TMAX400 120 watermark defect - current status?

[ishutteratthethought]

I am at 4 rolls with this problem. These all have been purchased recently. Very discouraging considering the effort/costs of going on trips to take photos. Hope they get it fixed soon. Pyrocat HD and TMY II is my staple for sure.
Steve

 

[RattyMouse]

I am at 4 rolls with this problem. These all have been purchased recently. Very discouraging considering the effort/costs of going on trips to take photos. Hope they get it fixed soon. Pyrocat HD and TMY II is my staple for sure.
Steve

Very sorry to hear that this problem is STILL continuing. Why doesnt Kodak recall the bad batches of film?? Why let customer's take this risk?

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

^^^ Why do automobile manufacturers not recall dangerous vehicles when they've known of the problems for years?

Why don't food makers immediately recall tainted products when they learn of the issues?

There is no other answer: Greed and selfishness fueled by sociopathy.

That may seem an extreme statement to some but it's the way I see it.

 

[MattKing]

I am at 4 rolls with this problem. These all have been purchased recently. Very discouraging considering the effort/costs of going on trips to take photos. Hope they get it fixed soon. Pyrocat HD and TMY II is my staple for sure.
Steve

Have you communicated with Kodak Alaris?
What batch numbers and expiry dates were your films?

 

[RattyMouse]

^^^ Why do automobile manufacturers not recall dangerous vehicles when they've known of the problems for years?

Why don't food makers immediately recall tainted products when they learn of the issues?

There is no other answer: Greed and selfishness fueled by sociopathy.

That may seem an extreme statement to some but it's the way I see it.

Most of these companies DO recall their products when a known problem is discovered.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

^^^ Why do automobile manufacturers not recall dangerous vehicles when they've known of the problems for years?

Why don't food makers immediately recall tainted products when they learn of the issues?

There is no other answer: Greed and selfishness fueled by sociopathy.

That may seem an extreme statement to some but it's the way I see it.

Most of these companies DO recall their products when a known problem is discovered.

Not all of them. In fact, most wait far too long and some never do anything until they've been sued.

 

[RattyMouse]

Not all of them. In fact, most wait far too long and some never do anything until they've been sued.

I didnt say ALL of them, I said MOST.

 

[Ai Print]

Very sorry to hear that this problem is STILL continuing. Why doesnt Kodak recall the bad batches of film?? Why let customer's take this risk?

If one were to buy bananas or avocados, put them in a pantry for a month and then return to use them, they would not only be inedible, they would resemble a prop for a horror movie. So people tend to use food well before it truly goes bad.

But film is not a banana or an avocado, it is instead a somewhat perishable item that it’s users typically either use right away or nibble away at portions of stock purchased over time. Sometimes that time frame can be well over a year. So this problem will STILL take time to fully flush out in terms of what should be done with stock that was sold, if all of a batch number was affected and what distribution channels or retailers sold the defective product.

Kodak’s liability on this matter does not by law, mandate a recall, only replacement of defective product.

I have photographs that were made unprintable by this problem, that is potential lost income from those rolls, as many as you lost if I recall. But I understand full well their limitations in situations like this so I did as I always do with any of my chosen photography related companies and that is work from a standpoint of a partnership rather than an adversarial one.

This will simply take time to work it self out and in my opinion, Kodak is dealing with this issue in a manner that would be consistent with Fuji, Ilford, etc.

 

[BrianShaw]

Completely agree. Us users need to verify batch numbers before using our stock or buying more to ensure we aren't taking risk. If the affected film is discovered it appears that replacement is indeed offered.

For those who don't know the affected batch numbers or don't check their film it is a very unfortunate situation.

 

[MattKing]

The problem is complicated by the fact that most likely the film in the problematic batch(es) left Kodak without any problems, other than a potential increased sensitivity to heat that was outside the recommended conditions for the film.

 

[RattyMouse]

The problem is complicated by the fact that most likely the film in the problematic batch(es) left Kodak without any problems, other than a potential increased sensitivity to heat that was outside the recommended conditions for the film.

Yes, that is true. However, TODAY we know exactly what emulsions are problematic. Is Kodak recalling all that film from B & H and other film suppliers? Or are they letting it be sold to customers?

 

[mooseontheloose]

And I thought it was only a TMAX problem. I've got a few pro-packs of Tri-X that look like they may be problematic. Thanks for the information Michael!

 

[BrianShaw]

Yes, that is true. However, TODAY we know exactly what emulsions are problematic. Is Kodak recalling all that film from B & H and other film suppliers? Or are they letting it be sold to customers?

Have you asked any of the film suppliers (retailers) if they are verifying emulsion numbers and either returning to Kodak for replacement or scrapping?

 

[RattyMouse]

And I thought it was only a TMAX problem. I've got a few pro-packs of Tri-X that look like they may be problematic. Thanks for the information Michael!

One person awhile back reported the issue with Portra film too, so apparently all Kodak film is at risk.

 

[BrianShaw]

One person a while back???

Don't you think you are grasping at straws?

The problem is real, but often there are allegations made in which no details are presented. Makes some of those claims very hard to understand. Throwing Portra on the pyre based on one incomplete and unsubstantiated recollection seems a tad irresponsible.

 

[RattyMouse]

One person a while back???

Don't you think you are grasping at straws?

The problem is real, but often there are allegations made in which no details are presented. Makes some of those claims very hard to understand. Throwing Portra on the pyre based on one incomplete and unsubstantiated recollection seems a tad irresponsible.

Laughable. In each case people have posted examples of this defect. Defend Kodak all you want, but if I see a problem, I dont bury my head.

 

[BrianShaw]

Laughable. In each case people have posted examples of this defect. Defend Kodak all you want, but if I see a problem, I dont bury my head.

Please don't be insulting. Nobody is denying the TMax400 and a limited TriX problem. I did not deny the problem; in fact I stated that the problem exists in the very message to which you respond. (But I'm not rude enough to call your response "laughable" and suggest that your reading comprehension could use improvement)

As a scientist and statistician I am data/evidence driven. Rumor and recollection is interesting but not of much value. Many of these reports are not forthcoming with full information, and it appears that even Kodak has not done a legitimate/comprehensive root cause analysis to prove the real causal factor.

Can you please refresh our memories - where is this Portra report? I can't find it and don't recollect any concern except for when used in a red window camera (which I have personally experienced too).

 

[RattyMouse]

Please don't be insulting. Nobody is denying the TMax400 and a limited TriX problem. I did not deny the problem; in fact I stated that the problem exists in the very message to which you respond. (But I'm not rude enough to call your response "laughable" and suggest that your reading comprehension could use improvement)

As a scientist and statistician I am data/evidence driven. Rumor and recollection is interesting but not of much value. Many of these reports are not forthcoming with full information, and it appears that even Kodak has not done a legitimate/comprehensive root cause analysis to prove the real causal factor.

Can you please refresh our memories - where is this Portra report? I can't find it and don't recollect any concern except for when used in a red window camera (which I have personally experienced too).

I would happily supply the link that posted the Portra example of ink bleed, but it was a long time ago, perhaps 1 year or more and quite possibly at another forum; most likely filmwasters.com. I didnt save it and I dont have the time to go look for it. Regardless, to me it is real because I saw the example with my own eyes. I understand that you may not believe it because you didnt see it. That's totally fine and I understand that. Seeing is believing.

 

[MattKing]

Wrapper offset has always been a problem with 120 film that has been exposed to high heat and other non-standard conditions. The recent change in backing paper appears to brought rise to a greater sensitivity to the problem. A single example of the problem occurring in a roll of Portra, where the user himself stated it was due to high temperature (I remember a linked post) doesn't say anything about a systemic problem.

 

[nworth]

See also the "Backing paper numbers show on negatives" thread. The cause has been identified as imprper storage of some film while in transit.

 

[johnsexton]

Thanks to Michael R 1974 for sharing the info from my most recent eNewsletter. I had planned to post the information here this morning, but he beat me to it. Please check the emulsion numbers on any of the three films I mention to make sure you do not have film that falls within the suspect batches. If you have questions, or concerns, you should contact Mr. Mooney at:
Profilm@Kodakalaris.com

 

[johnsexton]

See also the "Backing paper numbers show on negatives" thread. The cause has been identified as imprper storage of some film while in transit.

Improper storage conditions - such as high temperature - of the film is thought to be a contributing factor to the current backing paper latent print problem, but Kodak has not recently said that it is THE cause. As I recall the earliest problem reported to Kodak did involve high temperatures, but from my direct communications with photographers as recently as today, the problematic film has been purchased from a number of different retailers around the country, and abroad. It seems unlikely that all of the film was somehow improperly stored based upon so many different shipments. Everyone, please check your emulsion numbers.

 

[RattyMouse]

Just to follow up on Rattymouse's mention of Portra, below is a link to what might be an example, or the example he was referring to. As per my previous post, unless the colour films used a different backing paper, it is reasonable to assume the offset problem could have occurred with them as well. After all, at first the complaints were about TMY-2, but Kodak is acknowledging there are batches of TMX and TXP which need to be looked out for.

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=153279

That is a separate link from the one that I saw. I'm banned from rangefinderforum (I accidentally said something bad about Leica; lifetime ban, no warning at all!) and so dont read that forum.

 

[tomfrh]

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

 

[MattKing]

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

The recent questioning is about whether the colour films have also been affected.

If so, I would have expected to have heard as much or more reports from those who shoot Portra and Ektar as we have heard from the B&W shooters.