TMAX400 120 watermark defect - current status?

[BrianShaw]

dot, dot, dot.

Gimme a simple answer! History or not?

If using old film in the affected lot numbers (or earlier)... apparently not.

If using film subsequent to the affected lot numbers... maybe history.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

im really sad no one has offered to give me their bad-film

 

[AgX]

im really sad no one has offered to give me their bad-film

Once, when Kodak will be back in glory, it will be a collectors item.

 

[RattyMouse]

Gimme a simple answer! History or not?

Nobody knows. Kodak won't talk and so we are left hanging.

 

[Roger Cole]

Nothing is proven until the same roll is processed two different ways. Until then, we are just speculating that the presoak is the solution.

I think we all know that.

 

[Bill Burk]

Presoak is not the answer. Sorry for the false lead.

Upon closer examination, both rolls had marks.

I did develop a roll cut in half, half prewashed half not. Marks appear on both. This was TMAX 400 0149-002 unwrapped for over a year.

The density difference between background image and mark remains fairly consistent in the vicinity of 0.02 to 0.04 whether prewashed or not, so I can't even say that prewashing reduces the severity of the problem.

This roll's marks do not align with anything. I rerolled the film and looked front and back, before and after winding, and the numbers on the film aren't in alignment in any of the four possible ways. So this trashes my theory that the ink in contact with emulsion is softened by moisture trapped in a vapor barrier, because those numbers were never against the film.

 

[BrianShaw]

Well. It was still a good effort and something was learned. Thanks Bill.

 

[removed account4]

bill,

since the #s don't align with anything
i am going for the alien contact theory
and maybe this is why EK/KA won't talk about it
and PE is sworn to secrecy as well.
aliens from a place far away have been providing
the film industry with pre-exposed/numbered
film and have been holding key emulsion scientists hostage
in a vessel someplace else so nothing can be solved.
the only way for EK/KA to fix this is to present these
non benevolent beings with what they want ... which
is the recipe for the kodachrome emulsion they love so much
and plans to build the processing equipment.

until that happens i guess we are all kind of SOL.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

 

[BrianShaw]

bill,

since the #s don't align with anything
i am going for the alien contact theory
and maybe this is why EK/KA won't talk about it
and PE is sworn to secrecy as well.
aliens from a place far away have been providing
the film industry with pre-exposed/numbered
film and have been holding key emulsion scientists hostage
in a vessel someplace else so nothing can be solved.
the only way for EK/KA to fix this is to present these
non benevolent beings with what they want ... which
is the recipe for the kodachrome emulsion they love so much
and plans to build the processing equipment.

until that happens i guess we are all kind of SOL.

... and just as mysterious... whatever is going on with the heretofore unidentifiable backing paper supplier and/or backing paper ink and/or backing paper printer folks!

 

[MattKing]

because those numbers were never against the film

Bill:
I don't understand this reference.
Are you saying that the ghost images are on the film at one location, whereas the inked numbers are against the film at another location?
Because the inked numbers are certainly against the film at some location.

 

[Bill Burk]

Exactly, the numbers do not align with any point where the numbers were. My next thought is a "printing press" anomaly on the rolled up master backing paper known as offset or (set-off to disambiguate from the process itself). As far as I can tell the component of the ink that was transferred at the press is invisible. For example litho offset process might incorporate a wetting agent in the water. An inkjet ink might have some similar solvent to keep the nozzles clean. But a set-off would be on the black part of the paper. If that's the mechanism I don't know how it gets to the emulsion.

I think my next effort is best spent testing new batches now that I know how to test for it.

 

[MattKing]

Thinking way back to my days running an offset press, I think I see where you are coming from.
I wonder if the backing paper comes to Kodak in rolls, and if those rolls are rolled in reverse at any time in the handling process.
The transfer of the ghost image might be a two step transfer - from back, to front, and then to the back again, where it might contact the film emulsion and cause the problem.

 

[BrianShaw]

Thinking way back to my days running an offset press, I think I see where you are coming from.
I wonder if the backing paper comes to Kodak in rolls, and if those rolls are rolled in reverse at any time in the handling process.
The transfer of the ghost image might be a two step transfer - from back, to front, and then to the back again, where it might contact the film emulsion and cause the problem.[/B]

Matt... this is related to questions I asked eons ago but nobody seems able to explain the source or processes related to either the paper or ink... or who prints the paper, Kodak or the paper supplier.

It seems like a very important part of the process to consider. At least to me it is.

 

[Truzi]

I remember the discussions of similar problems with a certain Ultrafine 120 film. It's possible the cause is different. However, I remember someone on APUG claiming reversal processing of the film did not have the issue - but there was no follow-up. Just a thought. I have a pro-pack of the Ultrafine, one roll had the problem and the other 4 have not been used yet. Maybe I'll experiment a bit when I get around to learning B&W reversal.

 

[MattKing]

Matt... this is related to questions I asked eons ago but nobody seems able to explain the source or processes related to either the paper or ink... or who prints the paper, Kodak or the paper supplier.

It seems like a very important part of the process to consider. At least to me it is.

As I understand it, Kodak no longer has the capacity to manufacture the backing paper or to print the numbers and letters on it.

 

[Bill Burk]

Thinking way back to my days running an offset press, I think I see where you are coming from.
I wonder if the backing paper comes to Kodak in rolls, and if those rolls are rolled in reverse at any time in the handling process.
The transfer of the ghost image might be a two step transfer - from back, to front, and then to the back again, where it might contact the film emulsion and cause the problem.

They would run through a slitter!

 

[BrianShaw]

As I understand it, Kodak no longer has the capacity to manufacture the backing paper or to print the numbers and letters on it.

I believe that. But other folks keep talking about a single source in the entire world, which begs the question of why the offset problem isn't universal to all 120 film irrespective of the manufacturers name or color.

 

[MattKing]

They would run through a slitter!

Yes, but are they in a big roll that is run through a slitter, and is that roll "reversed" on the core?

 

[AgX]

Exactly, the numbers do not align with any point where the numbers were. My next thought is a "printing press" anomaly on the rolled up master backing paper known as offset or (set-off to disambiguate from the process itself).

The respective relative locations vary between rolled and unrolled state of film and paper.

 

[removed account4]

i hope EKKA is going to pay you folks dearly for solving their problems
which they haven't figured out, or as specified by my earlier post
they "can't" figure out ... i'd be careful, you might find yourself in
a scene from dr who, with no doctor or police box

 

[aparat]

This is probably not going to be helpful to anybody, but today, I developed a roll of TMY2 from the affected batch (0149 002, exp. 02/2017). It was the last roll out of a five-pack; the previous four rolls all turned out to have the dreaded "watermark" effect. The only thing I did differently with this roll was use a hardening fixer in a two-bath process. The negative is super clean, no sight of any watermark, and no magenta stain, either. I was shocked, to say the least. I doubt my process had anything to do with it, but I will list the steps just in case you might think it useful. The entire five-pack has been stored in a freezer. Perhaps this one roll was from another batch? A fluke? Is that possible, given Kodak's production line, automation, etc.

All done at 20C, chemicals mixed with RO water.
1. Water pre-wash for 2 minutes (I use it to bring film and tank down to temperature, primarily)
2. Develop in Clayton F76+ for 8 minutes
3. Stop bath (Legacy Pro Indicator Stop Bath) for 30 seconds
4. Fix in Legacy Pro Hardening Fixer , first bath for 7 minutes
5. Water rinse
6. Fix in Legacy Pro Hardening Fixer , second bath for 7 minutes
7. Hypo clear wash for 2 minutes
8. Wash in archival washer for 20 minutes
9. Rinse in RO water
10. Photo-flo for 1 minute
11. Dry in a film cabinet with heat on for 40 minutes.

 

[william wolfe]

I know I'm late the the party, but I just had several rolls of 120 Kodak film display this same issue. Different cameras and different batches of film. In fact, it was a search about the problem that led me to this site in the first place. My question is; can the negatives (or prints) be repaired so the work isn't ruined or at least still able to be used in some way? I can easily fix the issue in a scanned negative in photoshop, but if I want to make an enlargement in the darkroom (which is what I want to do of course), what can be done to save these images?
Any help would be appreciated.

Bill

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I'm very sorry to state, no. Only digital or very painstaking analog repair is possible. The latter is not truly feasible, IMO.

 

[Anon Ymous]

... My question is; can the negatives (or prints) be repaired so the work isn't ruined or at least still able to be used in some way? I can easily fix the issue in a scanned negative in photoshop, but if I want to make an enlargement in the darkroom (which is what I want to do of course), what can be done to save these images?
Any help would be appreciated.

Bill

If you can easily correct any issues in photoshop, then perhaps you could also make digital negatives at the size you'd like to print and contact print them on real bw paper.