• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

TMAX400 120 watermark defect - current status?

Latest Gallery

Cemetery Chapel

H
Cemetery Chapel

  • 1
  • 0
  • 17
2 bath test

A
2 bath test

  • 3
  • 0
  • 42

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
202,769
Messages
2,845,310
Members
101,513
Latest member
adammoore2011
Recent bookmarks
0
Thanks abruzzi. Now that I have googled Zero Hour I think I may have seen this on the TV on BBC but as this was probably sometime in the late 1950s I hadn't tied it in with Airplane some 20 years later.

pentaxuser
 
Andrew O'Neill said:
Airplane is one of my favourite films. Leslie Nielsen. Canadian boy from Regina, Saskatchewan.
Click to expand...
And he is really, really, really different from his brother Erik Nielsen!
 
I thought that they had solved the problem, but there it is again. I've just developed a few films with emulsion number 155 003 and 156 001. I can see the negative numbers and "Kodak" on the negatives, in addition to that they look strangely mottled. I'm very disappointed.

Trond
 
destroya said:
mickeymouse, rattypig, whatever or whoever

hope he was banned. nothing but a troll and problem maker. He was banned from range finder forum, then signed up again under a diffrent name so he could continue to spread his hate. look for him to return soon, maybe under Ted Striker, which he now uses on RF forum
Click to expand...

Andrew O'Neill said:
He kinda went off the rails when Fuji announced the end of Acros. It's just film, for crying out loud.
Anyways, I believe the watermark issue has been resolved and good on Kodak for getting to the bottom of it.
Click to expand...

paulbarden said:
I found much of his ranting against Kodak to be histrionic and over the top. The moaning about the loss of Acros Neopan was equally exaggerated. I don't miss his nonsense.
Click to expand...

Frankly I got so tired of his tirades that I hope the door hit him on the way out.
 
I think everyone, including Ratty, has the right to his or her opinion, but he did push it a little past opinion sometimes. I went back and forth with him about Xtol. He didn't convince me it was a terrible developer that's for sure, but I certainly didn't convince him to try it again either. As far as I know anyway. JohnW
 
Andrew O'Neill said:
He kinda went off the rails when Fuji announced the end of Acros. It's just film, for crying out loud.
Click to expand...

Andrew: To a lot of people, it seems photography is almost a religion, a sanctuary, a legal drug of choice. I'd be totally off the rails if I found out my local supplier of water or air stopped selling what I needed... :wink:
 
Trond said:
I thought that they had solved the problem, but there it is again. I've just developed a few films with emulsion number 155 003 and 156 001. I can see the negative numbers and "Kodak" on the negatives, in addition to that they look strangely mottled. I'm very disappointed.

Trond
Click to expand...

Please let Kodak know right away.

PE
 
TMAX 400 batch number 159 is the first with new backing paper - referring to a recent update...
Trond said:
I thought that they had solved the problem, but there it is again. I've just developed a few films with emulsion number 155 003 and 156 001. I can see the negative numbers and "Kodak" on the negatives, in addition to that they look strangely mottled. I'm very disappointed.

----------
Reply :
This post ( on the top ) indicates that batch series 155 and 156 still can be affected. I am not sure but it could be worth a check.

Karl-Gustaf
-----------
Trond
Click to expand...
 
Photo Engineer said:
Please let Kodak know right away.

PE
Click to expand...
Will do! Just read on John Sexton's homepage, that the issue might be solved with emulsion number 159.

The same problem twice, and the last time after Kodak claimed the issue was solved, is a bit much. I'll contact Kodak, and get the rolls replaced. But before I try it again I want to be 100% sure it's good.

Trond
 
They did post the numbers affected. If this is one of them, then it is known, but if it is a new number they should be informed.

PE
 
jnantz said:
Andrew: To a lot of people, it seems photography is almost a religion, a sanctuary, a legal drug of choice. I'd be totally off the rails if I found out my local supplier of water or air stopped selling what I needed... :wink:
Click to expand...

I was pretty upset when Kodak stopped producing HIE. And even more upset at myself for not filling up my freezer enough with the stuff...There is no substitute. Rollie is okay, but....
What photographic product would knock you off your rails if it was suddenly gone? Just curious...
 
Andrew O'Neill said:
I was pretty upset when Kodak stopped producing HIE. And even more upset at myself for not filling up my freezer enough with the stuff...There is no substitute. Rollie is okay, but....
What photographic product would knock you off your rails if it was suddenly gone? Just curious...
Click to expand...

To be honest i don't even know ... fixer, old expired film / paper, bulk chemicals or mices ?
i've gotten out of the habit of buying anything premade that is new. I'm probably the wrong person to ask :sad:
 
yaal said:
As a fine art photographer and photography tour guide I had so much misery with this - that i am shifting to Ilford. I have had it with Kodak hiding behind their liability limitations while selling their defective rolls. If you want to take part in a class action, please follow this link about Defective Kodak Tmax.
Click to expand...

Hi yaal:

Sorry to sound like a jerk but if you had trouble with a product why would you continue to use a product that had trouble? I too do professinal work and if I have trouble with film, paper, chemistry, film holders, film backs, lenses, cameras, labs, tripods, light meters &c, I don't use them on anything that is important until they get sorted out and "fixed" &c. While I haven't bought TMX or TMY (fresh) since the 1980s, I have had trouble with PolyMax developer and haven't used it since 1991 when it ruined a weeks worth of shooting and 100$ of sheet film ( in 1991 that was 200 sheets) ( and 4 wasted hours of processing). I had trouble with Xtol and while I continued to use it on my own to try to sort things out and figure out how to use it best, I NEVER used it on a job or anything that was of any importance because if I did, it would be my own fault if things went sideways. While I can understand it is a pain, and wasted time and film to use defective film, and replacements that were defective &c this problem has been going on for years (and not only with EK/KA), and in some cases seems to still be a problem. Why would anyone continue to use a problem film, camera, chemistry, gear &c on things that are important, if they are known to be problematic?

Can you please remove me from your spammy-PM ?

Thanks!
 
Sal Santamaura said:
I disagree. My he/she/it have bad luck enlisting complainants or being awarded anything from an already suffering Kodak.
Click to expand...
We’re on the same page, Sal. A lawsuit would be counterproductive. I’m one of the 51 Photrio members this person is spamming with further invitations to join him in his quest. I’ve turned him down and hope everyone else does as well.
 
Reported yaal as a spammer. He has a blank profile and this was his first post here. His claim that Kodak is the only company with a product liability disclaimer is also false. I did not click on his link. Sound like a bottom dweller to me.
 
I'm much more interested in helping people (and Kodak) deal with and avoid repetition of this problem than getting any money for it.
I have all sorts of thoughts about the appropriateness of class action litigation for something like this (including the special complexities and requirements of that form of litigation) but I think I'll leave that fascinating technical issue be - other than to say that I purchased and have some of the defective product, but would be happy to testify to the fact that I suffered no financial damage as a result, and in fact Kodak's efforts to "make me whole" have left me in a very slightly more fortunate position than I would have been if I didn't have any of the defective product.
 
Yaal, drop me from your list.
 
I had some dodgy TMY. It was disappointing for the lost opportunities. But also for the cost as I'd paid to have it scanned.
A large retail house sold me some batch 154 two months ago which I returned, unshot, for a refund after a brief push-back from their side. Now Alaris' future is uncertain. I just don't need the drama.

I'm shooting Ilford these days. They have a wider range of B&W films in 120 which is also a plus.
 
Mr. Yaal Herman is an Israeli photographer whose anger and vengeful attitude towards this OLD Kodak product problem is in plain view on his site (https://panorama.yaalherman.com/en/kodak-tmax-defective-film/). I think it is telling that his first act as a Photrio member is to encourage others in the community to join in his attack on Kodak. I'd call that very poor form, at the very least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
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:
Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom