Welcome to Phototrio! Very sorry that poor quality Kodak film led you here. I wish you arrived in happier circumstances.
TMAX400 120 watermark defect - current status?
-
A
- Thread starter tomfrh
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Huge filter collection for sale!
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale FS: Yamasaki Tele-Congo 240mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale E6 and Color Chemicals, Stainless Steel Tanks Reels and film storage sleeves.
- Started by orbitaldebris
-
For Sale SILVESTRI RING N 1
- Started by Philippe-Georges
-
For Sale LINHOF AERO TECHNIKA 45 LENS COVER
- Started by Philippe-Georges
Forum statistics
Welcome to Phototrio! Very sorry that poor quality Kodak film led you here. I wish you arrived in happier circumstances.
Thank you to all who answered. I've been looking at the prospect of 'repairing' the negatives prior to making enlargements. As others have pointed out, that doesn't seem to be a feasible solution. I like the contact print idea (although I've never done it!). If I'm going to go to that length, I'd rather just do the fix to the scan in PS and print the digital image. That's "cheating" I know, but I can't see myself just throwing away all the effected negatives.
Thanks also for the warm welcome. I'm not a 100% film shooter. I bounce around shooting mostly digital, of course, but 'get back to basics' when I want a change. I do still have an operating dark room set up and was really hoping to dust it off with these new photos. Hopefully future film won't have this issue - although future film will probably not be Kodak (sadly).. Thanks again everyone!
Thanks also for the warm welcome. I'm not a 100% film shooter. I bounce around shooting mostly digital, of course, but 'get back to basics' when I want a change. I do still have an operating dark room set up and was really hoping to dust it off with these new photos. Hopefully future film won't have this issue - although future film will probably not be Kodak (sadly).. Thanks again everyone!
Please be aware that this 120 paper backing issue has been an ongoing affair for quite some time. Kodak TMAX100 has been unavailable for over a year and we continue to get posts by people who have been burned by TMAX400 as well as Portra color films.
What film did you find the problem with?
For replacement films, I recommend Fuji Acros 100 and Ilford Delta 400. Both are exceptionally good films and do not suffer from paper issues.
I've been giving this some thought and it might be feasible to make a positive of the paper backing and then use it as a mask to remove the negative image of the paper from the affected negatives. Anyone have any thoughts?
PE
PE
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 1
- Format
- Large Format
Bill - I am very sorry to hear about your terrible problems with Kodak 120 film. Others have provided some good ideas about your question. I was hoping you could share the film types, along with the respective emulsion numbers of your problem rolls. The emulsion number on Kodak 120 film can be found printed along the edge of the film just past frame 11. I wish you the best of luck.
Thank you! I'm not home at the moment, but I'll be happy to provide that when I get home. I have all the effected film set aside. I shot about 5 rolls of B&W and at least 4 color. At the moment I don't recall if only the B&W were effected or if all of the rolls were. I'll check and report back. The color doesn't bother me as much because those are going to be printed from the digital scan anyway, so those will be cleaned up in Photoshop by default. The B&W I intended to enlarge in the dark room, so that's more of a problem. I'm wondering if anyone has tried making enlargements with negatives with this issue and what the final result was. Also, if any filter in the enlarger would help or maybe making the print 'brighter'. I'm going to try some of these things myself. If the word 'Kodak' and the frame number are only in the 'sky' (if it's that type of photo of course), I wonder if any of that would help. I'm certainly NOT anyone who would be considered a pro printer so my questions / thoughts maybe nothing more than foolish. Just wondering.
PE - That's an interesting thought. It immediately brought to mind the masking system techniques available from Lynn Radeka.
William - I'd suggest you contact Lynn Radeka to see if he has any helpful ideas regarding masking your negatives to eliminate your issues. It's been my experience he's readily accessible via email and glad to help if he can. Here's his website with links to his email at the bottom of the page (also many links into his system are there). I also think John Sexton might help.
I've been following this thread from the start. I must have used 20 rolls or more (which admittedly is not that much) of TMax 100 and 400 in 120 over the last 2 years. I've never encountered the problem. Perhaps I have just been lucky.
Alright, only the 4 rolls of Kodak Black and White 400TX were effected with the watermarking issue. I did shoot several rolls of color (some Kodak and some fuji) none of the color rolls have the issue.
I looked on all the rolls effected, all along the edges but saw no emulsion number. (?) The only number that appears after the 11th frame is the 12th frame.
As far as the backing paper and making a positive. All of this film was developed at a lab, so the paper is gone. Like I said, I'm no pro and haven't worked up the nerve to develop film on my own yet (although I did purchase the materials to do it - that seem much easier than actually taking the leap and doing it!). However, I'm glad I didn't develop this myself as I would have thought I messed up and caused the watermarking. So, I'm glad to have used a lab and even the 'pros' had this issue. I wouldn't have looked for this particular answer if I thought I had caused it due to my inexperience. So, looking at the bright side. This film was pretty old before it was used. I've ordered another 'pro pack' from B&H and noticed that the backing paper is now white and, I'm not sure this will make any sense, but the numbers seen through the viewing window (I'm currently shooting with a Holga for something different) look 'different'. They seem smaller or thinner - if that makes sense. So, hopefully I'll have a 'new' backing paper that will have the issue resolved. I'm about half of the way through the first roll, so I'll find out pretty soon!
Thank you all so much for your help, I really appreciate it!
Thank you! I'll check into it.
I just had a look at a roll of TMY I have and the number is about 1/2" to the right of the 11 frame number on the bottom of the film strip. It's quite a bit fainter than the frame numbers. Hold the negative against a white piece of paper or strong light and you will see it. The numbers are very "computer" not like the frame numbers. See the photo of a neg strip, the emulsion number is visible.
MattKing
Moderator
Please do contact Kodak Alaris at profilm@kodakalaris.com and request replacement film.
It is quite possible that your old film was produced right in the middle of the period where the problem was most intense.
And FWIW, after receiving replacements from Kodak Alaris, I've exposed a few rolls of the T-Max 400 from the identified problematic batches. On one I shot a few months ago, I could see very faint signs of the problem when I scanned the film at higher "resolution" settings on a flatbed scanner that really doesn't offer that high a resolution. The problem wasn't visible in darkroom prints.
For two of the films which were exposed and developed recently, I see no signs of the problem either in darkroom prints or middle resolution scans. There are, however, very few areas of smooth tones and minimum detail in those latter films.
All of which merely goes to show that the problem is both maddeningly unpredictable and sometimes hard to detect.
It is quite possible that your old film was produced right in the middle of the period where the problem was most intense.
And FWIW, after receiving replacements from Kodak Alaris, I've exposed a few rolls of the T-Max 400 from the identified problematic batches. On one I shot a few months ago, I could see very faint signs of the problem when I scanned the film at higher "resolution" settings on a flatbed scanner that really doesn't offer that high a resolution. The problem wasn't visible in darkroom prints.
For two of the films which were exposed and developed recently, I see no signs of the problem either in darkroom prints or middle resolution scans. There are, however, very few areas of smooth tones and minimum detail in those latter films.
All of which merely goes to show that the problem is both maddeningly unpredictable and sometimes hard to detect.
I'd sure like to think we could assume this problem is a problem of the past for Kodak TMAX roll film, 'cause I'd pretty much decided to standardize on TMAX and Perceptol for 35mm and wanted to continue with that in 120. But now... if this really hasn't been put in the past, I'm tempted to think otherwise and push back to HP5 and/or Delta 400 for my 400 speed film. (FP4 is my favorite 100 ISO range film). Everything I'd read here until a week or two ago was that this was attributed to some old batches that predate my affiinity for TMAX. Maybe that's true and what we are reading about is old stock either from a slow moving inventory shelf or a freezer somewhere.... but otherwise, if it ain't ready for prime time, I'll just not go there for 120 (though I have been building up my own stock!!!). FWIW, I haven't seen this problem buying my TMAX new in the last two or three months from B&H.
So which is it?
So which is it?
WOW, I sure didn't see that. I held the strip up to the light, but I'll try putting some paper behind it. Thanks!
Just got back rolls of Tmax 400 from the 154 batch, and oodles of new Portra 400, no issues
Thank you Matt, you've address exactly what I was wondering. I have an (older) Epson scanner. I don't recall the model number at the moment, but its whole purpose in life is to scan film. There's a light on the bottom AND in the lid. It even came with inserts for various negative sizes (35mm negative, slides, medium format and even 4x5!) I did scan these at a very high resolution and was wondering if that's why the marks showed up so clearly. I'm "hoping" that they won't be noticeable in the darkroom. I'll find out tonight and this weekend as I'm getting set up to make some enlargements.
The film I used was 'old'. I don't know exactly how old. I should have said that in the first place. I think if you purchase 120 film now, the problem will probably not show up (hopefully). As I mentioned, I did just get some new rolls from B&H and the backing paper isn't the yellow that it was on the rolls that showed the watermark - it's now white...... and pink if I recall correctly. The problem may indeed be strictly in the past and resolved. It's just new to me - if that makes sense.
As suggested, I contacted Lynn. He was very nice and replied quickly. He didn't mention his masks, so I asked about them in my reply email (haven't heard back about that yet). He mentioned going the digital route as the best option - that's probably what I'm going to end up doing. I'm going to make some prints in the next couple of days. If I see the marks - digital and photoshop retouching it is.
Again, thanks to everyone who took the time to comment and help, this has to be one of the friendliest forums on the internet! Thanks again!
Again, thanks to everyone who took the time to comment and help, this has to be one of the friendliest forums on the internet! Thanks again!
I seem to recall that prior to some point in time that emulsion number was actually stamped in that same location with a sort of knife-edged die and not optically printed. In that case, reflecting light at an angle off the surface helps. (But I believe rolls that old were not exhibiting the problem.)
I had 15 rolls of 400TX from a dubious batch and had them replaced, but I have since used three or four of the questionable rolls on local, repeatable shots and not experienced a problem. My impression is the Tmax films were most sensitive to whatever the problem is. I have shot a bunch of 35mm 400Tmax this year, but have never really gotten into the stuff for 120.
That is not unusual nor a problem.
Alright, It took a strong light and magnifier, but I was able to find the emulsion number which is; B08710. 2 of the 4 rolls have a very dark 'stain' over the emulsion number, but the other two have this same number, so I assume that each 'pack' uses the same number. Of course, I have no idea what the number means, but that's what it looks like to me.
Last edited:
Could someone tell me if I'll have problems with 120 film I have either due to expiration or due to the "ghosting" issue? All have been in refrigerator at 36 degrees Fahrenheit.
Tmax 100 expires 6/2017 5-roll pack Batch 0971 002 CAT 857 2273
Tmax 400 expires 10/2018 5-roll pack Batch 0154 004 CAT 856 8214
As an aside, I also have a 5-roll pack of Velvia 50 (RVP50/120) expired 10/2016.
Thanks.
Tmax 100 expires 6/2017 5-roll pack Batch 0971 002 CAT 857 2273
Tmax 400 expires 10/2018 5-roll pack Batch 0154 004 CAT 856 8214
As an aside, I also have a 5-roll pack of Velvia 50 (RVP50/120) expired 10/2016.
Thanks.
Oh, none of the film has yet been exposed.
Alan, these are the known affected batches:
Kodak T-Max 100
Emulsion 0961 through 0981
Kodak T-Max 400
Emulsion 0148 004 through 0152
I would say your T-max 100 is definitely on the list of suspect/bad rolls, but your T-max 400 should be safe to use.
Kodak T-Max 100
Emulsion 0961 through 0981
Kodak T-Max 400
Emulsion 0148 004 through 0152
I would say your T-max 100 is definitely on the list of suspect/bad rolls, but your T-max 400 should be safe to use.
Thanks Paul. I'll dump the Tmax 100.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |