TMAX400 120 watermark defect - current status?

[Peter Schrager]

Kodak reins supreme as far as quality goes...one little hiccup and the world is upside-down? ??..now really??

 

[MattKing]

Kodak reins supreme as far as quality goes...one little hiccup and the world is upside-down? ??..now really??

Sadly, I think it is more than a little "hiccup". But I also think it may be an example of where even high quality processes and standards can be caught out by the unforeseeable.

Sort of like those cows and the mustard.

 

[destroya]

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.

then do us all a favor and shoot digital. your whining will fit in perfectly with that crowd. enough already everyone knows how you feel and you add nothing to this discussion.

 

[tomfrh]

I find it useful to know that ratty mouse experienced 7 or 8 duds out of 50, just as it's interesting to hear of those who shot hundreds of rolls without encountering the issue.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

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.

The latest from Kodak Altaris:

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.

Damn Sal...

I've always respected your ability to see and express things with clarity. But the above two posts are only 2 hours and 40 minutes apart.

Do you also pay attention to the stock markets? Can I buy you a beer??



Ken

 

[RattyMouse]

then do us all a favor and shoot digital. your whining will fit in perfectly with that crowd. enough already everyone knows how you feel and you add nothing to this discussion.

Your opinion has been noted and discarded.

 

[BrianShaw]

I can't wait to see the verication results for the new paper. Hearing about the change is one ting, but proving that the change is another. Let's bake if and shot it before doing that happy dance!

 

[Ashfaque]

Good to hear a positive response from Kodak. Thanks Tom. Hopefully things will be sorted completely soon. I have a few queries:
(1) Is there anyone who bought TMY-2 (120) from Maco Direct in early 2015 have the same problem? I bought some during that time. I'll be taking up medium format this year.
(2) Somewhat related, when was this problem first identified? Is there any specific emulsion no., manufacturing batch no., etc. I should avoid whilst buying?
(3) Is anyone who bought from Adorama or BHPhoto having this problem? I'm asking because my next large purchase will be from there during the next NA trip (later this month).
(4) Just out of curiosity, what is the name of that backing paper manufacturer?

Bests,
Ashfaque

 

[BrianShaw]

I have another question: how fast can they really make a backing paper/ink change, how much of the old paper/ink is still in the supply chain, and how do we tell the difference???

 

[MattKing]

Is anyone who bought from Adorama or BHPhoto having this problem?

You won't necessarily know if something originated from the big US/New York sources, because there are a lot of retailers in various parts of the world who actually buy from New York and then re-sell product, rather than buying from their "local" wholesaler.

 

[MattKing]

I have another question: how fast can they really make a backing paper/ink change, how much of the old paper/ink is still in the supply chain, and how do we tell the difference???

Hard to tell, but I do recall that in respect to the issue of 220 film, Simon Galley posted that the minimum order requirements for backing paper meant having to buy at minimum several years supply.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The problem described in this thread exquisitely demonstrates what happens when a market contracts to a point where all is dependent on the whim of a single manufacturer. The paper manufacturer is completely in control and any problem is beyond Kodak or Ilford's ability to remedy the situation.

 

[BrianShaw]

BINGO. This is just another example of the whimsical nature of niche markets and the diminishing manufacturing capability problem we've been struggling with for the past decade or more. It's really hurting us and only getting worse.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Damn Sal...

I've always respected your ability to see and express things with clarity. But the above two posts are only 2 hours and 40 minutes apart.

Do you also pay attention to the stock markets? Can I buy you a beer??...

Aw shucks, Ken, thanks. Sorry, being extraordinarily risk averse, I don't pay attention to the stock markets. I also don't drink. However, of all the places we've explored with an eye toward relocation, my wife likes one in your general neck of the woods best. So, perhaps someday you and I will get together and discuss things further.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

The problem described in this thread exquisitely demonstrates what happens when a market contracts to a point where all is dependent on the whim of a single manufacturer...

As I understand the situation, outside of remaining communist countries, there's also one paper supplier left that sells product for use when manufacturing contact printing / enlarging paper today. Just as scary and possibly the cause of print issues discussed in other threads.

 

[Kyle M.]

I've only been shooting film for about 3 years now. 35mm, 120, and 4x5, I've used films from Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, Sveme, Foma, and probably some others. The only issues I've ever run into have been of my own causing. I use more Kodak film than anything mainly Tri-X in 35mm and 120, and Tmax 100 in 120 and 4x5. I for one will not be abandoning Kodak films until I have a major issue with a fair amount of their films.

 

[tomfrh]

Tri-x and tmax100 appear unaffected. Just the tmax400

 

[pentaxuser]

Tri-x and tmax100 appear unaffected. Just the tmax400

Difficult to work out why this should be, given that according to others the backing paper is the same and not only for these 3 films but also for all 120 films as must be the case if there is only one backing paper manufacturer and changing backing paper for different films and worse than that for different manufacturers is out of the question.

Fuji it appears has never had a problem according to one source and I can't recall any complaint about Ilford either.

Is it one film only, namely TMax400 and is it only a small percentage of that film which seems to be the case? If it is, it does seem to suggest that what ever occurred did so beyond the manufacturing and assembly stage as Kodak seems to be suggesting and might be out of its control

We might of course be condemning Ilford and Fuji equally vehemently if it were their films but I have a feeling that Kodak carries a lot of baggage or is that "Marley's chains" ( see "A Christmas Carol" by C. Dickens) as far as some people are concerned and it will have to "run fast to simply stand still" as far as some are concerned

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

The problem appears to be a chemical interaction, under particular and most likely extreme conditions, between the backing paper/ink and the film.

Each type of film has a different emulsion, with different mixes of ingredients. For example, the T-Max 100 has a UV blocker, while the T-Max 400 does not. And obviously the sensitivity of the one film is different than the other.

So it isn't unreasonable that the problem might manifest itself in one case, while it doesn't in others.

 

[removed account4]

then do us all a favor and shoot digital. your whining will fit in perfectly with that crowd. enough already everyone knows how you feel and you add nothing to this discussion.

if i was shooting a job and 7 or 8 rolls were ruined because of a film backing paper issue,
i'd be upset as well, actually i'd be more than a little upset because it would have been lost money,
lost time and a lot of effort, not to mention the client might have no clue and think it was an issue
of incompetance, not an issue with pre-damaged materials.

complaining that some of the film purchased with kodak's name on it had "issues" is not whining at all, the
film costs a small fortune, moments-photographed never return and it is enough of a problem
its a problem that has happened on more than one continent, and it is enough of a problem
to turn people away from a product, manufacturer and who knows if it was someone new who had this
happen to them, maybe even turn them away from film.

it stinks that still months later there are still issues with this particular film,
one would have hoped there would be a world-wide recall to take care of it!

i haven't bought MF film ( fresh ) in probably 20 years, and thankfully i use mostly sheet film and 35mm.

 

[Ai Print]

Well....I have a big, BIG assignment on Monday that will be 35mm & 120 and aside from films like Technical Pan & Acros, I am bringing and using Tmax400 in 120. I trust it and I will trust it until there is a problem. I need Kodak and they need me...because if there is a problem I will be the first in line to do whatever I can to help them solve it.

 

[tomfrh]

So it isn't unreasonable that the problem might manifest itself in one case, while it doesn't in others.

Yes, the same as most Ford pintos not catching fire, and most smokers not getting cancer.

 

[tomfrh]

For example, the T-Max 100 has a UV blocker, while the T-Max 400 does not.

I didn't know this. Thanks!

 

[tomfrh]

I just tested one of the rolls from the dud 5-pack of tmax 400.

I didn't expose the first few frames, yet you can still see the marks after developing, although they are very very faint.

At increasing exposure the marks get darker, so it's as though the ink has exposed the film a tiny amount, which is adding to the actual camera exposures.

So a slightly different scenario to the marks having increased sensitivity.

 

[RattyMouse]

As I understand the situation, outside of remaining communist countries, there's also one paper supplier left that sells product for use when manufacturing contact printing / enlarging paper today. Just as scary and possibly the cause of print issues discussed in other threads.

If there's only one supplier of paper, then it would seem the film is the source of the problem. Why is is that by far the most complaints come from TMAX 400? Why is it we *NEVER* see any evidence that Fujifilm has had this problem, ever? Why is it TMA100 seems fine?

Clearly, the fact that TMAX 400 is the common thread in this issue shows that storage, transport, whatever, is not the problem. It's the film. If TMAX100 or TRI-X can go through the supply chain without any issue than the poor quality comes from TMAX400.