TMAX400 120 watermark defect - current status?

[Ai Print]

It has a start arrow and some other heiroglyphics, however it goes blank when the film starts. I haven't looked at the whole paper, however another guy told me it is white all the way thru. I'll post a photo when I finish the roll.

I'm can't see any warnings on the pack.

Presumably they are sorting the ink out.

Hi,

Can you possibly give the date and batch number? I am developing some today and will look to see if this printing has been omitted on my film as well.

 

[MattKing]

Not quite:

Thomas J. Mooney is one of the people I have had contact with: Dead Link Removed

He is Kodak Alaris' Product Line business manager.

That's interesting information, not previously revealed if I'm not mistaken. That's the kind of source I would consider credible in this kind of discussion... and a much more likely way of getting to the engineers than www.kodak.com or 1-800-KOD-AKFILM.

I was originally put in touch with Mr. Mooney when I responded to the 2014 request from the then new CEO of Kodak Alaris, Mr. Ralf Gerbershagen, for suggestions and feedback from their customer base.

He copied my various concerns and suggestions to their Paper & Output Systems Business Manager, Richard Condon as well as their Film Capture Business Manager, Thomas Mooney.

Mr. Mooney and I have communicated briefly since then, including the communication that I quoted earlier in this thread (with his name and position attached).

If anyone wanted to see whether the CEO is still receiving suggestions, his publicly available email is: ceo@kodakalaris.com.

 

[BrianShaw]

Thanks for the detailed clarification, Matt. I can admit it... I was mistaken.

 

[pentaxuser]

MattKing, I have looked at your reference to Mr Mooney and his message. I had thought in the context of the latest posts that this reference was confirmation that Mr Mooney had confirmed that Tmax 400 was now being made without any markings except the start line but it doesn't seem to be any such confirmation

It may be only I who is adding 2+2 and wrongly making 5 but just for clarification: I take it we have no Kodak confirmation that it has now has made this change to blank backing paper except for the start line for TMax 400 film?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[tomfrh]

Apologies guys, I checked the paper again and there *are* marks there. They are just much fainter and there are less of them. They're hard to see in the faint red light I was looking under.

I was originally assuming the reports of blank paper I heard were accurate, so wasn't looking carefully enough.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[BrianShaw]

Well, Tom... To avoid further confusion, since you are the source of info on the "new Kodak backing paper" please be more specific about your assertion that the markings are "lighter and there are fewer of them". How much lighter, what markings are present, and what markings have been deleted? Can you please show us a picture of what you are seeing?

 

[tomfrh]

Yes I will be more careful, sorry. It was an honest mistake.

Someone told me Kodak switched to blank paper. I had a quick look in dim light which appeared to confirm that report, so I passed it on.

The person who originally told me has subsequently confirmed he too was mistaken, and in fact simply couldn't make out the numbers out through the red window.

I will post photos of the backing paper soon.

My dud batch was expiry 2/2017
This new batch is 3/2018

 

[BrianShaw]

Thanks for the clarification. No problem with an honest mistake - we all make them occasionally! I wonder if there is any way of determining the manufacturing or packaging dates for those lots. Or where they were manufactured/packaged. Maybe that last question isn't real too relevant if the paper really comes from a single source. But nobody yet has the answer to a question I asked in one of these threads: who paints the information on the backing paper and is there a single supplier of the ink too? I suppose the paper could be supplied in bulk to be cut and finished by Kodak, but I can also imagine it being deliver already cut and finished to Kodak spec.

 

[MattKing]

I expect it is a temporary response. Most likely they will be forced to switch over to the same sort of numbering as Ilford uses (with the associated greater difficulty of reading those numbers through red windows).

Apologies guys, I checked the paper again and there *are* marks there. They are just much fainter and there are less of them. They're hard to see in the faint red light I was looking under.

Don't tell my wife - it looks like I may have been right!

 

[Ai Print]

My dud batch was expiry 2/2017
This new batch is 3/2018

I just ran some 120 from 2/2017 and 4/2016 and it all looks great. FWIW, I did my usual Xtol 1+1.

 

[tomfrh]

New backing paper (top)
Old backing paper (bottom)

 

[tomfrh]

Another pic

 

[BrianShaw]

Thanks Tom!

 

[JW PHOTO]

Tom,
I can see why you thought there were no numbers. They are much, much lighter and harder to see. I really found it hard to believe that Kodak would do away with the numbers completely, but stranger things have happened in that company. I won't be able to use this film in my Zeiss folders as their red windows aren't the clearest. It will be fine in my Hassy 12 backs along with my Kodak Medalist I/II and Monitor 620. Well, still have to wait and see if there are any problems with this change or not. Darker numbers - lighter numbers? Is it different ink/dye or just lighter???? Good to know Kodak at least is concerned.

 

[Sirius Glass]

A definite improvement which should get rid of the problem.

 

[MattKing]

I note that there are fewer numbers - where the old paper had stacks of 3 of each, the newer paper has a single number.

I wonder how many people will be inconvenienced by that.

It will probably make it harder to re-purpose 120 for other sizes like 616, etc.

 

[BrianShaw]

I note that there are fewer numbers - where the old paper had stacks of 3 of each, the newer paper has a single number.

I wonder how many people will be inconvenienced by that.

It will probably make it harder to re-purpose 120 for other sizes like 616, etc.

I was noticing the same thing but haven't finished doing my homework. The standard shows a total of 7 tracks of numbers, but does not indicate which track serves which format... or at least I haven't spent enough time reading it to find that information.

EDIT: Ahhh, "4.2.2 Orientation of Exposure Numbers — The orientation of the exposure
numbers shall be at the option of the manufacturer." But still not seeing identification of which track is which format. Maybe a bit more time spent with the diagram will help... but no time fo rhtat at the moment.

EDIT2:
Track 1 and 2 = 16 exposure
Track 3 and 4 = 12 exposure
Track 5, 6, 7 = 8 exposure

 

[JW PHOTO]

Less numbers, but same spacing. Stacking numbers might have been for different manufactures cameras and their vertical placement of the red windows.

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm just hoping that my red-window camera does not use the numbering track that was omitted!

And what's interesting that they didn't remove the "track arrow" for the tracks that were deleted. So one might see a track arrow but never see any numbers. Ouch, what a surprise that might be!

 

[JW PHOTO]

I'm just hoping that my red-window camera does not use the numbering track that was omitted!

Brian,
What camera?

 

[BrianShaw]

Brian,
What camera?

I use a Kodak Duo645. But also in the process of adapting Kodak B-3 from 122 to 120.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I use a Kodak Duo645. But also in the process of adapting Kodak B-3 from 122 to 120.

I find it hard to believe Kodak would do away with it's own vertical number alignment meant for their older cameras. That means your Kodak duo645(Kodak Duo Six-20) should be fine. I would think the Kodak No.3A(B-3) should be fine also, but figuring frame length might be a little harder. I'm just worried about the visibility of the numbers in dim light. Probably going to have to start pocketing a penlight just to advance the film when light fades.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Perhaps better to pre-count the required winding knob turns, rather than shining a light into a red window?



Ken

 

[JW PHOTO]

Perhaps better to pre-count the required winding knob turns, rather than shining a light into a red window?



Ken

Ken,
The penlight light is not a problem if you use it right and actually is less dangerous than checking it in open sunlight. You take the penlight and shine it off to one side of the camera back and then move the beam toward the ruby window and stop when you have just enough light to make out the number. Of course I'm talking the old style penlight and not those super-bright LED buggers. Counting turns will work also, but it's easier to screw up.

 

[paul ron]

bump it up