TMAX400 120 watermark defect - current status?

[BrianShaw]

Surprised to see people still claiming the issue is a beat up and making hand waving arguments about the need for concrete evidence.

So how many occurrences have you experienced with Portra? So far we've seen 1, and it proved to be real. But it is a one-off experience so far.

 

[BrianShaw]

P.S. I just shot a roll of Portra 160 and hope it goes well.

 

[MattKing]

So how many occurrences have you experienced with Portra? So far we've seen 1, and it was real.

I've seen occurrences with Kodacolor, Vericolor, Verichrome Pan and I think Plus X.

All from years previously, and all with films that weren't properly handled.

You tend to have seen these sorts of things when you have in your past worked in retail, and when you handle a lot of customers' photofinishing orders.

 

[BrianShaw]

Very interesting to hear your vast experience. Thanks!

 

[RattyMouse]

Surprised to see people still claiming the issue is a beat up and making hand waving arguments about the need for concrete evidence.

Yep. It is amazing.

 

[tomfrh]

So how many occurrences have you experienced with Portra?

None. I don't even use that film. I'm just referring to the general attitude of deny deny deny - blame it on the truck driver. Blame the user. Blame anything other than the film.

And if that fails then rubbish the evidence, say that it's just "rumours" and "isolated cases".

I thought we'd be past that by this stage and be more open to the fact that the paper is no good.


We know TMAX400 is affected, we know trix is affected, we know tmax 100 is affected. At what stage are you willing to accept the paper causing this issue?

 

[BrianShaw]

I don't know anyone denying. Some folks are vehemently and adamantly condemning Kodak while others are accepting their efforts as good-enough business practices. But I've not noticed anyone denying. The pics have been posted. Kodak has acknowledged that the paper/ink appears to be part of the problem combined with enacting corrective actions. They are replacing film that is returned to them. We may be missing some details that might be interesting and help understand the phenomenon, and understand the scope of the issue as it may affect other items in their product line... But denials and hand waving????

 

[Sirius Glass]

The Kodak haters are denying everything.

 

[tomfrh]

But denials and hand waving????

This thread is full of people denying the issue and where that is impossible dismissing it for one reason or another.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The victims are denying that high heat exposure, which is a known contributor to the problem, could be related to what happened to their film.

 

[tomfrh]

The victims are denying that high heat exposure, which is a known contributor to the problem, could be related to what happened to their film.

I am NOT denying that this defect could be triggered by heat. Maybe that is what sets it off.

The point is the product(s) appears to be uniquely vulnerable - so much so that Kodak has changed them - i.e. it's a defect.

 

[RattyMouse]

The victims are denying that high heat exposure, which is a known contributor to the problem, could be related to what happened to their film.

Nonsense. We'd be seeing this problem in a far more random nature if it were simply high heat. Fuji and Ilford would be caught up in it.

Instead, it's KODAK.

 

[tomfrh]

We'd be seeing this problem in a far more random nature if it were simply high heat.

I agree, the pattern (and kodaks response) is all wrong were it nothing but high heat.

 

[digital&film]

Funny thing occurred to me- B&H stores thier film in refrigerator on 34th Street.

 

[canuhead]

Kind of out there but could the foil wrapper play a part in this at all ? Is it holding in trace amounts of fumes/off gassing ? in conjunction with heat ?

 

[Ai Print]

I am NOT denying that this defect could be triggered by heat. Maybe that is what sets it off.

The point is the product(s) appears to be uniquely vulnerable - so much so that Kodak has changed them - i.e. it's a defect.

Yes, it is a defect and some of us are working with Kodak on it because we have no choice, we need Kodak products to stick around. There is no denial here, just people who are totally worn down by the negativity in the case of certain people who just go on and on and on and on. And people who have obviously stopped using Kodak products but still come around to unload their negative views which moves no one forward, at all.....they just stomp their little internet feet and demand, demand, demand.

John Sexton logged on here to post what he found. It was out of fairness to the broad community of film users that was the reason he did this, not because he wants to drive a knife through the heart of Kodak Alaris. He would not do that, he depends on the products like many of us do.

 

[tomfrh]

Sorry, but this thread is littered with denials and attempts to explain away the evidence, even after Kodak has given us batch numbers and changed the product...

 

[MattKing]

Funny thing occurred to me- B&H stores thier film in refrigerator on 34th Street.

But how does the film get to them?

And all the retailers around the world that buy film from B&H or Adorama rather than their local distributors, how do they get their film?

And what method was used to get the film from the retailers to the end users?

I'm not trying to deflect responsibility here, I'm trying to illustrate the complexities of the problem.

It used to be that Kodak controlled both distribution and dealer standards.

Now, almost not at all. The market controls most of that, and price is the most highly weighted determinant for the vast majority of that market.

I've got thirty rolls that fit within the batches that are reported to have had problems. As best as I can recall, most of them were purchased through the internet, including some through Amazon.ca. I have not yet experienced any problems myself, but I don't know that I've used any films yet from the identified batches.

I'll be interested to see how Kodak Alaris responds to the enquiry I've sent them about the films I have.

I'd really like to know what sort of percentage of the rolls in the identified batches have had problems - 1%, 0.0001%, 10% 50% or ???

If it is closer to 0.0001%, and if that isn't substantially different than the normal incidence of heat/humidity related wrapper offset, than it might give you some idea why Kodak Alaris didn't quickly come to the realization that they had a product quality problem.

 

[BrianShaw]

Sorry, but this thread is littered with denials and attempts to explain away the evidence, even after Kodak has given us batch numbers and changed the product...

... and a couple who simply keep repeating themselves while adding nothing new or of value to the discussion.

 

[BrianShaw]

MattKing, why aren't you returning the film you have from the affected batches for replacement? If you don't mind me asking a personal question, of course.

 

[mooseontheloose]

MattKing, why aren't you returning the film you have from the affected batches for replacement? If you don't mind me asking a personal question, of course.

I've got 2 pro-packs of possibly affected film, and Kodak's response was to try a test roll, and if it showed problems they would replace the film. However, I don't know that one successful film will mean that the rest are unaffected. I don't know about Matt, but initially I was thinking of doing the test, but the reality is I wouldn't be able to trust the remaining rolls, so I'll probably request a replacement.

 

[MattKing]

MattKing, why aren't you returning the film you have from the affected batches for replacement? If you don't mind me asking a personal question, of course.

That is what I hope to do.

In the old days, I would have been able to do that through the Kodak dealer I purchased it from.

There is no such thing any more as a Kodak dealer.

 

[tomfrh]

while adding nothing new or of value to the discussion

Funny that reciting the "heat exposure" excuse for the umpteenth time qualifies as productive discussion...

 

[MattKing]

Funny that reciting the "heat exposure" excuse for the umpteenth time qualifies as productive discussion...

I've no doubt that the problem arises because of an interaction between environmental factors and an enhanced sensitivity to those factors. Otherwise, all the films with the problematic backing paper would suffer from the problems. And Kodak Alaris would have identified the problem far earlier, and sent far fewer films out there with that batch of backing paper.

It is one of the downsides of having such a long history with film. When a problem arises, there is a great likelihood that it will be attributed to the causes which have historically brought rise to that problem. Wrapper offset is an example of that.

 

[tomfrh]

I've no doubt that the problem arises because of an interaction between environmental factors and an enhanced sensitivity to those factors

I don't think anyone is denying the possibility that environmental
factors are triggering the fault. What I'm talking about is people using that possibility as an excuse for the problem.