TMAX400 120 watermark defect - current status?

[paul ron]

I don't care one way or the other about Kodak's response or lack there of. What I do care about is whether or not they fixed the damn problem. Sure seems like they could put out some kind of press release as to whether it's solved or not? Of course that would be like telling the world they screwed something up and they might not want to do that..

perhaps its just an occasional instance? theres no epidemic here if he insists THEY have a problem n yet wont diclose any real evidence or detailed info.

a few frames is not a problem... a few rolls, maybe a problem. lets duplicate it then? then you can present your findi gs to kodak n they might look deeper.

 

[tomfrh]

Some other threads on this issue:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00dYsO

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[paul ron]

nice... details of your instance?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I have had two different friends who bought film from different sources have the same problem. One shot in a Hasselblad, and the other with a Mamiya. No light leak issues before or after these rolls of film.

One friend shot his film in the spring, and the other during the winter, so no heat issue that they caused. Not sure about the supply chain.

I've been an Ilford boy for a while, but am considering a switch back to TMax 400, just because I like the film so much, but this has me nervous. I don't have time for crap like what's been reported, and honestly there are way too many reports of it to not be an issue in manufacture, or a SEVERE supply chain issue for those that sell it.

 

[tomfrh]

Mine is the same as the others. Backing paper marks have exposed the paper.

The marks appear worst at the start of the roll, which would support the idea of heat sensitivy. Perhaps the marker dye is too sensitive to heat, and is reacting and attacking the film, maybe chemically, or maybe emitting too much heat/light radiation which is exposing the film.

 

[JW PHOTO]

perhaps its just an occasional instance? theres no epidemic here if he insists THEY have a problem n yet wont diclose any real evidence or detailed info.

a few frames is not a problem... a few rolls, maybe a problem. lets duplicate it then? then you can present your findi gs to kodak n they might look deeper.

Paul,
You have to remember what sank the Titanic. It wasn't the iceberg they could see on the surface, it was the one below the surface that did it. The point I'm making is that the folks here on this forum are the iceberg on the surface and there are many, many more other folks we don't see and do not hear from that might just be having the same so called random problem. As for the "just a few frames" statement? You would not be very happy if your once in a lifetime shot happened to be on one of those frames now would you???? As for me.................I'm with rattymouse on this one. No more Kodak until I know for sure the problem is solve.

 

[tomfrh]

No more Kodak until I know for sure the problem is solve.

me too.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

if its heat... ill put a roll in the oven n see if its a reproduceable problem...

answer my questions?
is it a real problem?... lets solve it?... duplicate it?

so few frames, rolls what?

Oven temps vary WAY too much. If you wrap the roll of film very loosely in LOTS of paper towels and place the package inside a large baking pot it might be okay if you turn the oven no higher than 150F. The pot and insulation will moderate the temperature at the film.

 

[paul ron]

from the pic given I can only see one line of a watermark. Where are the other backing paper marks?.. the numbers are repeated for different formats across the backer as well as lines n arrows... are they in between the frames as well or just in the exposed parts of the frame?

Only stronger at the beginning of the roll? OK heat or light may be a problem.. but is it consistent with all the rolls shot that day in that camera or this is the only time its ever happened in the years hes been shooting film?? How many rolls of tmax has this problem OP?

I read the other reports and they don't really describe their details either, just that Kodak has a problem and reports of similar watermarks that Kodak seems to blow off in their usual customer service blurb... strange their watermarks don't repeat across the frames either, only at the format they are shooting.. seems strange yet?

I shot a couple hundred rolls of tmax 400 film in the past several months n haven't seen anything like this. Ive shot hundreds of thousands of rolls of Kodak film in the past 50 years n never had this happen except once when I had a camera with a red window that I left open.

Id like to try to duplicate the problem if it is actually a defect. The batch I had before my restocking was the same expire date n not a single frame was marked in over 100 rolls.... WHY is it a Kodak problem? How many people shot blank frames... Kodak's fault?

The club I'm involved with shoots tmax in almost every 120 format in all types of cameras n not a single complaint in 20 years I'm with them.. makes me wonder what the situation was that may have caused this in the OPs case.

Easy to accuse but very difficult to duplicate makes for speculation, that's not hard proof.

So not to hound anyone any longer.. I'm skeptical about it being a Kodak defect. Id say user error just based on the facts. I see no reason to panic over nothing. Its a UFO sighting we cant explain but we have alot of ideas.



.

 

[MattKing]

Id say user error just based on the facts.

Can't agree with this paul.

In particular, because the marks on the (positive) scans or prints are lighter than the backgrounds, not darker than the backgrounds.

So they aren't due to light leak - which would show the numbers at least as being darker than the background.

It is a well known but thankfully rarely encountered problem - wrapper offset - where the ink on the backing paper transfers to the emulsion and actually sensitizes it.

Extreme heat is the usual culprit - and that is what the email I received from Kodak indicated - but the recent incidence of it happens to have coincided with Kodak introducing new backing paper.

So thus the concerns about it being a fault with the new backing paper.

 

[tomfrh]

user error just based on the facts

Yeah, it's my fault that I somehow produced this error on this particular film that all these other people are also having the same "user error" with..

Quit being so obtuse

 

[Ai Print]

I'll keep using it until I see a problem, it's my number one film.

 

[paul ron]

Yeah, it's my fault .

Quit being so obtuse

Now hold on there pal.. just trying to solve YOUR problem that you want to blame on manufacture defect. I just like to solve problems n see if WE can reproduce it... I couldn't give a penny if it was your fault or not. but you insist on avoiding explaining the circumstances you got your so called defects. I don't have your problem.. and I wont dump TMax anytime soon because you saw a UFO n cry the sky is falling. Make accusations.. back it up with something substantial not quoting a few others that saw UFOs. You can come up with a hundred reasons why it happened but can't prove any of it if you keep secrets n tell half truths.

So maybe this n that.. all speculation n circumstantial unless you can reproduce the problem to demonstrate defects. I still say user error... prove me wrong?

Had that film in the camera for months in the car glove box in some old crappy 1920s folder?.... who knows unless you explain exactly what the situation was. A few frames out of billions doesn't make an epidemic.. millions of rolls are sold n only a few complaints?.... Honda has the same stats n they aren't recalling every car built anytime soon.

So cry wolf.. obtuse? get real! Learn to problem solve.

 

[tomfrh]

Learn to problem solve.

You're the one who thinks you shooting kodak for 50 years and not seeing the particular issue proves that it doesn't exist.

 

[MattKing]

I would still like to see the exact wording of Kodak's response to tomfrh.

As I've reported before, Kodak's response to me was:

"Dear Mr. King,

This problem occurs when print from the backing paper transfers to the emulsion surface of the film. For that to happen, the affected rolls would have to be subjected to extremely high heat, and needless to say, obviously not in accordance with our standard guidelines for shipping / storage.

Please ask the photographer to contact me directly via email, and I will make arrangements to replace his film.

Thanks,


Thomas J. Mooney | Film Capture Business Manager

Kodak Alaris Inc., 2400 Mount Read Blvd., Rochester, NY 14615-03020"

The supply chain is so fragmented now that exposure to "extremely high heat" could be any of a myriad number of places.

 

[tomfrh]

Tom, Your are correct that this seems to be an issue with the backing paper. We will replace this film.

I sent your note to our Product Line Manager, he will have replacement film sent your way.

Thank you for using FILM !

Thank you for contacting Kodak Alaris,
Kodak Alaris Service & Support
Technical Support

 

[MattKing]

Thank you

 

[lensmagic]

What does Kodak (Rochester) have to say in all of this?

 

[RattyMouse]

was it just a few frames on one roll? was it a few rolls? was it the entire batch you bought?
its easy to say you had a problem but not enough information to isolate a problem.

.

Whenever I had this problem it was for entire rolls. I dont think it was for entire boxes though.

 

[paul ron]

kodak agrees it may be heat, but says its probably a user problem somewhere between his camera n their shipping dock... not defect!

. now lets look at all the instances a bit closer n find the comonality. without details you cant do that.

look carefully at the negs for the other marks from the backing accross frames?
what camera?
where was the camera stored when loaded?
did you shoot the roll in one session or did it stay for an extended time on frame 6?
how was your film stored?
maybe because its an export it was xrayed?

trace it backwards to find how it got damaged.
give the facts, not yell defect!

id like to know what the problem is as much as the next guy so i can avoid it or at least know what to look for.

 

[paul ron]

I would still like to see the exact wording of Kodak's response to tomfrh.


This problem occurs when print from the backing paper transfers to the emulsion surface of the film. For that to happen, the affected rolls would have to be subjected to extremely high heat, and needless to say, obviously not in accordance with our standard guidelines for shipping / storage.


The supply chain is so fragmented now that exposure to "extremely high heat" could be any of a myriad number of places.

this doesnt say defect... it says user error. problem solved!

thanks matt

 

[BrianShaw]

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.

 

[BrianShaw]

Not a solution to either a product defect or improper out-of-spec handling. It is an olive branch; A settlement. Nothing more but better than nothing.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

If one is a fan of TMY-2, the obvious solution, regardless of root cause, is moving up to 4x5. No further problem!

 

[BrianShaw]

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