TMAX400 120 watermark defect - current status?

[RattyMouse]

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.

I had an issue with one roll of Ilford film once. I dont recall which film it was but I bet it was HP5+ since that is the film I shoot most.

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

pentaxuser

Since TMAX400 is almost exclusively the film that has a problem, it suggests that the FILM is the problem, not something beyond Kodak's facilities. Portra 400, Tri-X, Delta 400, 400H, Provia 400X, HP5+, etc all go through the same supply chain all throughout the world.

If this were a storage issue, we'd be seeing far more problems on a random basis. We aren't and so Kodak has a problem that Kodak needs to address.

 

[MattKing]

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.

You should offer that information/box/backing paper/film to Kodak Alaris. It may help them.

 

[removed account4]

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.

you are braver than me. as much as i would like to be part of the solution, it isn't worth problems with a client becasue of problems with materials.

 

[BrianShaw]

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.

I sure hope they replaced all 5 rolls for you, not just the couple you shot when you discovered the problem!

 

[BrianShaw]

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.

Who puts the ink on the paper, the paper supplier or the film manufacturer? And where does the ink come from?

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Yes, yes, yes... at least Kodak and the paper manufacturer are at fault and possibly the transporter too. The bottom line is end users pay the price. Since the label on the package is "Kodak" then Kodak needs to resolve the problem(s).

 

[JW PHOTO]

Yes, yes, yes... at least Kodak and the paper manufacturer are at fault and possibly the transporter too. The bottom line is end users pay the price. Since the label on the package is "Kodak" then Kodak needs to resolve the problem(s).

Yes, yes, yes and another yes! Old and feeble minds do think alike................John W

 

[tomfrh]

My replacement film has arrived. The new film doesn't have backing numbers and marks, so this is evidently the modification Kodak has adopted for the time being at least.

Suits me!

 

[canuhead]

If there are no numbers and this is a permanent fix, then a whole lot of cameras and backs just got tougher to load. I hope they're just testing different inks.

 

[BrianShaw]

That's not very useful for a lot of other folks though.

Not even a start arrow?

Either the solution is a stupid one or the report is erroneous.

 

[R.Gould]

My replacement film has arrived. The new film doesn't have backing numbers and marks, so this is evidently the modification Kodak has adopted for the time being at least.

Suits me!

If that is the permament fix then that would rule me out of ever using that film, 90% of the cameras I use are folders and depend on the frame numbers with the red window, I was about to try some, now it is not worth my while, I will stick to Foma, never had a problem with that

 

[mooseontheloose]

If that is the permament fix then that would rule me out of ever using that film, 90% of the cameras I use are folders and depend on the frame numbers with the red window, I was about to try some, now it is not worth my while, I will stick to Foma, never had a problem with that

If it's true how many photographers will unknowningly buy this film and not be able to use it in their older (or not) red window cameras? I would hope that there is at least a warning about it in the film box.

 

[tomfrh]

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.

 

[RattyMouse]

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.

Very interesting. My cameras dont have windows so the lack of markings on the paper will not hinder me.

It's good to see that Kodak has finally understood that this is solely THEIR problem and not pushing it off on their supply chain.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...It's good to see that Kodak has finally understood that this is solely THEIR problem and not pushing it off on their supply chain.

Yup.

 

[JW PHOTO]

So, I guess my older Hasselblad 12 backs are now obsolete and I might as well forget my Super Ikonta C too. Along with my Kodak Medalist I/II and Monitor 620 I respool 120 for. I think this is a cop out on Kodaks part and tells me they changed the dye ink on the paper. I know folks here will say it's not a big deal cause it's just TMY2 we're talking about and I can just use any other Kodak 120 film in those Hassy 12 backs and old folders. The trouble is what might be coming in the future??? I predict that Kodak will end up ordering all it's 120 B&W backing paper with no numbers in the future and then all of us classic camera users are screwed. For me this is the final nail in the coffin when it comes to Kodak. I am still pissed off about them discontinuing 620 film and that's been along time ago. Kodak never even had to change anything to keep production of 620 film going since the film and backing paper are 100% the same as 120. Just the spools the film goes on are different. Besides, it was Kodaks big idea to make 620 film in the first place and almost all 620 cameras are Kodaks. I'm getting along really swell with the two brands of film I'm using right now and will stick with them. C'est la vie I guess!

 

[railwayman3]

That's not very useful for a lot of other folks though.

Not even a start arrow?

Either the solution is a stupid one or the report is erroneous.

There are numerous ISO standards relating to photographic film dimensions, packing, etc. I don't have detailed accress to them, but does anyone know if the matter of backing markings and numbering is addressed ? (Knowing the detailed requirements of certain other ISO standards for my work, unrelated to photography, I'd be surprised if they were not covered ?)

 

[DREW WILEY]

Garsh. If I had a roll film back with a little window thru the back instead of a fully external counter, I'd put black electrical tape over it, at least once
you advance the film to shooting actual frames. That's whole scenario is like wonderful if a safelight is safe or not. No, this comment doesn't address
the whole hypothetical question, but just sayin......

 

[BrianShaw]

There are numerous ISO standards relating to photographic film dimensions, packing, etc. I don't have detailed accress to them, but does anyone know if the matter of backing markings and numbering is addressed ? (Knowing the detailed requirements of certain other ISO standards for my work, unrelated to photography, I'd be surprised if they were not covered ?)

As a fellow standards guy...

try this: ISO 732-1975

There's also an Indian Standard that will show up with a quick Google search that "adapted" the ISO.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Garsh. If I had a roll film back with a little window thru the back instead of a fully external counter, I'd put black electrical tape over it, at least once
you advance the film to shooting actual frames. That's whole scenario is like wonderful if a safelight is safe or not. No, this comment doesn't address
the whole hypothetical question, but just sayin......

I do do that black tape thing with old folders that do not have a "red window" blind. Still, many cameras have to be lined up on exposure No. 1 even if they have auto film counters. Hasselblad 12 backs also. You have to start the sequence at the appropriate frame No. 1 starting point so there has to be a No.1 on the paper backing. With old folders there has to be all the numbers for the format - 8 for 2 1/4 x 3 1/4, 10 for 2 3/4 x 2 3/4, 12 for 6 x 6 and 16 for 6 x 4.5. Without those numbers as a guide you are screwed with older cameras.

 

[pentaxuser]

I take it we can be absolutely certain that Kodak has decided to eliminate all marking except the start arrow? Seems a drastic way of solving the problem given that there are still a lot of red window folders out there.

It sounds a bit like reducing the height of a bicycle's saddle by taking the air out of the tires( yes that spelling was deliberate)

As Richard Gould has said this removes all red window folder owners from Kodak's 120 market This may or may not be a big loss but it sends the wrong message if Kodak has removed all markings from its backing paper except the start line

pentaxuser

 

[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).

But I could live with Tri-X and T-Max 100 having the numbers, with T-Max 400 films being number free - as long as they are clearly labelled!

I wonder if anyone has seen imprint from the "1"s at the beginning of each roll? If not, and those numbers can be left on the backing paper, it would at least preserve use in those cameras that make use of just that first number.

 

[BrianShaw]

I take it we can be absolutely certain that Kodak has decided to ...

Considering that all we have to work with is emails from unknown Kodak sources (probably the marketing folks), random user reports that fail to provide complete information, and an huge amount of internet speculation... I don't think we can be certain of anything Kodak has in mind.

But I would hope that they would either conform to the ISO standard so the full breadth of film users can use their film, or be very clear about their non-compliance so we can decide which film we can use and which we cannot.

 

[MattKing]

Considering that all we have to work with is emails from unknown Kodak sources

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.

 

[BrianShaw]

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.