What I find interesting is not just the print through, but the general mottling of the image. It appears to be more than just the ink affecting the image.
:-( :-( :-(
Used a couple of rolls of TMAX 100 in the last month, on at least 4 trips including a mountain climb, three day bike trip (lugging a Hasselblad!) and rowing across a lake. I have been working on long exposures, so one outing might involve just a couple of frames, and have had reliable results with Ilford/Rollei over the past 2/3 years. The right word for what my TMAX has given me is dismay... followed by frustration. I bought this film a couple of months ago, but this problem has been known about for much longer? The exact batch numbers are known and I was still able to buy it and waste so many hours to get exposures of "KODAK" on the negatives?
I guess I'll get some zen back in a while; this forum has at least stopped me from throwing out my Rodinal or my 'good' A12 film back.
Batch number: 0981001 08/2017. It was just at the end of its Best Before date but that hasn't been an issue before; indeed I've had film left in attics for a decade give better results.
Dead Link Removed
I'm guessing that that may be a function of adjusting the scan to emphasize the visibility of the letters and numbers.What I find interesting is not just the print through, but the general mottling of the image. It appears to be more than just the ink affecting the image.
Thanks RattyMouse, it was a nasty surprise to see in the scanner preview.
The reseller is sending me rolls of Delta 100 as replacements,
but of course that doesn't bring back the shots. I am going to try and re-shoot a few to exorcise "the one that got away" vibes. I'm lucky in some ways in that my shots were almost all landscapes, and though a few were taken for a particular person/purpose, they are from a spot I can revisit. Maybe karma will provide epic cloud formations!
Bill Burk mentioned his problematic Tri-X recently, but it was in relation to a problem he had some time ago - I believe film included in the older batches of film (Trri-X, T-Max 100 and T-Max 400) that were listed in the John Sexton blog post in May of 2016.
Refunding just the film (be it by money or film) is the industry standard. Do not expect your other expenses to be refunded by any manufacturer.
Was there ever a court case on this refunding issue anywhere in the world?
same here!I love Kodak films, and I love tmax, but this is definitely making me hesitant
I love Kodak films, and I love tmax, but this is definitely making me hesitant
There is a list of serial numbers of "at risk" batches of the T-max emulsions and it has been quoted in this discussion several times. (see below) All you need to do is avoid purchasing these emulsion batches, which isn't hard, frankly, because most of them are way beyond expiry anyway.
Seems to me there's a lot of unnecessary hand-wringing over this issue. Since we know the serial numbers of affected batches (which are now years old) they can be avoided. Current stock with expiry dates in 2019 (and later) do not appear to be affected by this years-old problem. I doubt suppliers like B&H and Freestyle have any of this ancient inventory in their storerooms anyway.
These are the serial numbers of the affected batches:
Kodak T-Max 400
Emulsion 0148 004 through 0152
Kodak T-Max 100
Emulsion 0961 through 0981
Kodak Tri-X
Emulsion 0871 though 0931
The problem is with the interaction between the component parts - film, paper and ink. The different films interact differently, so backing paper and ink that is problem free with T-Max 400 brings rise to problems with T-Max 100.So are they making ANY 120 film now with good backing paper? If so, why not make all their films (all 3)?
So I am 100% good with TMax 400 but not Tri-X?
I think the protocol for moving forward should be: shoot ONE ROLL of a new batch to determine if there are any problems before shooting ten or twenty more. Anyone who blithely shoots copious rolls without conducting a test on a single roll is asking for trouble.
In my experience the Tri-X obtained as a replacement in March 2016 has been working fine. The rolls showed 0941 as an emulsion number and an August 2018 expiration date. On my major tour last year it was unscathed, and it traveled a lot of hot miles in the process. But in general I would not buy 50 rolls and go off on some round-the-world expedition without trying one or two. Far better to buy just a few and check them out. As someone of a technical background, I would certainly feel better if we had a more detailed explanation of what the problem mechanism is. As I mentioned before, I suspect there is some sort of variation related to environment -- humidity, temperature -- fumes -- or something. It has been obvious the amount of ink used to imprint the numbers was definitely cut way back, so that presumably helps.So I am 100% good with TMax 400 but not Tri-X?
I think the protocol for moving forward should be: shoot ONE ROLL of a new batch to determine if there are any problems before shooting ten or twenty more. Anyone who blithely shoots copious rolls without conducting a test on a single roll is asking for trouble.
Yep, that's what I did and it was a complete and total disaster.
Is this hearsay or substantiated?Current stock with expiry dates in 2019 (and later) do not appear to be affected by this years-old problem.
So are they making ANY 120 film now with good backing paper? If so, why not make all their films (all 3)?
Is this hearsay or substantiated?
Why? Because any one person's experience is 100% statistically meaningless.This is not the first time I have shared my experience in this matter and yet it still seems to go unnoticed/unheeded. Why is that?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?