Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by tomfrh, Mar 29, 2016.
Somehow, someway, let Kodak know!!!!!
The reason for my suggestion was to try to deal with the fact that some of the rolls within the problem batches do show the problem, while others do not, and there is no way to tell which is which.
If you cut the roll in half and the presoaked half responds differently than the non-presoaked half, it will be great information.
But if neither half shows the information, it isn't determinative.
FWIW, the only roll I've seen the problem on (and to a very limited extent) received a three minute presoak, because I do that with all my film.
While attempting to reel the third roll, I found myself hitting tape first... this roll hasn't been shot yet. It was part of another experiment that didn't pan out.
PE, I'm getting a package together to send to Kodak...
MattKing, I know that some do/some don't... so that's a good idea, but even on my new roll that shows marks, only one frame shows them.
I Wonder if black/opacified PET would be a suitable as a Backing Paper replacement of some sort, given the issues experienced with paper. Kind of stupid though, as I guess someone tried it or plastic just can't be gotten as opaque to protect the film.
I'm mostly a color shooter and experienced it with Portra. Let it lay around a long time after exposure (out of camera) on my desk (some light but not direct exposure) did it. Refrigerating and waiting a couple months to develop seems fine.
I tend to be slow to shoot a roll and infact one of my MFs has been loaded for a couple months or so, but haven't experienced it with the first frames of a roll.
I could live without Kodak 120 B&W as long as there's an Ilford, and I've moved to Ilford for all B&W sheet film anyway, but it would be unbearable to lose 120 Ektar. Portras too but I could do ok with Pro 400H if I had to but not without Ektar!
That is great info about the persoak.
I bought a bunch of film and darkroom supplies immediately after my (thank heaven) divorce in 2015, but then got into other things and didn't use them. I'm still so wrapped up in work and other hobbies I'm not sure I will soon but I'd LIKE to. The film has all been refrigerated since it arrived. I will check my batch numbers.
With one exception I always use a pre-soak as I use a Jobo and that's the Jobo recommendation. The exception is Diafine, which I use for some select subject matter and lighting, and almost always with Tri-X (though the latest version doesn't respond as well as older Tri-X did, but it's still a useful combo.)
Anyone else experimenting with the pre-soak/no pre-soak please keep us posted!
Nothing is proven until the same roll is processed two different ways. Until then, we are just speculating that the presoak is the solution.
From a scientific method perspective you are correct. Sample size needs to be increased too. But give Bill some credit for a credible demonstration that adds some information in a discussion that is chock full of assumptions, assertions, and not much else. I would assume that "Kodak", if they were really interested, would have done the "real experiment" already. Kudos to Bill for actually doing something in an attempt to answer a question on this topic. There are way too many unknowns... still.
I do give Bill credit for his effort, but his results so far do not yield any information. Only with a valid control can this test prove that presoaking is a possible solution to this defective film issue. I hope that he can continue his experiment and prove that this way forward works.
I also would have hoped that the brilliant scientists at Kodak would have already thought of this possible solution and tested it out thoroughly. But since Kodak won't communicate with their customers, we are left wondering and holding the bag with this continuing film fiasco.
It is pretty ridiculous and has gone on long enough.
You are preaching to the choir man!
im really sad no one has offered to give me their bad-film
As a newby nobody new to TMAX 400 in 120 and yes, lovin' it, I am rather dismayed by the story and it's continuing life. Reading the Kodak Alaris story on Emulsive.org gives a rather thin feeling to the company. I know Harman Technology isn't exactly deep on personnel either.... these are all sort of private equity driven restarts in many ways. But it is frustrating to see/hear that Kodak Alaris in particular isn't following Harman's (Ilford's) more open and communicative model, and as much as my narrow testing has been pushing me to use TMAX-400 more and more as a standard film, I'm somewhat now more hesitant. In returning to film and 35mm initially this year, I staked down ILFORD as my standard go-to simply on the basis that it had no other options and would be fully committed, all-in. Yes, I still have two 35mm bulk loads of FP4+ and HP5+ running, and love the stuff. But with shooting 120, I opened the box and TMAX has been surprisingly beautiful. Beautiful enough to make a guy rethink some his pre-planned prejudices. This story.... well... what can I say? Seems to be that it SHOULD be old news, but the fact that it's not has me more puzzled than I want to be. Gimme a simple answer! History or not?
If using old film in the affected lot numbers (or earlier)... apparently not.
If using film subsequent to the affected lot numbers... maybe history.
Once, when Kodak will be back in glory, it will be a collectors item.
Nobody knows. Kodak won't talk and so we are left hanging.
I think we all know that.
Presoak is not the answer. Sorry for the false lead.
Upon closer examination, both rolls had marks.
I did develop a roll cut in half, half prewashed half not. Marks appear on both. This was TMAX 400 0149-002 unwrapped for over a year.
The density difference between background image and mark remains fairly consistent in the vicinity of 0.02 to 0.04 whether prewashed or not, so I can't even say that prewashing reduces the severity of the problem.
This roll's marks do not align with anything. I rerolled the film and looked front and back, before and after winding, and the numbers on the film aren't in alignment in any of the four possible ways. So this trashes my theory that the ink in contact with emulsion is softened by moisture trapped in a vapor barrier, because those numbers were never against the film.
Well. It was still a good effort and something was learned. Thanks Bill.
since the #s don't align with anything
i am going for the alien contact theory
and maybe this is why EK/KA won't talk about it
and PE is sworn to secrecy as well.
aliens from a place far away have been providing
the film industry with pre-exposed/numbered
film and have been holding key emulsion scientists hostage
in a vessel someplace else so nothing can be solved.
the only way for EK/KA to fix this is to present these
non benevolent beings with what they want ... which
is the recipe for the kodachrome emulsion they love so much
and plans to build the processing equipment.
until that happens i guess we are all kind of SOL.
... and just as mysterious... whatever is going on with the heretofore unidentifiable backing paper supplier and/or backing paper ink and/or backing paper printer folks!
I don't understand this reference.
Are you saying that the ghost images are on the film at one location, whereas the inked numbers are against the film at another location?
Because the inked numbers are certainly against the film at some location.
Exactly, the numbers do not align with any point where the numbers were. My next thought is a "printing press" anomaly on the rolled up master backing paper known as offset or (set-off to disambiguate from the process itself). As far as I can tell the component of the ink that was transferred at the press is invisible. For example litho offset process might incorporate a wetting agent in the water. An inkjet ink might have some similar solvent to keep the nozzles clean. But a set-off would be on the black part of the paper. If that's the mechanism I don't know how it gets to the emulsion.
I think my next effort is best spent testing new batches now that I know how to test for it.