TMAX400 120 watermark defect - current status?

[RattyMouse]

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.

How can you know for sure it won't happen? You can't, as you can only make this discovery after the fact.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, again admitting I don't shoot the 120 version often, I will state that the quality control on the TMY400 sheet film I use, along with TMX100, and
then the remaining color films from Kodak has been superb. So I certainly don't think of them as a secondary player. I've even made batch to batch
densitometer readings on these, and they've been remarkably consistent. So going around badmouthing Kodak due to some hypothetical temporary issue with backing paper is a bit overdone. If you've ever been forced to shoot EU films, you'll never complain about Kodak quality again. This is a company we need to keep alive. It just might be the last serious color film manufacturer standing. These kind of complaints are like saying you'll
never buy a BMW again because you once had a flat tire with one. Now, if it's a Ford Exploder rollover epidemic, that's a different story. But please
keep things in proportion.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Well, again admitting I don't shoot the 120 version often, I will state that the quality control on the TMY400 sheet film I use, along with TMX100, and
then the remaining color films from Kodak has been superb. So I certainly don't think of them as a secondary player. I've even made batch to batch
densitometer readings on these, and they've been remarkably consistent. So going around badmouthing Kodak due to some hypothetical temporary issue with backing paper is a bit overdone. If you've ever been forced to shoot EU films, you'll never complain about Kodak quality again. This is a company we need to keep alive. It just might be the last serious color film manufacturer standing. These kind of complaints are like saying you'll
never buy a BMW again because you once had a flat tire with one. Now, if it's a Ford Exploder rollover epidemic, that's a different story. But please
keep things in proportion.

Whoa Drew, you touched a soft spot with me! I drove a Ford Explorer for years and the only thing that rolled over was the odometer. Well, I'm not saying Ford didn't have a design problem, but I never experienced it. Just like you with TMY2 in 120. I agree the the film itself is 1st rate, but the packing certainly is in question. I'll say again, if heat/humidity are the issue all of a sudden then there has to be a problem somewhere on the manufactures end. Of course unless our environment has somehow changed and is now producing some mysterious gas that's causing a chemical reaction with the dyes used or maybe, just maybe it's aliens???

 

[RattyMouse]

Well, again admitting I don't shoot the 120 version often, I will state that the quality control on the TMY400 sheet film I use, along with TMX100, and
then the remaining color films from Kodak has been superb. So I certainly don't think of them as a secondary player. I've even made batch to batch
densitometer readings on these, and they've been remarkably consistent. So going around badmouthing Kodak due to some hypothetical temporary issue with backing paper is a bit overdone. If you've ever been forced to shoot EU films, you'll never complain about Kodak quality again. This is a company we need to keep alive. It just might be the last serious color film manufacturer standing. These kind of complaints are like saying you'll
never buy a BMW again because you once had a flat tire with one. Now, if it's a Ford Exploder rollover epidemic, that's a different story. But please
keep things in proportion.

Again- I have had this issue hit me THREE times now from Kodak film bought in TWO different countries. There's nothing hypothetical about this problem at all. It's very real and conclusive proof to me that Kodak has dropped in quality by a very substantial level. I have ZERO interest in keeping alive a company that cannot produce a reliable product. NONE.

I used Kodak TMAX400 film exclusively (for my ISO400/800 needs) for many years so I'm hardly anti-Kodak for no good reason. It took something substantial to move me off TMAX400 and being burned by Kodak 3 times did it.

Let's see how YOU feel after three different shoots of yours are blown to nothing by poor quality film. Until then, talk is cheap.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Have you looked into how the film is being distributed, or perhaps stored en route? I have a very substantial amount of expensive Kodak film on hand, and currently shoot everything from 35mm to 8x10. Zero issues. I know of manufacturers buying entire batches of TMY and TMX due to its
consistent quality. I'm not denying that Kodak might have hit a glitch from some paper contractor and need to address it, but that kind of issue was routine for some EU sources. Even the film boxes leaked light! So your extremely small statistical sample of problems does not affect my high opinion of Kodak. I think the film and paper products they still do offer are better than ever.

 

[RattyMouse]

Have you looked into how the film is being distributed, or perhaps stored en route? I have a very substantial amount of expensive Kodak film on hand, and currently shoot everything from 35mm to 8x10. Zero issues. I know of manufacturers buying entire batches of TMY and TMX due to its
consistent quality. I'm not denying that Kodak might have hit a glitch from some paper contractor and need to address it, but that kind of issue was routine for some EU sources. Even the film boxes leaked light! So your extremely small statistical sample of problems does not affect my high opinion of Kodak. I think the film and paper products they still do offer are better than ever.

I dont care about any of that. None of it matters to me. That is KODAK's problem, not mine.

I have been in the chemical industry for nearly 25 years and if our products fail at the customer's site, I'd get FIRED immediately if I laid the blame on our distributors (even if it is in fact their fault). My company takes responsibility for our products from blending vessel to the customer's plant.

If Kodak cannot create a supply chain that provides a working product than that is enough for me to drop them.

 

[NJH]

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.

Its worse than that. I consider myself to be a real systems engineer, I was responsible for part of the cockpit HMI design and data radio communications for one of the latest military aircraft into UK service. There is a legion of engineers around these days that are incapable of doing design or operating an oscilloscope for example but now how to operate the DOORS software and draw thousands of meaningless little stick man UML diagrams. I fear a backlash from management in the years to come which will be a real shame but I am sure it will happen as companies increasingly just burn money for little end product.

Sorry for the OT but as new to 120 shooter I am avoiding this film until it is clear from Kodak that the issues have been resolved. In the meantime HP5 is cheaper here in the UK anyway so I will be buying a brick of that when I have used up my 120 TriX (bought at a one off knock down price).

 

[Ai Print]

Have you looked into how the film is being distributed, or perhaps stored en route? I have a very substantial amount of expensive Kodak film on hand, and currently shoot everything from 35mm to 8x10. Zero issues. I know of manufacturers buying entire batches of TMY and TMX due to its
consistent quality. I'm not denying that Kodak might have hit a glitch from some paper contractor and need to address it, but that kind of issue was routine for some EU sources. Even the film boxes leaked light! So your extremely small statistical sample of problems does not affect my high opinion of Kodak. I think the film and paper products they still do offer are better than ever.

Agreed, and I just got done running 30 sheets, 15 rolls of 120 and 6 rolls of 35mm all in TMY2 and it was perfect. This is no assurance that I won't experience the issues that some are with imprinting from the backing paper on 120, but until then, I trust in the product in the fullest, especially considering this was all from a paid shoot.

When I had issues with Efke emulsion coming apart, I voiced concern, found a better working method to use what is a very delicate film and then went on about making my choices in what films to use for what purposes.

What I did not do is what one person on this forum in particular does and that is declare they are using no more of this company's film and then go on and on and on and on just to make sure the word "Kodak" is associated with as much blanket statement negativity as possible.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've dealt with manufacturers and engineers for decades myself. Even been involved in design sessions with some of the best. Nobody has a 100% batting average. Nobody. Some are much better than others. Kodak does not create the supply chain. They don't own UPS or Fedex or various re-distributors. If someone sells you a spoiled expired carton of milk, don't blame the cow. Now what I would expect is that no.1, somebody at Kodak would look into complaints and find a potential answer; but no.2, at the user end, anyone serious should eventually figure out that MOST companies
consider customer service positions entry level and don't put their best minds in those positions. They should do that, but VERY few do. Long ago I learned to be persistent, ferret out the relevant phone no's or e-mails, and get answers from real chemists or real quality control people, and not somebody who picked up a marketing MBA and a temporary phone job with a corporation just so he'd have something to put on a Starbucks job application later.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Reaching conclusions without adequate data is perilous. Nonetheless, here goes.

Either Eastman Kodak's stock of backing paper ran out and it could no longer source more from the same supplier, or, responding to the rampant bitching and moaning about how expensive its film is, it put the backing paper contract out for bid, then selected the low bidder, which allegedly met Eastman Kodak's specification. The specification might not have included sufficient bleed through immunity requirements.

Either way, it's pretty obvious that the sequence was 1) Eastman Kodak changed paper 2) problems ensued. This is the same experience HARMAN had with its 120 backing paper not too long ago. Whether shipment, storage and use environmental conditions exacerbated the backing paper's tendencies is irrelevant. The same conditions existed for product shipped previously that used the old paper and we didn't hear of the problem before.

I believe that Kodak Alaris' email replies, as they were reported here, are weasel worded and provide an inadequate response to the situation. However, it was Eastman Kodak that made the film. Kodak Alaris might not have sufficient influence (or disclosure authority) over Eastman Kodak to respond in any way other than offering replacement film. Such is the lawyer-driven world we live in today. I predict that, at some point after the supply chain (and Eastman Kodak's current stock) is exhausted, we'll see an announcement about Kodak 120 films being manufactured with a "new, improved" backing paper. One that actually works under all reasonably expected conditions. Until then, either play craps with Kodak 120 or don't. The choice is yours, not that there are too many high-quality options left. But simply continuing to complain about the situation does nobody any good; it just makes for longer threads and distracts from more useful discussions.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

^^^ I'm not so sure just shutting up about the problem is the right approach. "Squeaky wheel"...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Guilty until proven innocent. I'm sure everyone has a grudge on one film manufacturer or another. Add them all up, and usable film must not exist!

 

[BrianShaw]

Guilty until proven innocent. I'm sure everyone has a grudge on one film manufacturer or another. Add them all up, and usable film must not exist!

I summarize it similarly, but different. Folks want to bemoan the demise of film but complain about the few remaining film maufactuets. It's canibalizm - were starting to eat our own kind!

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I predict that, at some point after the supply chain (and Eastman Kodak's current stock) is exhausted, we'll see an announcement about Kodak 120 films being manufactured with a "new, improved" backing paper. One that actually works under all reasonably expected conditions.

Unfortunately, there is a second possibility: If they can't get a good backing paper supplier, they quit making 120 film.

 

[DREW WILEY]

A couple years ago, me and a buddy had just returned from a two week hiking trip largely off trail, over eight high altitude passes with heavy packs,
into a remote spectacular place with no signs of human presence. I carried an Ebony 4x5 with 6x9 roll film backs, while my friend brought along an expensive Contax 66 SLR system; but we both were shooting Efke R25, which handles high-contrast mountain lighting superbly, and holds detail wonderfully, but is otherwise a pain in the butt. For example, I warned him about the so-so backing paper and iffy antihalation layer, and to be very
religious about changing film backs in deep shade. This he did. But when we finally got back to our vehicles, it was after dark, and then I noticed he
was reorganizing his rolls of film wearing a bright LED headlamp. Ruined them all.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...simply continuing to complain about the situation does nobody any good; it just makes for longer threads and distracts from more useful discussions.

^^^ I'm not so sure just shutting up about the problem is the right approach. "Squeaky wheel"...

"Shutting up" is not what I suggest. Refraining from continuous, repetitious posting (after an issue is identified and occasionally statused) better captures my advice. Sometimes those who must listen to a wheel that squeaks too much can decide it's easier to shoot out the tire than apply grease.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Unfortunately, there is a second possibility: If they can't get a good backing paper supplier, they quit making 120 film.

...Sometimes those who must listen to a wheel that squeaks too much can decide it's easier to shoot out the tire than apply grease.

Fred posted while I was composing. Yet another possibility that could lead Eastman Kodak to the same conclusion.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

"Shutting up" is not what I suggest. Refraining from continuous, repetitious posting (after an issue is identified and occasionally statused) better captures my advice. Sometimes those who must listen to a wheel that squeaks too much can decide it's easier to shoot out the tire than apply grease.

Well.. a more accurate negative analogy would be to "burn the wagon rather than grease the wheel" but that seems a bit extreme.

 

[tomfrh]

The latest from Kodak Altaris:

Dear Tom

I am very sorry to hear you ran into problems with our 120 format T-Max 400 film. Did you receive the replacement film I sent?


We have had a limited number of inquiries for similar issues. We think this film may have seen some abnormal keeping after it left the factory (e.g. maybe it sat somewhere in a truck over a hot weekend, etc.). That said, we are taking this matter very seriously and have made some modifications to the backing paper which should minimize the potential for this type of imperfection going forward. The film I sent was spooled with this new backing paper.

Good to hear they've changed the backing paper - be it to correct a defect, or simply to mitigate the effects of poor storage by others...

 

[BrianShaw]

Thanks for that update, Tom

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Thanks for the update, Tom. That's very good news!!

 

[RattyMouse]

Guilty until proven innocent. I'm sure everyone has a grudge on one film manufacturer or another. Add them all up, and usable film must not exist!

Nonsense. Ever see a roll Fujifilm spoiled by backing paper? Neither have I and I shot close to 500 rolls of Acros while in China. Not one bum roll in all that.

I got 7 or 8 bad rolls of TMAX 400 out of less than 50 bought.

 

[MattKing]

Either Eastman Kodak's stock of backing paper ran out and it could no longer source more from the same supplier, or, responding to the rampant bitching and moaning about how expensive its film is, it put the backing paper contract out for bid, then selected the low bidder, which allegedly met Eastman Kodak's specification. The specification might not have included sufficient bleed through immunity requirements.

Either way, it's pretty obvious that the sequence was 1) Eastman Kodak changed paper 2) problems ensued. This is the same experience HARMAN had with its 120 backing paper not too long ago. Whether shipment, storage and use environmental conditions exacerbated the backing paper's tendencies is irrelevant. The same conditions existed for product shipped previously that used the old paper and we didn't hear of the problem before.

This is based on some incomplete data too.

IIRC, there are posts here on APUG either from PE, Simon Galley and/or Prof Pixel to the effect that there remains one, single paper manufacturer in the world with the capacity to manufacture roll film backing paper.

None of the film manufacturers have that capacity. It is not possible to send out specifications to multiple parties and get competitive bids.

In addition, that single manufacturer has very high prices, and very large minimum purchase requirements.

I would not be surprised to learn as well that that paper manufacturer does not actually make the ink that is used on that paper.

So there are three parties involved. The film manufacturer, who specifies what is needed, a paper manufacturer, and an ink supplier.

I've no doubt that everything was tested extensively before it was put into production. Just as I have no doubt that the ink and the film reacts together, under conditions that were either not envisaged or not accurately recreated, in ways that are unexpected.

It isn't bleed through - it is an unwanted interaction that enhances the film's sensitivity (the negatives are darker where the numbers on the paper affected them).

 

[tomfrh]

t is an unwanted interaction that enhances the film's sensitivity

Maybe we're witnessing the accidental conception of TMAX800!

 

[MartinP]

In the meantime HP5 is cheaper here in the UK anyway so I will be buying a brick of that when I have used up my 120 TriX.

Don't forget that Delta400 also exists, though it is probably more different to TMax400 than HP5+ is to TriX.