TMAX400 120 watermark defect - current status?

[BrianShaw]

Well that's a shame, but I understand Ken. These things happen all too often on Internet forums. Thanks for the real story, Sal.

 

[Werewolfman]

Where did Kodak Alaris (or Kodak) put such statement? On Facebook?


Anyway it is the first time I hear that story.

If it was so, why did they not recall that shipment. As I understood the discussion so far they are looking instead for shipments that already proofed to be affected.

I want to share some important information about problems that have been described in this forum, and elsewhere, with Kodak 120 size films. PLEASE check your emulsion numbers with the information below, and share this information with other film photographers.
Here is the text of an article from my most recent eNewsletter. The full newsletter can be found here: http://www.johnsexton.com/newsletter05-2016.html
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR USERS OF 120 FORMAT KODAK PROFESSIONAL FILMS- PLEASE READ
As many readers are likely aware, I have used Kodak Professional film continuously for more than four decades. Over the years I have found Kodak film to be of the highest possible quality and consistency. However, anomalies can occur from time to time. There have been recent reports that appear to be associated with certain batches of 120 format Kodak Professional film.
The problem can easily be seen in the photograph below recently made by William Wetmore. I appreciate William allowing me to share this example with readers. You will notice the word Kodak clearly appears in the sky, along with frame number '13' multiple times. I first became aware of this situation a few months ago when a former workshop participant brought some online discussions on this topic to my attention. Unfortunately, as time has passed, I have encountered a number of students, colleagues, and friends who have experienced this exact problem.
I have spoken at length with Thomas J. Mooney, Film Capture Business Manager at Kodak Alaris about this phenomenon. He told me "Kodak Alaris has had a limited number of inquiries for similar problems, and that the affected film may have seen some abnormal keeping after it left the factory (e.g. sat in a truck over a hot weekend, etc.). That said, we are taking this issue very seriously and have recently made modifications to the backing paper which we believe should minimize the potential for this type of blemish going forward."
Mr. Mooney has supplied me with the emulsion numbers - which I have listed below – where this latent image print issue could potentially be seen. If you have experienced problems, or have questions or concerns, you should email Profilm@Kodakalaris.com. This email address goes directly to Mr. Mooney, who will be able to answer your questions, address your concerns, and replace any problematic film you might have on hand or have used.
If you purchase new film you should make sure that the emulsion number, printed on the box as well as the individual foil packages, is higher than the suspect emulsion numbers listed below. All photographers can imagine the disappointment and frustration any of us would feel if this happened to any of our negatives. Please pass this important news on to your photographic friends.
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

 

[Werewolfman]

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?

This is info that I'm reposting from another forum.
I want to share some important information about problems that have been described in this forum, and elsewhere, with Kodak 120 size films. PLEASE check your emulsion numbers with the information below, and share this information with other film photographers.
Here is the text of an article from my most recent eNewsletter. The full newsletter can be found here: http://www.johnsexton.com/newsletter05-2016.html
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR USERS OF 120 FORMAT KODAK PROFESSIONAL FILMS- PLEASE READ
As many readers are likely aware, I have used Kodak Professional film continuously for more than four decades. Over the years I have found Kodak film to be of the highest possible quality and consistency. However, anomalies can occur from time to time. There have been recent reports that appear to be associated with certain batches of 120 format Kodak Professional film.
The problem can easily be seen in the photograph below recently made by William Wetmore. I appreciate William allowing me to share this example with readers. You will notice the word Kodak clearly appears in the sky, along with frame number '13' multiple times. I first became aware of this situation a few months ago when a former workshop participant brought some online discussions on this topic to my attention. Unfortunately, as time has passed, I have encountered a number of students, colleagues, and friends who have experienced this exact problem.
I have spoken at length with Thomas J. Mooney, Film Capture Business Manager at Kodak Alaris about this phenomenon. He told me "Kodak Alaris has had a limited number of inquiries for similar problems, and that the affected film may have seen some abnormal keeping after it left the factory (e.g. sat in a truck over a hot weekend, etc.). That said, we are taking this issue very seriously and have recently made modifications to the backing paper which we believe should minimize the potential for this type of blemish going forward."
Mr. Mooney has supplied me with the emulsion numbers - which I have listed below – where this latent image print issue could potentially be seen. If you have experienced problems, or have questions or concerns, you should email Profilm@Kodakalaris.com. This email address goes directly to Mr. Mooney, who will be able to answer your questions, address your concerns, and replace any problematic film you might have on hand or have used.
If you purchase new film you should make sure that the emulsion number, printed on the box as well as the individual foil packages, is higher than the suspect emulsion numbers listed below. All photographers can imagine the disappointment and frustration any of us would feel if this happened to any of our negatives. Please pass this important news on to your photographic friends.
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

I hope this helps as I've encountered the exact same problem using 100 T-Max 120 film, emulsion number "0961".

 

[MattKing]

Thanks, but John Sexton's 2016 newsletter has been widely distributed through APUG (now Photrio). In particular, it is right at the beginning of the thread I started in May 2016 in a vain attempt to focus and organize the information on hand: https://www.photrio.com/forum/index...ing-paper-problems-emulsions-affected.137251/

 

[Werewolfman]

Well, do you know if Kodak recalled these films, or are willing to replace them? I have 14 affected pro packs of the 100 TMax film.

 

[MattKing]

Well, do you know if Kodak recalled these films, or are willing to replace them? I have 14 affected pro packs of the 100 TMax film.

Contact Mr. Mooney at the Profilm@Kodakalaris.com email address. He will most likely be able to arrange replacement.
I'm in Canada. My replacement film (6 pro-packs of TMY) was promptly couriered to me from Rochester New York. As I understand it, that was consistent with other people's experience.

 

[RattyMouse]

Contact Mr. Mooney at the Profilm@Kodakalaris.com email address. He will most likely be able to arrange replacement.
I'm in Canada. My replacement film (6 pro-packs of TMY) was promptly couriered to me from Rochester New York. As I understand it, that was consistent with other people's experience.

TMAX100 is not available now so are they replacing the film with a different type?

I had a good 20 bad pro packs of TMAX400, all garbage.

 

[Bill Burk]

I don't know if anybody else ever lined up their affected film with their original backing paper... but the one time it happened to me... the image matched up with the film where the numbers came to rest against the film AFTER shooting and winding forward...

The numbers did not match up with where the numbers touch the film as it comes from the factory.

 

[Photo Engineer]

That is really odd. If you are sure, you should contact Kodak as soon as possible.

PE

 

[John Wiegerink]

I don't know if anybody else ever lined up their affected film with their original backing paper... but the one time it happened to me... the image matched up with the film where the numbers came to rest against the film AFTER shooting and winding forward...

The numbers did not match up with where the numbers touch the film as it comes from the factory.

That is interesting indeed! Maybe there is some kind of "after glow" or something from exposure. Like the way a fluorescent light bulb continues to glow for a short period after being turned off. What you indicate is that the problem crops up after the film is exposed and not before. Very, very interesting. Now we might be getting somewhere as to the source of the problem. Darn good work Detective Holmes.

 

[tomfrh]

The numbers did not match up with where the numbers touch the film as it comes from the factory.

That's a very interesting observation. If it's true then so much for kodak's defense of poor storage!

 

[Bill Burk]

It's definitely the after wind. As you wind a roll.. the factory wind would put the 2 at the bottom on emulsion of frame 1 of a 6x9 neg. If it were an exposure mark of course it would be dark instead of light on a print. But it would be on frame 2. Also if it came through the base it would be on frame 2. It's on frame 3 (the 2). And that's where it rests ink to emulsion after you wind on past the frame.

 

[Bill Burk]

This was Tri-X 0871

 

[MattKing]

That's a very interesting observation. If it's true then so much for kodak's defense of poor storage!

I'm not sure that it is that simple, because the problem is one of sensitization, and whether or not the sensitization occurs either before or after exposure, the fact that it occurs sometimes is clear, but the nature of the causative mechanism is not so clear.
Poor storage has always made 120 film susceptible to wrapper offset problems - that won't change if the current problems of increased susceptibility are solved.
Bill Burk's sample size is pretty small - one roll, if I read him correctly. The conditions that that roll experienced after exposure were likely different than the before exposure conditions. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some wrapper offset problems originate before exposure, while others originate after-exposure.
I can certainly see a possibility of the combination of film/ink/backing paper being more susceptible after exposure, because it has been taken out of its sealed packaging and exposed to air, heat and a little bit of light in the camera. It also might not have been re-sealed after exposure as tightly as when it came from the factory.
What I'm having trouble with is visualizing the film and backing number sandwich - the back of the film stays stationary against the carbon black side of the backing paper as you wind it through. Why is the emulsion side "moving" vis a vis the numbers when you wind the film from feed spool to take-up spool?

 

[MattKing]

It's definitely the after wind. As you wind a roll.. the factory wind would put the 2 at the bottom on emulsion of frame 1 of a 6x9 neg. If it were an exposure mark of course it would be dark instead of light on a print. But it would be on frame 2. Also if it came through the base it would be on frame 2. It's on frame 3 (the 2). And that's where it rests ink to emulsion after you wind on past the frame.

I could be wrong Bill, but I think that the inked number 2 is resting against frame number 1 both before and after exposure.

 

[tomfrh]

Why is the emulsion side "moving" vis a vis the numbers when you wind the film from feed spool to take-up spool?

Because the roll is reversed on the take up, and so the numbers lie next to a different bit of emulsion.

 

[MattKing]

Now that I think further, I believe that there is a change.
On the feed side, the pressed against numbers are for frames that have higher numbers than the frame being exposed (frame number 2's emulsion is pressed against the inked numbers for frame number 3).
On the takeup side, the pressed against numbers are for frames that have lower numbers than the frame being exposed (frame number 2's emulsion is pressed against the inked numbers for frame number 1).
They probably don't line up nearly that neatly, but I think the trend is correct.

 

[tomfrh]

Now that I think further, I believe that there is a change.

yes it flips

 

[AgX]

The image matched up with the film where the numbers came to rest against the film AFTER shooting and winding forward... The numbers did not match up with where the numbers touch the film as it comes from the factory.

That is really odd. If you are sure, you should contact Kodak as soon as possible.

Why is that surprising? A reaction between emulsion and backing paper/ink can happen any time. Actually a reaction after respooling is more likely as the climate control is less (due to the protection of the foil packaging has gone).

Had the artefacts reported so far all happened before respooling?

 

[RattyMouse]

This was Tri-X 0871

Tri-X has this problem now too? Wow....I have never seen this film ever show numbers imprinted onto the film.

It keeps getting worse and worse for Kodak.

 

[removed account4]

Why is that surprising? A reaction between emulsion and backing paper/ink can happen any time. Actually a reaction after respooling is more likely as the climate control is less (due to the protection of the foil packaging has gone).

Had the artefacts reported so far all happened before respooling?

or maybe everyone THOUGHT it happened before respooling but they didn't look closely
like bill did and it all happened POST spooling ...

 

[removedacct1]

TMAX100 is not available now so are they replacing the film with a different type?

I had a good 20 bad pro packs of TMAX400, all garbage.

View attachment 185731 Well, do you know if Kodak recalled these films, or are willing to replace them? I have 14 affected pro packs of the 100 TMax film.

Contact Mr. Mooney at K/A. I did: I supplied emulsion batch numbers of pro packs of TMX and TMY I had in storage, and I was immediately offered replacement product. However, they are currently not manufacturing TMX and so I was offered only packs of TMY, which I gladly accepted. (They replaced all of the film I had in storage, with TMY)
So, if you have inventory of either TMX or TMY and the batch numbers fit the damaged/defective batches, Kodak will issue you replacement film. But no matter which you have, they can only off you TMY, not TMX.

Kodak T-Max 400
Emulsion 0148 004 through 0152

Kodak T-Max 100
Emulsion 0961 through 0981

 

[Photo Engineer]

That's a very interesting observation. If it's true then so much for kodak's defense of poor storage!

It could be activated by storage, or it might only be reproducible by bad storage. IDK. However anyone with this problem should write to Kodak.

Jeffrey Clarke
343 State Street
Rochester, NY 14650

The buck stops here!

PE

 

[Peter Schrager]

Ok so 17 pages..are films CURRENTLY BEING SOLD SUBJECT TO THE OFFSET PROBLEM??
Haven't bought any as I had good supply of tmy400 prior to all this

 

[MattKing]

The 400TMY (TMY-2) that Kodak sent me seems fine (I haven't used it all yet).
The few rolls of TMY-2 I've seen on store shelves are from batch numbers that are more recent than the first batch - 0153 - that Kodak Alaris said/says were supplied with the most recent, likely okay backing paper. I don't believe that I have seen any problem reports with respect to any TMY-2 from batches 0153 or later.
100TMX (T-Max 100) is problematic, in that Kodak isn't currently releasing any for sale, because they haven't yet either solved the problem, or determined whether or not the solutions they have tries are effective in the longer term.
I haven't been following Tri-X specifically, but I note that, like TMY-2 and unlike T-Max 100, there seems to be new film on the shelves.
I don't know what the situation is with the colour print films. I have seen only a few reports of problems with them, and not for quite some time. It may be that APUG/Photrio is not the place where they problem reports are most likely to show up.