TMAX400 120 watermark defect - current status?

[Bill Burk]

By the way, my roll came from the batch of Tri-X mentioned in John Sexton's article from 2016.

This is an old issue not something that just happened, I exposed the film in January 2015 and developed it shortly after.

 

[RattyMouse]

Contact Mr. Mooney at K/A. I did: I supplied emulsion batch numbers of pro packs of TMX and TMY I had in storage, and I was immediately offered replacement product. However, they are currently not manufacturing TMX and so I was offered only packs of TMY, which I gladly accepted. (They replaced all of the film I had in storage, with TMY)
So, if you have inventory of either TMX or TMY and the batch numbers fit the damaged/defective batches, Kodak will issue you replacement film. But no matter which you have, they can only off you TMY, not TMX.

Kodak T-Max 400
Emulsion 0148 004 through 0152

Kodak T-Max 100
Emulsion 0961 through 0981

Unfortunately, I was unaware of this problem when it first struck and had discarded all the batch numbers. I unwrapped all my film since I was going to shoot it very quickly. When I lived in China it was not uncommon for me to shoot 10 or more rolls each weekend. I shot a lot of film then, and much of it was TMAX 400. Changing 120 film on the streets of China is a hassle so to make it easier I got rid of the rappers once I bough the film. I later learned that all of this film was defective and many of my final shoots in China were irreparably harmed by the lack of quality.

Late last year, forgetting about this whole issue I bought more pro packs of TMAX400 and found again that all the film is defective. My habit of unwrapping the film in advance again cost me the lot numbers of this batch. I still have 10-15 rolls of TMAX but all of it is ruined. Each and every frame produced has numbers imprinted. My family trip to Washington DC was completely covered in Kodak's name and numbers. Film bought as late as November of last year still is defective.

I wont be throwing away wrappers anymore, that's for sure.

 

[removed account4]

RattyMouse
do you have any of the film left ?
wrappers on or off, just get it replaced ..
its not worth the effort of wondering what the
lot #s are &c.. you already know it is bad, and i am
sure they will replace it no questions asked ( or so it seems ) ...
and then, if you want to trade your bad film for coffee beans
( if you ever had an interest in trying a coffee based developer, these
coffee beans are fantastic - been using them for a 1/2 dozen years )
you can unload your bad film on me .. and get both new film and developer

 

[lensmagic]

Hey Tom...

We Americans are proud of our EKC and are saddened by it's near demise and severe weakening. It's like when someone criticizes your child when he/she misses a goal and you tell them to STFU. Sure, they goofed but you'd better STFU anyway.

Your response is inappropriate.

 

[Bill Burk]

Unfortunately, I was unaware of this problem when it first struck and had discarded all the batch numbers. I unwrapped all my film...

You have not lost the batch number if you tossed the wrapper. The batch number is imprinted on the edge of the film.

 

[RattyMouse]

You have not lost the batch number if you tossed the wrapper. The batch number is imprinted on the edge of the film.

Wow, really? I did not know that. I've never looked at the film before for that information. I have 5-6 more rolls of TMAX 400 I have already shot, but not developed. Since 100% of my TMAX films have been defective, I have just let them sit since it is so painful to find images that I really like ruined by the imprinting. I developed one roll 2 weeks ago and found a really wonderful image I shot of someone kayaking down the Huron river. It is really a wonderful image, that I framed beautifully. Sadly, the word KODAK is plastered all over the sky. Unfixable by any digital means.

Anyway, I dont care to get any replacement film from Kodak. The whole issue I find very very painful. I've lost so many precious images due to Kodak's poor quality that I just want to move on. I bought 50 rolls of expired but frozen Neopan 400 in 120 size so I'm not in the market for any film for the near future. I'm done with Kodak film until they have proven that they know how to fix this problem. I'm not optimistic since it has been years without a solution.

 

[removed account4]

Unfixable by any digital means

it is most likely fixable through "classic" retouching techniques, but it will take time and a lot of effort
https://www.amazon.com/Retouching-Y...0297&sr=8-2&keywords="retouching+photographs"
this book explains it all. it requires that you make a master print and physically work on the print, and then maybe rephotograph it.
it can also be repaired using modern methods probably in not much time. i have restored / repaired old and new photographs, it is similar to working on it like in the book
except you sit infront of a screen instead of a work print with oils.

 

[RattyMouse]

it is most likely fixable through "classic" retouching techniques, but it will take time and a lot of effort
https://www.amazon.com/Retouching-Your-Photographs-Jan-Miller/dp/0817438327/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1504180297&sr=8-2&keywords="retouching+photographs"
this book explains it all. it requires that you make a master print and physically work on the print, and then maybe rephotograph it.
it can also be repaired using modern methods probably in not much time. i have restored / repaired old and new photographs, it is similar to working on it like in the book
except you sit infront of a screen instead of a work print with oils.

I have never wet printed a photo in my life so such techniques are unknown to me. I tried to fix it digitally but the damage to the image is immense and all efforts to hide the multiple KODAK words along with the numbers produces an image that is clearly retouched and worse off than had it not been destroyed to begin with.

Oh well, better luck next time.

 

[Photo Engineer]

You can retouch a digital print if done with the right equipment and on the right paper.

PE

 

[donakello]

:-( :-( :-(

Used a couple of rolls of TMAX 100 in the last month, on at least 4 trips including a mountain climb, three day bike trip (lugging a Hasselblad!) and rowing across a lake. I have been working on long exposures, so one outing might involve just a couple of frames, and have had reliable results with Ilford/Rollei over the past 2/3 years. The right word for what my TMAX has given me is dismay... followed by frustration. I bought this film a couple of months ago, but this problem has been known about for much longer? The exact batch numbers are known and I was still able to buy it and waste so many hours to get exposures of "KODAK" on the negatives?

I guess I'll get some zen back in a while; this forum has at least stopped me from throwing out my Rodinal or my 'good' A12 film back.

Batch number: 0981001 08/2017. It was just at the end of its Best Before date but that hasn't been an issue before; indeed I've had film left in attics for a decade give better results.

Dead Link Removed

 

[Cholentpot]

:-( :-( :-(

Used a couple of rolls of TMAX 100 in the last month, on at least 4 trips including a mountain climb, three day bike trip (lugging a Hasselblad!) and rowing across a lake. I have been working on long exposures, so one outing might involve just a couple of frames, and have had reliable results with Ilford/Rollei over the past 2/3 years. The right word for what my TMAX has given me is dismay... followed by frustration. I bought this film a couple of months ago, but this problem has been known about for much longer? The exact batch numbers are known and I was still able to buy it and waste so many hours to get exposures of "KODAK" on the negatives?

I guess I'll get some zen back in a while; this forum has at least stopped me from throwing out my Rodinal or my 'good' A12 film back.

Batch number: 0981001 08/2017. It was just at the end of its Best Before date but that hasn't been an issue before; indeed I've had film left in attics for a decade give better results.

Dead Link Removed

Kodak writers in the sky...

 

[Mogsby]

I've had film left in attics for a decade give better results.

I've used some 1948 Ansco 616 film with very very very long exposure and never seen an watermarks, also some Kodak Super xx 1951. Film I got from the States (LA) that will have been Xray'd to death through customs. All shot on a Kodak 1930's Art Deco 616.

 

[donakello]

I've used some 1948 Ansco 616 film with very very very long exposure and never seen an watermarks, also some Kodak Super xx 1951. Film I got from the States (LA) that will have been Xray'd to death through customs. All shot on a Kodak 1930's Art Deco 616.

Nice! I imagine the artifacts and abnormalities you might get with such old film can be enjoyable... but I doubt backing paper number imprints will ever be a sought after characteristic

I guess with film being produced in lower quantities now the money for testing or discarding batches is not there? In any case it seems like a serious foot-shooting exercise- I haven't seen many forums on anything analogue with so many recent posts. It has such a huge effect, properly ruins the image, and imprints the "culprit's" name forever into the neg.

 

[MattKing]

The exact batch numbers are known and I was still able to buy it and waste so many hours to get exposures of "KODAK" on the negatives?

I wish that this had not happened to you.
One thing that isn't clear to me is whether this was film you purchased recently, or film that you have had for some considerable time.
If you purchased this recently from a retailer, they should have known not to sell it.
In any event, and while this may not be nearly enough to make you feel better about this situation, if you contact Kodak about this they will replace the film with new film without charge to you.
They are still struggling with this problem with the wrapper offset plagued backing paper with T-Max 100, so they cannot provide that film as a replacement. But as I understand it T-Max 400 is available, and Tri-X may be available.
Contact Thomas Mooney at profilm@kodakalaris.com. They couriered my replacement film to me in Canada from Rochester New York. There was no charge.
FWIW, here is a thread of mine from December 2016 in which I attempted to organize the available information on the issue: https://www.photrio.com/forum/index...ing-paper-problems-emulsions-affected.137251/

 

[Photo Engineer]

I stress this! Write to:

Jeffrey Clarke
343 State Street
Rochester, NY 14650

As I said before, the buck stops here.

PE

 

[Mogsby]

I guess with film being produced in lower quantities now the money for testing or discarding batches is not there? In any case it seems like a serious foot-shooting exercise-

It brings to reality that Kodak is 1% or less than what it was. I should say kodak ...Alaris! wjth the later name envoking thoughts of some 'lost at at sea' space craft that is drifting into the darkness with a new crew that have no clue!.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

No TMax 100?
There is. But at a price to make your eyes water...
So at this price, you'd want a guarantee that it is not watermark-affected!
http://tinyurl.com/ybu3hcpd

 

[DWThomas]

Oy! Somebody should be annoying and ask the seller for a closeup of the emulsion number!

 

[AgX]

It has such a huge effect, properly ruins the image, and imprints the "culprit's" name forever into the neg.

Well said.

Though I know some people using film who never heard of that Kodak issue. But for the community that knows the effect for Kodak is bad. I would not use any Kodak Alaris rollfilm anymore unless the issue is fully disclosed and the starting batchnumbers of fine films published, what likely will not happen.

 

[donakello]

I wish that this had not happened to you.
If you purchased this recently from a retailer, they should have known not to sell it.
In any event, and while this may not be nearly enough to make you feel better about this situation, if you contact Kodak about this they will replace the film with new film without charge to you.

Thanks Matt, I have returned to calm and perspective today (no hurricane here, health is fine, have some fresh rolls of FP4 in 120 and 35 ) , and have emailed the reseller in Ireland, who have offered to replace the rolls with any film of my choice, and are trying to find out if more of their stock is affected. They had heard of the issue but said they thought their stock was ok. I'd prefer for Kodak to stick around, and would hate to see TMAX disappear, but I don't think this was handled that well. I'm sure there are plenty of others like me who were unaware of the issue until it was too late. Normally I simply blame myself for when negs turn out bad, but in this case I don't think I did anything that unusual like leaving it in the glove compartment for a month, though with the Irish 'summer' I doubt that this would reach cooking temperatures.

 

[removed account4]

They are still struggling with this problem with the wrapper offset plagued backing paper with T-Max 100, so they cannot provide that film as a replacement. But as I understand it T-Max 400 is available, and Tri-X may be available.

IDK i think bill burke had recent trouble with tri x ...

instead of offering more film, they should offer a full refund AND $$ compensation ...

 

[AgX]

Refunding just the film (be it by money or film) is the industry standard. Do not expect your other expenses to be refunded by any manufacturer.

Was there ever a court case on this refunding issue anywhere in the world?

 

[RattyMouse]

:-( :-( :-(

Used a couple of rolls of TMAX 100 in the last month, on at least 4 trips including a mountain climb, three day bike trip (lugging a Hasselblad!) and rowing across a lake. I have been working on long exposures, so one outing might involve just a couple of frames, and have had reliable results with Ilford/Rollei over the past 2/3 years. The right word for what my TMAX has given me is dismay... followed by frustration. I bought this film a couple of months ago, but this problem has been known about for much longer? The exact batch numbers are known and I was still able to buy it and waste so many hours to get exposures of "KODAK" on the negatives?

Sorry to see your images ruined by poor Kodak film quality. Yes, the defective batches are well known but not recalled by Kodak. You just have to take your chances with TMAX film (including TMY). If you come up a loser, as you did here, you can get replacement film, not that this is any consolation whatsoever.

I dont know how you were able to buy TMAX100 recently. It's been out of stock for over a year virtually anywhere you look.

I have had multiple trips ruined by TMAX film, in the exact same way as you show in your image. It's a gut wrenching experience for sure.

 

[MattKing]

IDK i think bill burke had recent trouble with tri x ...

Bill Burk mentioned his problematic Tri-X recently, but it was in relation to a problem he had some time ago - I believe film included in the older batches of film (Trri-X, T-Max 100 and T-Max 400) that were listed in the John Sexton blog post in May of 2016.

 

[removedacct1]

FYI, the replacement TMY I was sent by Kodak is just fine, without any of the backing number transfer issues of the affected batches.

 

[donakello]

Sorry to see your images ruined by poor Kodak film quality. Yes, the defective batches are well known but not recalled by Kodak. You just have to take your chances with TMAX film (including TMY). If you come up a loser, as you did here, you can get replacement film, not that this is any consolation whatsoever.

I dont know how you were able to buy TMAX100 recently. It's been out of stock for over a year virtually anywhere you look.

I have had multiple trips ruined by TMAX film, in the exact same way as you show in your image. It's a gut wrenching experience for sure.

Thanks RattyMouse, it was a nasty surprise to see in the scanner preview. The reseller is sending me rolls of Delta 100 as replacements, but of course that doesn't bring back the shots. I am going to try and re-shoot a few to exorcise "the one that got away" vibes. I'm lucky in some ways in that my shots were almost all landscapes, and though a few were taken for a particular person/purpose, they are from a spot I can revisit. Maybe karma will provide epic cloud formations!

When replying the Irish reseller said they can no longer get TMAX so I'd say I got a few of the last ones they had. Hopefully Kodak can figure it out: maybe there will be a relaunch of sorts with a clear "No no longer featuring frame numbers in your shots!" message. I will stick to Ilford for a while but will be open to testing new TMAX if the assurances are there.