Very strange Kodak Numbers showing up inside actual negatives?! Pictures inside!

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak and Ilford are indeed hostage to the companies that make the backing paper and ink. They both run a standard battery of tests but these may not detect a minor change in formulation of the paper or ink. In fact, a slight change that passed the tests might show up in extreme keeping conditions. So, there may be 2 things or more going on.

I'm not excusing anyone, as there is a problem and it should have been found. In addition, all of that bad film should be recalled.

PE

 

[JW PHOTO]

While Gerald's point is well taken it really doesn't apply here since none of this film we are talking about is what I would consider "long term storage". Also, like AgX above, I question this excuse of "improper storage" as in reference to heat and humidity. If heat and humidity were the actual cause of the embedded numbers problem we would have seen this a long time ago. It all boils down to one thing and one thing only and that is Kodaks changing it's backing paper or printing ink or both. Could heat and humidity induce the problem? Yes, but it's not the root cause of the problem even if we are trying to be led to believe it is. I, for one, won't buy into the theory.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I'm referring to what perhaps might be called extraordinarily bad keeping. IDK for sure, but only certain shipments of the affected batches are so far reported to show the problem.

PE

 

[BrianShaw]

So, who amongst us has done a legitimate root cause analysis... Based on data, test, or demonstration?

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm asking a legitimate question. There are lots of assumptions and strongly stated opinions of what the single cause is but lots of other potential failure modes left unanswered, even when the question is asked repeatedly. And the only authoritative source is basically a marketing and customer service manager. Kodak seems to be addressing as best they can given what seems to be known. They are standing behind their products in accordance to their long-established policy. That's good.

I'm asking a legitimate question to those who either think they know the single causal factor or are berating others for holding a different opinion.

But help me out here... What's your point about engineers? Because statisticians have a different saying, and it end with "... And liars can lie with numbers".

 

[Photo Engineer]

Brian, Kodak is aware of the problem and they are working on it with the data they can gather. We know that.

Thats about it.

PE

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm sure of that. I'm also sure that they aren't going to tell us about their detailed analysis or how complex the real answer may be.

"That's about it" is about right!

 

[tedr1]

I am amazed at the self-restraint shown by Photo-engineer in this difficult situation, there must be so much he would like to say but feels it improper to do so.

I had this happen twenty years ago with an Ilford 120 film, there is a deep underlying problem, film is sensitive to radiation, we usually think it only sensitive to visual radiation but we know it is sensitive to X rays and also to ionizing radiation from radio-active sources. Rolling up a sensitive emulsion tightly against a paper wrapper having coatings and printing inks is a chemical engineer's nightmare, but film has been surviving it for decades. People have been abusing rolls of 120 film for decades with bad storage, that hasn't changed. Film use has fallen off in the past twenty years, inventories of raw materials to make films move more slowly and the finished product moves through the distribution chain more slowly.

Someone has screwed up. My hunch is that the paper maker has allowed a controlled variable to become uncontrolled, they may not even be aware that this has happened, it might be that they re-ordered some material from THEIR supplier and that is where the error originates, this is a long chain of manufacturing stages where the end result can take months to reach the final product.

There is a new generation of young photographers enjoying what film can do. It is very discouraging that this mess should be thrown in their faces.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Because statisticians have a different saying, and it end with "... And liars can lie with numbers".

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." Quote attributed to Benjamin Disraeli.

 

[BrianShaw]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." Quote attributed to Benjamin Disraeli.

That too!

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Brian, Kodak is aware of the problem and they are working on it with the data they can gather. We know that.

We also know that they HAVE already taken action by changing the paper and ink

 

[BrianShaw]

Brian, I just now saw your edit. Sorry, I wasn't implying anything about engineers, they just happened to be the folks I was working with rather than statisticians. I think "Liars can lie with numbers" is the same as "Liars can figure."

Ah, yes... I thought we were on the same page and now certain!

I work with both; I am both.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

One common problems statisticians have is engineers come to them for help analyzing the data AFTER the experiment has been conducted, rather than coming to them for early help in designing the experiment so that meaningful data is collected.

 

[AgX]

We also know that they HAVE already taken action by changing the paper and ink

To my understanding the only information we got about this is a member quoting from a private message he got from Kodak Alaris (post #195).
They did not even hint at the problem as such in public.

Or did I miss something?

 

[Prof_Pixel]

To my understanding the only information we got about this is a member quoting from a private message he got from Kodak Alaris (post #195).
They did not even hint at the problem as such in public.

Or did I miss something?

Yes, you missed several 'somethings'. That's the problem with several threads covering the same issue. Kodak has shared batch numbers to watch out for and they have changed the paper and ink. See also John Sexton's comments quoted in (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[RattyMouse]

Kodak and Ilford are indeed hostage to the companies that make the backing paper and ink. They both run a standard battery of tests but these may not detect a minor change in formulation of the paper or ink. In fact, a slight change that passed the tests might show up in extreme keeping conditions. So, there may be 2 things or more going on.

I'm not excusing anyone, as there is a problem and it should have been found. In addition, all of that bad film should be recalled.

PE

Is Fujifilm a hostage too? I have never seen defective paper from them.

 

[RattyMouse]

In addition, all of that bad film should be recalled.

PE

I totally agree with you PE. Some apologists think Kodak has no obligation to help reduce the risk of their customers. I vehemently disagree and condemn Kodak for their inaction.

 

[BrianShaw]

Yes, you missed several 'somethings'. That's the problem with several threads covering the same issue. Kodak has shared batch numbers to watch out for and they have changed the paper and ink. See also John Sexton's comments quoted in (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

But no information from directly Kodak saying something like "we see signs of a potential problem so we've informed all of our vendors and retailers to return their film within the affected batch numbers for exchange with our new and improved film" or on their web site like "here are the affected lot numbers for any of our customers who are storing film for future use; if you have any return it immediately for exchange."

Sexton' site and APUG are fine mechanisms but not direct communication from Kodak.

I wouldn't expect breaking headlines on the evening news, or front page of the major newspapers. That would be expecting way too much.

But a direct communication from Kodak wouldn't be expecting much more than common decency and good business practice.

I think this is in alignment with what AgX was thinking too.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Brian, I agree with you and have stated that several times, but I suspect that Kodak and Alaris are running around gobbling like headless chickens trying to decide what to do about this PR disaster!

PE

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I know you're right, PE, but the longer they wait the worse the effects of the disaster. I'm sure they knew long ago that something was awry.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Not necessarily.

They run a lot of tests. Maybe this is the result of some combination of events.

IDK.

PE

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Brian, I agree with you and have stated that several times, but I suspect that Kodak and Alaris are running around gobbling like headless chickens trying to decide what to do about this PR disaster!

You and I both know that the 'old' Kodak had a very large group of people dedicated to investigating and resolving customer issues (like this). I did work for them many times. I suspect the 'new' organization(s) probably only has a couple of people trying to do this.

 

[MattKing]

I wonder if the recent departure of their CEO is in any way connected with this.

 

[AgX]

But no information from directly Kodak saying something like "we see signs of a potential problem so we've informed all of our vendors and retailers to return their film within the affected batch numbers for exchange with our new and improved film" or on their web site like "here are the affected lot numbers for any of our customers who are storing film for future use; if you have any return it immediately for exchange."

I think this is in alignment with what AgX was thinking too.

Exaktly. There is no hint at their website.
A quoted listing and a comment buried at Apug, that I even missed after a few days off Apug, is not what I expect from a manufacturer of the importance as Kodak Alaris.

 

[RattyMouse]

Exaktly. There is no hint at their website.
A quoted listing and a comment buried at Apug, that I even missed after a few days off Apug, is not what I expect from a manufacturer of the importance as Kodak Alaris.

+1