TMAX400 120 watermark defect - current status?

[Arctic amateur]

I've got 2 pro-packs of possibly affected film, and Kodak's response was to try a test roll, and if it showed problems they would replace the film. However, I don't know that one successful film will mean that the rest are unaffected. I don't know about Matt, but initially I was thinking of doing the test, but the reality is I wouldn't be able to trust the remaining rolls, so I'll probably request a replacement.

Will Kodak Alaris refund the test roll and processing costs?

 

[mooseontheloose]

Will Kodak Alaris refund the test roll and processing costs?

Processing probably not, but the rolls that are affected will be replaced.

 

[BrianShaw]

I don't think anyone is denying the possibility that environmental
factors are triggering the fault. What I'm talking about is people using that possibility as an excuse for the problem.

Then what do you say the causal factors are? Kodak said heat exposure and changed the paper/ink. Kodak admits to more than just heat. What other causal factors do you believe are in play, and why? What do you believe is the other evidence not being acknowledged?

 

[tomfrh]

In my opinion the primary casual factor is a film/paper defect. That's where the problem lies. issues of storage and handling are secondary factors. Film/paper should be chemically stable enough not to fail in these numbers.

 

[BrianShaw]

Ok. That was acknowledged and reported by Kodak to be corrected. Why are you still angry? That confuses me.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The problem I see at this time is the remaining stock still on shelves at those who sell Kodak 120 film.

Discussing the cause of the problem, at this stage, is probably moot. It happened, it got recognized, the problem was admitted to. Now we will see how quickly the bad film will flush through the dealer system... I'm glad I switched to Ilford HP5+, even though I find TMY-2 a superior film.

 

[tomfrh]

yes it's probably pointless debating where the fault lay given the paper has now been changed.

If you prefer TMY-2 (as I do) it's quite easy to check batches to ensure they aren't affected.

 

[pentaxuser]

yes it's probably pointless debating where the fault lay given the paper has now been changed.

If you prefer TMY-2 (as I do) it's quite easy to check batches to ensure they aren't affected.

The simple solution, it seems to me, is now the faulty batches are known, Kodak makes sure its stockists know those numbers and are asked to return those rolls. Should any of the batches have been sold the stockists should be told to replace them with no questions asked.

Anything less than the above may save Kodak some money in the short term but is liable to damage its reputation to an extent that far outweighs any saving.

Maybe Kodak has instituted such steps but it isn't clear to me what Kodak's position is in terms of the faulty or potentially faulty batches.

pentaxuser

 

[R.Gould]

The simple solution, it seems to me, is now the faulty batches are known, Kodak makes sure its stockists know those numbers and are asked to return those rolls. Should any of the batches have been sold the stockists should be told to replace them with no questions asked.

Anything less than the above may save Kodak some money in the short term but is liable to damage its reputation to an extent that far outweighs any saving.

Maybe Kodak has instituted such steps but it isn't clear to me what Kodak's position is in terms of the faulty or potentially faulty batches.

pentaxuser

Hear Hear

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The simple solution, it seems to me, is now the faulty batches are known, Kodak makes sure its stockists know those numbers and are asked to return those rolls. Should any of the batches have been sold the stockists should be told to replace them with no questions asked.

Anything less than the above may save Kodak some money in the short term but is liable to damage its reputation to an extent that far outweighs any saving.

Maybe Kodak has instituted such steps but it isn't clear to me what Kodak's position is in terms of the faulty or potentially faulty batches.

pentaxuser

I think this makes a lot of sense, and if I were a Kodak film customer it's what I'd like to see done too.

If they let potentially damaged film sit around, and just wait for them to get sold, which would increase the amount of bad press they get as a result, would be completely false economy. It's best to simply have the films returned and replaced.

 

[pentaxuser]

I think this makes a lot of sense, and if I were a Kodak film customer it's what I'd like to see done too.

If they let potentially damaged film sit around, and just wait for them to get sold, which would increase the amount of bad press they get as a result, would be completely false economy. It's best to simply have the films returned and replaced.

I agree, Thomas and hopefully Kodak will have recognised the above adverse consequences but we see a lot of examples in the business world where the advice " If you are in a hole, stop digging" is ignored until it is too late.

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

It occurs to me that Kodak Alarms, Eastman Kodak and the backing paper supplier might just be stuck in that hell-hole known as "possible insurance claim" - where an admission of liability without insurer's consent results in a denial of coverage.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It occurs to me that Kodak Alarms, Eastman Kodak and the backing paper supplier might just be stuck in that hell-hole known as "possible insurance claim" - where an admission of liability without insurer's consent results in a denial of coverage.

I think in this day and age it's impossible to tell what the full scenario is, and I suspect we will never know. All the same, I hope Kodak decides to do the right thing and limit the amount of damage to themselves, as well as their current and future customers by calling the faulty film home and replacing it, not just to customers but also to dealers and stores.

 

[RattyMouse]

The simple solution, it seems to me, is now the faulty batches are known, Kodak makes sure its stockists know those numbers and are asked to return those rolls. Should any of the batches have been sold the stockists should be told to replace them with no questions asked.

Anything less than the above may save Kodak some money in the short term but is liable to damage its reputation to an extent that far outweighs any saving.

Maybe Kodak has instituted such steps but it isn't clear to me what Kodak's position is in terms of the faulty or potentially faulty batches.

pentaxuser

Since there are no public announcements from Kodak we can be pretty certain that customers are being left to find this problem on their own.

 

[MattKing]

I think in this day and age it's impossible to tell what the full scenario is, and I suspect we will never know. All the same, I hope Kodak decides to do the right thing and limit the amount of damage to themselves, as well as their current and future customers by calling the faulty film home and replacing it, not just to customers but also to dealers and stores.

Which Kodak? The manufacturer, or the entity that markets the film?
I ask, because that may be another part of the problem.

 

[Ai Print]

Since there are no public announcements from Kodak we can be pretty certain that customers are being left to find this problem on their own.

I'm hedging on the fact that since this is your track record of negativity which plays like a rings of planet Saturn sized 33 LP, you are the only one who would even think like this.

I on the other hand, know for reasons I simply won't discuss here, that they are still figuring out what to do beyond what they have been doing already and that is replacing film on a as needed basis.

Yes, this is a mess and Kodak needs to step up pretty soon with a much broader scope game plan that includes how to deal with suspect stock sitting on retailer shelves. I think both Kodak and users of the products were hoping that it would be limited to small portions of one or two emulsion numbers but we now have the larger issues at hand.

And by the way, this kind of negative press affects ALL makers of film, it's the way that the internet works, if it bleeds, it leads and then the lines of something as controversial as who is still making film in 2016 become rather blurred.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Which Kodak? The manufacturer, or the entity that markets the film?
I ask, because that may be another part of the problem.

Who knows?

 

[mgb74]

Which Kodak? The manufacturer, or the entity that markets the film?
I ask, because that may be another part of the problem.

Kodak Alaris is, in this case, the manufacturer. The fact that they contract with Kodak to physically manufacture the film is between them.

Take your car for example. If a component fails under warranty, do you make your claim to Toyota or to whatever company made that component for Toyota?

 

[MattKing]

Kodak Alaris is, in this case, the manufacturer. The fact that they contract with Kodak to physically manufacture the film is between them.

Take your car for example. If a component fails under warranty, do you make your claim to Toyota or to whatever company made that component for Toyota?

While this may be legally true, it doesn't help Kodak Alaris much if Eastman Kodak doesn't agree with them about a solution. Its not as if Kodak Alaris can go elsewhere to buy Kodak film.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

While this may be legally true, it doesn't help Kodak Alaris much if Eastman Kodak doesn't agree with them about a solution. Its not as if Kodak Alaris can go elsewhere to buy Kodak film.

Right, whomever the fault lies with, it's still going to exist until something is done about it, and to us film users all that is academic anyway.

I sure hope this gets to become a thing of the past soon.

 

[Xmas]

I'm hedging on the fact that since this is your track record of negativity which plays like a rings of planet Saturn sized 33 LP, you are the only one who would even think like this.

I on the other hand, know for reasons I simply won't discuss here, that they are still figuring out what to do beyond what they have been doing already and that is replacing film on a as needed basis.

Yes, this is a mess and Kodak needs to step up pretty soon with a much broader scope game plan that includes how to deal with suspect stock sitting on retailer shelves. I think both Kodak and users of the products were hoping that it would be limited to small portions of one or two emulsion numbers but we now have the larger issues at hand.

And by the way, this kind of negative press affects ALL makers of film, it's the way that the internet works, if it bleeds, it leads and then the lines of something as controversial as who is still making film in 2016 become rather blurred.

That attitude does not help some one shooting their sisters wedding in mono, when (s)he gets 12 sets of negs back with format numbers.

Ratty is correct there is not a Totoya style apology with batch numbers and return address.

Lots of people will switch to other suppliers. This is the goof that Foma Ilford and Adox can only have dreamt about.

I got HP5+ 120 in my local pharmacy, am I going to mail order?

I live round the corner from Alaris' headquarters am I going to stand outside with a placard? Or borrow local farmers muck spreader and treat the company auto park with organic fertiliser.

 

[el wacho]

http://www.johnsexton.com/newsletter05-2016.html#anchor04

 

[RattyMouse]

I'm hedging on the fact that since this is your track record of negativity which plays like a rings of planet Saturn sized 33 LP, you are the only one who would even think like this.

Absolute nonsense. Take your blinders off and read both threads. Many people think Kodak should be doing more. They COULD be doing more to protect their customers. That simply a fact.

I on the other hand, know for reasons I simply won't discuss here, that they are still figuring out what to do beyond what they have been doing already and that is replacing film on a as needed basis.

Yes, this is a mess and Kodak needs to step up pretty soon with a much broader scope game plan that includes how to deal with suspect stock sitting on retailer shelves.

DING! DING! DING! YOU say it too. Good god, your need to spew hate against me prevents you from seeing that you are in lockstep AGREEMENT with me. That's hilarious!

I think both Kodak and users of the products were hoping that it would be limited to small portions of one or two emulsion numbers but we now have the larger issues at hand.

Again, we agree! Good times.

 

[Ai Print]

Xmas, Rattymouse;

If your track records were not that of village windbags who constantly go on endlessly in rants against all who trespass against you, it would be far easier to note the logical parts of your points.

Again, yes, the situation with these products has arrived at a critical stage in terms of how much more of this possibly suspect product could be sold and used by unsuspecting customers from here on out. So it really is go time for Kodak to make a PR move. John Sexton is a friend of mine and I know for a fact he rarely chimes in due to the caustic nature of forums but knew he had to via his newsletter when he had significantly more information than anyone else had. Kodak is a sponsor of his workshops which I have taken, he has no reason to throw them under the bus.

But no matter what the situation, a new CEO, a bankruptcy filing, price increase, distribution hiccups and now this, APUG and its members can pretty much count on either one of the two of you and a few others on a not nearly as regular basis to come into the discussion and drop piles of negativity and sweeping generalizations.

You simply rarely if ever help, it's always barbs of negativity and it is pretty frustrating.

To avoid the risk of becoming equally as annoying to other members who might want to weigh in, I am going to unplug from this site for awhile, sorry if my positive attitude about wanting to keep Kodak and their products around has been off putting to anyone.

Bye for now!

 

[R.Gould]

A1Print, your rants are getting boring in the extreme, we all have different ideas and opions, but it seems to me that you are right and every one who dissagrees with you gets a barrage of almost insulting words, we should all be able to agree to disagree, for me I neither need or currently want Kodak film, I by far prefer to work with Ilford or Foma, but when a customer loses his prints from a one off event, and I lose a lot of money, then I will not use Kodak film again, if you do not like my attitude then hard luck, Kodak and Kodak Alaris appears to me to be leaving customers to there own devices, if you have bad film then contact them, if you can get a reply, which I couldn't, they should have made a announcement warning potential customers of the problems which are affecting their 120 film, recalled the known problem films, they haven't therefore they have lost a lot of respect, from a lot of people, Ilford Foma must be rubbing their hands with glee at Kodaks problems and the fact that to me Kodak and Alaris are giving the appearence of headless chickens