TMAX400 120 watermark defect - current status?

[Wallendo]

:-( :-( :-(

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

What I find interesting is not just the print through, but the general mottling of the image. It appears to be more than just the ink affecting the image.

 

[MattKing]

What I find interesting is not just the print through, but the general mottling of the image. It appears to be more than just the ink affecting the image.

I'm guessing that that may be a function of adjusting the scan to emphasize the visibility of the letters and numbers.

 

[RattyMouse]

Thanks RattyMouse, it was a nasty surprise to see in the scanner preview.

I know the feeling. I two rolls of TMAX 400 a few weeks ago and saw every shot was ruined with imprinting defects. My heart just sank. I have a good 8 or more rolls of undeveloped TMAX 400 and dont know what to do with them. Lots of good images there I'm sure, that mean a lot to me, but I am at a 100% failure rate with this last batch of film so I would bet money that all 8 of these rolls are ruined too.

The reseller is sending me rolls of Delta 100 as replacements,

Good move because, as you can see above, TMAX 400 is no guarantee that you escape this problem. Going with Ilford is the smart move now.

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!

You speak very powerfully to me. The "one that got away" vibe is very strong after finding that you shot with defective film. A few of my recent images I can try to reshoot, but I'm sure they wont be as good. The vast majority of my failures were on traveling occasions and I can never get those back. Very depressing.

 

[removed account4]

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.

thanks matt ! its hard to keep all "the defects" straight

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?

well, i know when you get film processed they say the lab is not responsible for doing more than giving you a roll of film
if they "screw up"
personally, i think if a photographic supply company willingly sells a faulty product they should be liable
for more than just replacing the film. its like the tabac companies, they knew they were selling something that was flawed
i mean it is 2 years now, and they haven't been able to get the word out and retrieve all the bad film?
maybe its people who bought 200 rolls of it 2 years ago and they live in a cabin in the mountains
and have no internet so they are out of the loop? but EK/KA should have been recalling
and alerting people globally that there was a problem. moer than a year ago, instead of seemingly relying on word of mouth.
some have suggested that other film companies have had similar problems ... maybe *I* am living on a mountain side
and out of the loop, but i had never heard that there was a problem with other film companies films, at least not
as widespread a problem as this problem. to me at least ( no i am not a EK/KA hater ) it seemed that they didn't
get the word out loud-enough and early-enough ... people lost tons of memories because of flawed film, those
are mili-seconds that will NEVER return. i'd be kind of cranky.
thankfully i am not a lawyer and am not versed in class action law ... this sounds like a nightmare ...

 

[GarageBoy]

I love Kodak films, and I love tmax, but this is definitely making me hesitant

 

[removed account4]

I love Kodak films, and I love tmax, but this is definitely making me hesitant

same here!
kodak was the only film i knew about until about 2000,
and i have used hundreds of rolls and thousands of sheets of tmx, tmz since they were released ( 120/135 ) in the mid 1980s

 

[MattKing]

Has anybody observed wrapper offset in any Black and White emulsion batch numbers that were not already reported in the original John Sexton blog?

 

[removedacct1]

I love Kodak films, and I love tmax, but this is definitely making me hesitant

There is a list of serial numbers of "at risk" batches of the T-max emulsions and it has been quoted in this discussion several times. (see below) All you need to do is avoid purchasing these emulsion batches, which isn't hard, frankly, because most of them are way beyond expiry anyway. If a merchant sells you rolls from the suspect batches (check the numbers!) then ask for a refund or contact Kodak to request fresh film. The pro-packs I received direct from Kodak earlier this year have an expiration date of May, 2019, batch number 0155 002.
Seems to me there's a lot of unnecessary hand-wringing over this issue. Since we know the serial numbers of affected batches (which are now years old) they can be avoided. Current stock with expiry dates in 2019 (and later) do not appear to be affected by this years-old problem. I doubt suppliers like B&H and Freestyle have any of this ancient inventory in their storerooms anyway.

These are the serial numbers of the affected batches:

Kodak T-Max 400
Emulsion 0148 004 through 0152

Kodak T-Max 100
Emulsion 0961 through 0981

Kodak Tri-X
Emulsion 0871 though 0931

 

[RattyMouse]

There is a list of serial numbers of "at risk" batches of the T-max emulsions and it has been quoted in this discussion several times. (see below) All you need to do is avoid purchasing these emulsion batches, which isn't hard, frankly, because most of them are way beyond expiry anyway.

This is not true. I bought 2 pro packs of TMAX 400 last November from B & H photo. I have no idea what the lot numbers were but they were very fresh film with typical expiry dates. I shot the film a few weeks later in Washington DC and developed them immediately upon return. Virtually all images had imprinted numbers on them and I have no photographic record of my family trip aside from my wife's few iPhone shots.

I wish I had the lot numbers, because I had been burned by this issue years ago while living in Asia. During this passage of time I had mostly forgotten about the problem and so bought the recent batch of Kodak film without a second thought.

B & H photo sells a lot of film so their stock can be assumed to be fresh and unexpired, yet I still got nailed hard by this problem.

 

[DWThomas]

Indeed, the Tri-X of emulsion batch 931 that I bought in early 2016 has an expiration date of 02/2018. I got replacements which I used on a trip, but I have shot a few of the 931 rolls locally on repeatable objects and not seen a problem. I get the impression there is something different (and peculiar!) about the Tmax emulsions that makes them more susceptible to the problem. I dragged rolls of newer Tri-X on a 3 1/2 week road trip in the summer of 2016, to Arizona, Utah, and points in between and did not see a problem with that. Daytime temperatures hit well over 100ºF some of the time, although admittedly humidity was quite low. (I'm inclined to suspect humidity is somehow a factor in the problem -- no special knowledge, just seems logical.)

 

[pentaxuser]

Seems to me there's a lot of unnecessary hand-wringing over this issue. Since we know the serial numbers of affected batches (which are now years old) they can be avoided. Current stock with expiry dates in 2019 (and later) do not appear to be affected by this years-old problem. I doubt suppliers like B&H and Freestyle have any of this ancient inventory in their storerooms anyway.

These are the serial numbers of the affected batches:

Kodak T-Max 400
Emulsion 0148 004 through 0152

Kodak T-Max 100
Emulsion 0961 through 0981

Kodak Tri-X
Emulsion 0871 though 0931

As consumers usually buy from recognised stockists who in turn get their stock from distributors, it seemed to me that Kodak could have asked their distributors to pass on the batch details to the stockists for checking and if there were any potentially faulty films "getting through the net", ask the stockist to return to Kodak via their distributors for fresh films. That way most of the faulty films never get to the consumers. I think that MattKing said many weeks ago that this would be close to impossible. While this preventative approach might be difficult and require more work than simply telling people to contact Mr Mooney, an attempt by Kodak at this approach might have been worthwhile in terms of a better return for its reputation

The current situation must appear as a kind of a "penny pinching, least effort approach by Kodak in most consumers' eyes.


pentaxuser

 

[Hatchetman]

So are they making ANY 120 film now with good backing paper? If so, why not make all their films (all 3)?

 

[MattKing]

So are they making ANY 120 film now with good backing paper? If so, why not make all their films (all 3)?

The problem is with the interaction between the component parts - film, paper and ink. The different films interact differently, so backing paper and ink that is problem free with T-Max 400 brings rise to problems with T-Max 100.
And at the time of manufacture, all of the backing paper successfully passes all the tests that Kodak used to do with the backing paper that they used to manufacture - including the backing paper in the batches that have been identified as problematic.

 

[Hatchetman]

So I am 100% good with TMax 400 but not Tri-X?

 

[MattKing]

For anyone who has discarded the packaging, the batch numbers are also found in small text amongst the edge numbers - near 11 and 12, if I recall correctly.

 

[removedacct1]

So I am 100% good with TMax 400 but not Tri-X?

I think the protocol for moving forward should be: shoot ONE ROLL of a new batch to determine if there are any problems before shooting ten or twenty more. Anyone who blithely shoots copious rolls without conducting a test on a single roll is asking for trouble.

 

[Hatchetman]

I think the protocol for moving forward should be: shoot ONE ROLL of a new batch to determine if there are any problems before shooting ten or twenty more. Anyone who blithely shoots copious rolls without conducting a test on a single roll is asking for trouble.

Every roll I use will be under different conditions: age, temperature, humidity, etc..

 

[DWThomas]

So I am 100% good with TMax 400 but not Tri-X?

In my experience the Tri-X obtained as a replacement in March 2016 has been working fine. The rolls showed 0941 as an emulsion number and an August 2018 expiration date. On my major tour last year it was unscathed, and it traveled a lot of hot miles in the process. But in general I would not buy 50 rolls and go off on some round-the-world expedition without trying one or two. Far better to buy just a few and check them out. As someone of a technical background, I would certainly feel better if we had a more detailed explanation of what the problem mechanism is. As I mentioned before, I suspect there is some sort of variation related to environment -- humidity, temperature -- fumes -- or something. It has been obvious the amount of ink used to imprint the numbers was definitely cut way back, so that presumably helps.

Being nothing if not practical, for the aforementioned trip I brought both 400TX and HP-5 which I switched between in hopes if there was a problem I would only lose about half the pictures. I've been shooting 400 Tmax in 35mm lately, but never got into it in 120.

 

[RattyMouse]

I think the protocol for moving forward should be: shoot ONE ROLL of a new batch to determine if there are any problems before shooting ten or twenty more. Anyone who blithely shoots copious rolls without conducting a test on a single roll is asking for trouble.

Yep, that's what I did and it was a complete and total disaster.

 

[Vonder]

Ya know, after this fiasco, I wouldn't be surprised if Kodak simply stops selling 120 film altogether. It will be hard for them to win back former users after this betrayal.

 

[removedacct1]

Yep, that's what I did and it was a complete and total disaster.

For Christmas, you will be getting a copy of Will Storr's 'The Unpersuadables'!

 

[AgX]

Current stock with expiry dates in 2019 (and later) do not appear to be affected by this years-old problem.

Is this hearsay or substantiated?

So are they making ANY 120 film now with good backing paper? If so, why not make all their films (all 3)?

So far I miss a statement by Kodak addressing the problem, saying what they have done to it (as far as industrial secrecy permits) and that all batches from some number on are fine and that the rest will be/has been retracted.

 

[removedacct1]

Is this hearsay or substantiated?

I am sharing my personal experience in this matter: I was sent replacement stock directly from Kodak - new inventory that has an expiry date of May 2019. I have used this film and it has not suffered from the backing paper transfer problem that the film whose serial number was one of the affected batches did.

This is not the first time I have shared my experience in this matter and yet it still seems to go unnoticed/unheeded. Why is that? Are people simply not reading the posts?? Or is there a contingent here who refuses to believe anything except Kodak's "malicious intent" to abuse and deceive their customers? If its the latter, then I doubt there's anything I could say that would convince those folks otherwise. So be it.

Confirmation bias is a bizarre and spectacularly unhelpful thing.

 

[RattyMouse]

This is not the first time I have shared my experience in this matter and yet it still seems to go unnoticed/unheeded. Why is that?

Why? Because any one person's experience is 100% statistically meaningless.

 

[AgX]

Aside of the german car manufacturers..., the industry today typically reacts quite open once a fault has been detected by consumers/media.
Why can't Kodak?
If you are sure your film is fine, why is not Kodak or why don't they say so?


No, I do not think that Kodak/Kodak Alaris got "malicious intent". They rather act like a child that broke something and then hopes Mum and Pa will not realize, and in case they do it tries to evade itself.