in D23.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on it being one of the best films out there and probably the best 400 speed ever made. Kodak hit the nail on the head with Tmax 100 and 400, but it wasn't always so. I tried Tmax 100 when it first came out and while it was very fine grained it was hard for me(and others) to control contrast wise. Kodak did their magic tweaking and now it just doesn't get any better. I remember people being so wanting the early product to work they were actually trying every thing from different developers/dilutions to running developing temps up in the 90F degree mark. I even tried the high-temp development and it worked fine. It also removed the dye base tint real well too. I could be happy with two B&W films forever. 1. Fuji Acros for 100 speed(I like it much better than Tmax 100) 2. Tmy2 for everything else when I need a little more speed. I'm talking medium format and might look at things differently in 35mm. Now, that the backing paper bugs are supposedly gone I will stock up on some TMY2 for the freezer.

Have not read this thread all the way but John Sexton has this in his blog.
Emulsion numbers that may exhibit the above problem only in Kodak 120 format roll film:
(Emulsion numbers can be found on the film box, the foil wrapper, and printed on the clear edge of processed film near frame number 11.

Kodak T-Max 400
Emulsion 0148 004 through 0152

Kodak T-Max 100
Emulsion 0961 through 0981

Kodak Tri-X
Emulsion 0871 though 0931

Scroll about half way down for all of comments by him.
http://www.johnsexton.com/newsletter05-2016.html

I am at several rolls affected now. Kodak Alaris compensated me with replacement propacks that have been wound with the new backing.
They have had complaints and said have worked the issue at hand. I am going to run a test roll, am a bit paranoid now......

something that has been bugging me. are the ghosts from bleed through or is it where the emulsion sits on the backing paper thats causing the ghosts? it would be interesting to see someone with the problem to rewind the film to see exactly where the ghosts are being transfered from. front or back?

as ive said, i shot plenty of the 2017 tmy2 n not one bad roll in the bunch. just odd how some were not effected at all, yet some from the same store had problems.

what a mess!

paul ron said:

something that has been bugging me. are the ghosts from bleed through or is it where the emulsion sits on the backing paper thats causing the ghosts? it would be interesting to see someone with the problem to rewind the film to see exactly where the ghosts are being transfered from. front or back?

as ive said, i shot plenty of the 2017 tmy2 n not one bad roll in the bunch. just odd how some were not effected at all, yet some from the same store had problems.

what a mess!

Click to expand...

It isn't bleed through because the ghost images are areas of incresed density on the negative and are not reversed.
If it was bleed through, it would have to bleed throgh the film substrate as well, and the ghost images would be reversed.

I just shot a processed a roll from one of the affected batch numbers. All seems normal with no backing paper issues.
4 rolls left from the same 5 roll box. I expect they'll be fine.

I just received 10 rolls from B&H, dated 09/2018 I'm going to assume that since these guys still have a few super geniuses left on staff that between Rochester and B&H they have got this figured out. I'm sticking to Kodak and Ilford through thick and thin.
I'm going to blast off a couple rolls this week. Hopefully all is well.
Best Regards Mike

mshchem said:

I just received 10 rolls from B&H, dated 09/2018 I'm going to assume that since these guys still have a few super geniuses left on staff that between Rochester and B&H they have got this figured out. I'm sticking to Kodak and Ilford through thick and thin.
I'm going to blast off a couple rolls this week. Hopefully all is well.
Best Regards Mike

Click to expand...

Did you get emulsion numbers outside these ranges?

Kodak T-Max 400
Emulsion 0148 004 through 0152

Kodak T-Max 100
Emulsion 0961 through 0981

Kodak Tri-X
Emulsion 0871 though 0931