TMAX400 120 watermark defect - current status?

JW PHOTO · Mar 31, 2016

BrianShaw said:
You may want to be a tad more precise with your words, PaulRon. "User" implies end-user. Tom probably was an innocent victim. The conclusion I would draw is that Kodak says it isn't a manufacturing defect but a post-manufacturing handling problem. Not necessarily the end-user. Their response, BTW, is a reasonable marketing department response.

And as usual with a marketing department response it's borderline hogwash.

JW PHOTO · Mar 31, 2016

Michael R 1974 said:
I use Kodak film, but in my opinion this response they gave you is unacceptable. Hard to tell exactly what they are saying but if it is actually a spec problem with the backing paper itself, sending out more of the same film (free or not) isn't what I'd call a solution.

Micheal,
I agree with you 100%. Even if this problem of "bleeding" through to the emulsion is heat induced it's not the problem of the carrier(transportation), vender/retailer or the consumer. It's Kodaks problem since there was no problem before the backing paper/dye change. I hate it when companies don't fess-up and admit we screwed up. What they should say is, "We are aware of the problem and are diligently working to correct it and will not rest until the problem is solved. Please bare with us!" There, now was that so hard to say Kodak?
I had this same problem with Chinese Shanghai GP3 120 film and do know that it is made and handled in extremely hot and humid conditions. When my Uncle Sam sent me on an all expense paid year long vacation to Vietnam I had a friend there that bought a Yashicamat through the PX. He shot exclusively Kodak film and never once had this , so called, bleeding problem. Vietnam was one of the hottest, wettest, highest humidity places I have ever been in my life. Also, the film would come from tiny little PX's that had "NO" cool storage for film at all. So that tells me that there was a change in something during manufacture and maybe they better change back to the old dye/backing paper. Oh, I don't necessarily love Kodak as a company, but I do love TMY2.

BrianShaw · Mar 31, 2016

JW PHOTO said:
And as usual with a marketing department response it's borderline hogwash.

Yes, indeed! But I'm impressed that they responded at all. The last 2 questions I had for Kodak weren't addressed at all: one received an automated response to a totally different question, and the other went totally unanswered.

BrianShaw · Mar 31, 2016

JW PHOTO said:
Micheal,
I agree with you 100%. Even if this problem of "bleeding" through to the emulsion is heat induced it's not the problem of the carrier(transportation), vender/retailer or the consumer. It's Kodaks problem since there was no problem before the backing paper/dye change. I hate it when companies don't fess-up and admit we screwed up. What they should say is, "We are aware of the problem and are diligently working to correct it and will not rest until the problem is solved. Please bare with us!" There, now was that so hard to say Kodak?
I had this same problem with Chinese Shanghai GP3 120 film and do know that it is made and handled in extremely hot and humid conditions. When my Uncle Sam sent me on an all expense paid year long vacation to Vietnam I had a friend there that bought a Yashicamat through the PX. He shot exclusively Kodak film and never once had this , so called, bleeding problem. Vietnam was one of the hottest, wettest, highest humidity places I have ever been in my life. Also, the film would come from tiny little PX's that had "NO" cool storage for film at all. So that tells me that there was a change in something during manufacture and maybe they better change back to the old dye/backing paper. Oh, I don't necessarily love Kodak as a company, but I do love TMY2.

What you are describing is what engineers and system/product developers call requirements creep. It's a major challenge and cost driver when designing systems and products. The film (including backing paper) was designed to be good within a specific range of temps. That was exceeded and a bad effect happened. Who's fault is it, the film design requirements or the post-delivery handling? How can a product designer predict all post-delivery mishandling conditions? Where does one draw the line in terms of when to alter the design to accommodate? Its hard to say, but I'm sure Kodak didn't just leave such decisions to chance. Its like a car who's engine has been rev'd past the red line and stops working. The fact that some numbskull might do that is predictable (and many car manufacturers guard against that with rev limiters) but how can the auto manufacturer be held responsible for the irresponsibility of an end-user? Maybe you're correct that they should have anticipated more extreme conditions than exist in reality, and maybe they did short-cut the analysis when the paper was changed... but I doubt they are going to re-engineer 120 film in a hurry for the small number of users that remain. Its too bad, but I wouldn't be holding my breath for Kodak to admit fault or do too much additional analysis or engineering.

Old-N-Feeble · Mar 31, 2016

Well... I guess I'll test every batch I receive before bothering to make any exposures I may want to keep. One roll and some time wasted per order isn't all THAT bad.

RattyMouse · Mar 31, 2016

Old-N-Feeble said:
Well... I guess I'll test every batch I receive before bothering to make any exposures I may want to keep. One roll and some time wasted per order isn't all THAT bad.

Testing wont help you. I had this problem 3 times and in each case, it did not happen to 100% of the film from each batch. So your tests will prove nothing.

It's a ridiculous situation all around. Kodak film is simply not reliable anymore. I would hate it if my job were somewhat attached to this variability. Having my hobby go bad is one thing, my work performance, something totally different!

BrianShaw · Mar 31, 2016

Perhaps, RM, the situation is worse than that. Given the recent Ilford edge marking defect there is no B&W film suitable for professional use if no risk can be tolerated.

Maybe film has receded to a hobby niche market only. Sad, but possible.

canvassy · Mar 31, 2016

BrianShaw said:
Perhaps, RM, the situation is worse than that. Given the recent Ilford edge marking defect there is no B&W film suitable for professional use if no risk can be tolerated.

Maybe film has receded to a hobby niche market only. Sad, but possible.

Ilford owned up to their problem, and kindly provided details behind the issue. The edge marking defect has been remedied now and I fully trust Ilford going forward.

BrianShaw · Mar 31, 2016

You know that for sure? I wonder if they have even made a single roll of 120 since that discussion. And who knows how much of the affected production lot is still waiting to be purchased by you and me. A recall would have been a more effective remedy, but that's quite unrealistic.

BrianShaw · Mar 31, 2016

BTW, I fully trust both Kodak and Ilford. Both acknowledge that the problems reported were real and not imaginary.

ParkerSmithPhoto · Mar 31, 2016

I saw this defect on three rolls of TMY over the last few months and finally made the switch to Ilford film full time. It's just not worth the risk, much as I love TMY.

DREW WILEY · Mar 31, 2016

At this point, I take all of this as mere rumor until it's proven the film itself is at fault. Now I'll admit I haven't used TMY in 120 for awhile, though I
have shot a lot of sheet film and 35mm recently, and have found the quality control superb. But I can think of any number of secondary-brand roll films where something could go terribly wrong if the film wasn't religiously loaded in the shade or subdued light, yet where people simply got lax when the superior wrapping characteristics of Kodak or Fuji were involved. The "fine print" on the box or tech sheet still gives the same precautions. Avoid heat, load in subdued light, store in the dark before processing. I'll stay tuned, but am not about to stampede based on web hearsay.

canvassy · Mar 31, 2016

BrianShaw said:
You know that for sure? I wonder if they have even made a single roll of 120 since that discussion. And who knows how much of the affected production lot is still waiting to be purchased by you and me. A recall would have been a more effective remedy, but that's quite unrealistic.

Yes. Ilford was aware of the issue, and they implemented their fixes at least a month ago. I'd have to dig out their email for the details. Every film going forward has the fixed edge markings. AFAIK it was only HP5+ that was affected, and the issue only cropped up with cameras that had larger film gates.

BrianShaw · Mar 31, 2016

In either case I can be a happy camper. As an "art photographer" who uses a Hasselblad the Ilford "defect" woul not affect me and the Kodak "defect" can acknowledged as an artistic element.

mooseontheloose · Mar 31, 2016

canvassy said:
Yes. Ilford was aware of the issue, and they implemented their fixes at least a month ago. I'd have to dig out their email for the details. Every film going forward has the fixed edge markings. AFAIK it was only HP5+ that was affected, and the issue only cropped up with cameras that had larger film gates.

It had nothing to do with cameras that had larger film gates, it was a film stenciling problem, pure and simple.

Here is part of the message I received from Ilford a couple weeks ago:

This issue had historically never been a problem - as signing stencils for roll signing were always made off site. However in recent years, we've had to make the stencils on our site (as that stencil manufacturer ceased operating as a company). For 99.9% of the time, we've never encountered any problems with using our in-house made stencils. But approx a year ago, very occasionally it was flagged up to us that the signing was as you found - just starting to encroach into frame areas.

Although cosmetically less favourable when signing does fractionally encroach into frame areas, for the bulk of customers - as they never printed full frame, these rare errors did not present any problems for them. But clearly if a customer wished to print full frame - that did cause issues.

So from that time point of it being known to us, we carried out a few test changes to try and eliminate it, and the ones we have now implemented are :-
- We have reduced the font size slightly - so if there was any drift, the smaller text type would likely never lead to it appearing in the frames.
- We are now trying to ensure the stencils are registered/fixed to the absolute edge of the films, to eliminate drift.
These 2 corrective actions have literally only just been instigated though (approx one month ago) - so it will potentially take a few weeks/max a few months, for all these corrected generated films to go out into the market place.
(We do also have a potential 3rd action to implement, if we still feel the above is not sufficient to 100% resolve the issue).

They did send me some replacement film, all which should be with the new stenciling, but I haven't had a chance to shoot it yet to compare.

In any event, the bleedthrough of Kodak lettering and numbers on Tmax400 film since the introduction of the new backing paper has been documented by a number of photographers on this and other forums and SNS. I don't shoot this film, but I understand the frustration with it. Even within the same batch numbers for Ilford films, sometimes the stenciling was fine, and other times it wasn't. But unlike the Kodak situation, a little cropping can fix the HP5+ problem, the same cannot be said of the Tmax400 problem.

Sal Santamaura · Mar 31, 2016

JW PHOTO said:
...What they should say is, "We are aware of the problem and are diligently working to correct it and will not rest until the problem is solved. Please bare with us!"...

Oh no, the last thing I'd want to see is me and a bunch of Kodakers naked!

BrianShaw said:
What you are describing is what engineers and system/product developers call requirements creep...

For a substantial portion of my career, working in system engineering, the "real engineers" thought of me as the requirements creep.

BrianShaw said:
Oh Sal... you are always the one with the best answer!...

Thanks Brian. Do those two replies qualify?

canvassy · Mar 31, 2016

mooseontheloose said:
It had nothing to do with cameras that had larger film gates, it was a film stenciling problem, pure and simple.

Here is part of the message I received from Ilford a couple weeks ago:

I got the same exact email, because I personally had this issue and Ilford also sent me replacement film. The stenciling was all over the place, yes, and that's a manufacturing issue. My worst roll had 8 out of 12 frames with signing encroachment, and 2 of them were almost completely inside the image. But my Yashicamat LM has a slightly larger film gate than say a Hasselblad, and I think if the film gate wasn't as big, it wouldn't have nearly been such a problem.

BrianShaw · Mar 31, 2016

Sal, they say the same about me at work... For the very same reason!

BrianShaw · Mar 31, 2016

canvassy said:
I got the same exact email, because I personally had this issue and Ilford also sent me replacement film. The stenciling was all over the place, yes, and that's a manufacturing issue. My worst roll had 8 out of 12 frames with signing encroachment, and 2 of them were almost completely inside the image. But my Yashicamat LM has a slightly larger film gate than say a Hasselblad, and I think if the film gate wasn't as big, it wouldn't have nearly been such a problem.

Let me take that thought just one step further - I KNOW that the misalignment of edge printing does not intrude on the image area of a Hasselblad... unless there is something else going on like someone suggested in the other thread like the film not being centered on the backing paper.

Sirius Glass · Mar 31, 2016

BrianShaw said:
What you are describing is what engineers and system/product developers call requirements creep. ...

Sal Santamaura said:
For a substantial portion of my career, working in system engineering, the "real engineers" thought of me as the requirements creep.

Clarification about whom Brian and Sal are referring to:
Real systems engineers work with hardware and software systems, physics, optics, thermodynamics, propulsion, spacecraft, control systems, computers, networks, information security et al. The computer toads who claim to be systems engineers have co-opted are merely computer nerds who know nothing about anything that is not designed by Intel and Micro$oft, but they do have a worthless piece of paper from Micro$oft.

RattyMouse · Apr 1, 2016

DREW WILEY said:
At this point, I take all of this as mere rumor until it's proven the film itself is at fault. Now I'll admit I haven't used TMY in 120 for awhile, though I
have shot a lot of sheet film and 35mm recently, and have found the quality control superb. But I can think of any number of secondary-brand roll films where something could go terribly wrong if the film wasn't religiously loaded in the shade or subdued light,....

I agree completely. Kodak is very much a secondary brand of film now. Continuing issues like this demonstrate that quite clearly.

JW PHOTO · Apr 1, 2016

RattyMouse said:
I agree completely. Kodak is very much a secondary brand of film now. Continuing issues like this demonstrate that quite clearly.

Well, what do you expect when companies look more to the almighty dollar instead of looking at 100% customer satisfaction. Still, TMY2 is IMHO the best high speed film on the market today. The paper backing/dye numbers might suck, along with the companies practices, but the film itself is second to none.

RattyMouse · Apr 1, 2016

JW PHOTO said:
Well, what do you expect when companies look more to the almighty dollar instead of looking at 100% customer satisfaction. Still, TMY2 is IMHO the best high speed film on the market today. The paper backing/dye numbers might suck, along with the companies practices, but the film itself is second to none.

I take no pleasure producing images with the word KODAK watermarked all over the image. It can be the greatest film in the world but I simply wont use it due to this simple reason.

Three out of my five film shooting friends have abandoned Kodak film completely over this issue.

JW PHOTO · Apr 1, 2016

RattyMouse said:
I take no pleasure producing images with the word KODAK watermarked all over the image. It can be the greatest film in the world but I simply wont use it due to this simple reason.

Three out of my five film shooting friends have abandoned Kodak film completely over this issue.

RattyMouse,
I don't disagree with you. In fact I, like you and your friends, will not use it unless I know for sure that the word "KODAK" and the frame numbers do not appear in my exposed frame. If I were Kodak I would hire a PR person just to monitor these analog forums and report findings from and to the company, because the way it is now the consumer is kept in the dark.

canuhead · Apr 1, 2016

not TMY but last batch of 400TX I got had different backing paper. Start of tongue has white on it vs all yellow. perhaps I shld cook a roll in the car to see what happens.

TMAX400 120 watermark defect - current status?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency