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

[RattyMouse]

What Kodak ?
Kodak Alaris or Kodak?


The new set-up for still films further complicated things.

Yes.

 

[Ai Print]

I have shot about 30 rolls of 120 TMY2 in the past month, some from batches just purchased and I don't have this problem. I'm sure Kodak is looking into this, especially considering TMY2 is one of the best black and white films ever and is very popular.

I'll keep an eye out either way, but I will certainly continue to use it.

 

[MattKing]

Kodak is responsible for that failure.

My company sells 90% of its products through distribution. We take responsibility for EVER drum of product we sell. If it fails at the customer's site, we start a corrective action that insures that failure mode is corrected and does not happen again. If the distributer caused the failure, then they either fix the problem or they are no longer a distributer.



Kodak should be working non stop right now because clearly they have a big problem.

I am sure that Kodak is trying to identify where the examples were damaged.

But in this world where things like film pass through as many hands as they do before they get to the final consumer, that probably isn't always possible. There is no guarantee that the local official "distributor" actually was involved with any particular transaction.

So people who encounter damaged product should contact their retailer, and contact Kodak Alaris and provide to both as much information as they can. Emulsion numbers, packaging and backing paper would no doubt be invaluable, along with place and date of retail purchase.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yes, provide the data so that Kodak can built the path and correct the problem.

 

[georg16nik]

Yes, provide the data so that Kodak can built the path and correct the problem.

So, you are paying a premium, for a premium branded product, which is supposed to be tested in real world but it ain't... and now you are supposed to provide the mfg with data to fix their own mess?

What happened with “buy films from premium mfg like Kodak and Ilford and you will be fine”...?

When every other mfg films got issues report on APUG, it was because they are second, third grade tiers... but if it's Kodak you oughta help the big K duds fix their films, ehh?

That's BS.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

but if it's Kodak you oughta help the big K duds fix their films, ehh?

That's BS.

So you'd rather complain than help solve a problem, eh?

 

[AgX]

But to my understanding Kodak Alaris has already been informed, they already pointed at the cause (too hot storage after leaving the plant), and thus it does not seem a problem to them.

 

[MattKing]

So, you are paying a premium, for a premium branded product, which is supposed to be tested in real world but it ain't... and now you are supposed to provide the mfg with data to fix their own mess?

What happened with “buy films from premium mfg like Kodak and Ilford and you will be fine”...?

When every other mfg films got issues report on APUG, it was because they are second, third grade tiers... but if it's Kodak you oughta help the big K duds fix their films, ehh?

That's BS.

There is nothing to indicate that this arises from a manufacturing defect.

It is a problem in the distribution chain - most likely due to conditions imposed on the film after it left the control and possession of Kodak or its contracted distributors.

Serious overheating in the back of an independent delivery truck, a fire in a third party re-seller's warehouse, bad storage condition's in a customs broker's warehouse, an overheated storage room in a retailer's premises - all are the sorts of conditions that could both cause the problem and frustrate efforts of the manufacturer to identify the source of the problem.

If the end user who has been affected by those problems communicates the circumstances to Kodak, they will both help Kodak trace where the problem arose, and obtain some replacement film that hasn't been abused by others before it got to them.

 

[AgX]

If the end user who has been affected by those problems communicates the circumstances to Kodak, they will both help Kodak trace where the problem arose, and obtain some replacement film that hasn't been abused by others before it got to them.

The letter from Kodak Alaris quoted above does not hint at an interest in looking into details.

 

[georg16nik]

So you'd rather complain than help solve a problem, eh?

I am admiring, poetically, the preferential treatment some film mfgs like Kodak get here and bashing of others, that's all.
No complains from me, since I pretty much stopped using Ilford and Kodak products long ago.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I am admiring the preferential treatment of some film mfgs like Kodak and bashing of others, that's all.

LOL - it seems most of the bashing on APUG is directed at Kodak.

 

[georg16nik]

LOL - it seems most of the bashing on APUG is directed at Kodak.

Manufacturers of premium priced products get premium bashing when they fail to communicate with their customers.
The customer is always right, especially in regards to bulletproof product like film.
Business 101. Not a rocket science.

 

[RattyMouse]

Manufacturers of premium priced products get premium bashing when they fail to communicate with their customers.
The customer is always right, especially in regards to bulletproof product like film.
Business 101. Not a rocket science.

You have that right. Very well put, not rocket science at all. I place full blame for this on Kodak. I lost my final rolls of my life in China due to Kodak's lack of quality. I am VERY unhappy with what happened. Had this not slipped my mind (due to my 8,000 mile move from Shanghai to the US), I would have never have bought 20 more rolls of TMAX 400. Kodak has lost my trust. I've been a TMAX 400 user since I dont know when but that has all be lost.

 

[RattyMouse]

There is nothing to indicate that this arises from a manufacturing defect.

It is a problem in the distribution chain - most likely due to conditions imposed on the film after it left the control and possession of Kodak or its contracted distributors.

This is nonsense. A professional company takes FULL responsibility for their products. Kodak's distributers does arise out of thin air. They are selected and vetted by Kodak. It is KODAK'S responsibility to make sure the distributers handle the film properly. It is KODAK that should be conducting regular audits of their distributers.

Serious overheating in the back of an independent delivery truck, a fire in a third party re-seller's warehouse, bad storage condition's in a customs broker's warehouse, an overheated storage room in a retailer's premises - all are the sorts of conditions that could both cause the problem and frustrate efforts of the manufacturer to identify the source of the problem.

The above is true if Kodak and their distributers are a bunch of rank amateurs, which clearly seems to be the case now.

Kodak's ability to test in-house appears to be non existent if mere heat is all it takes for their product to spoil. The products I design are severely heat tested to the point where they have be abused far beyond temperatures that they will ever experience. We over engineer our products so that once released into the "wild", they will last until they arrive at a customer's location. If only Kodak were that thorough.

 

[RattyMouse]

There is nothing to indicate that this arises from a manufacturing defect.

That is pure speculation on your part, colored by an immense degree of deference to Kodak. Pardon me but my standards are much more rigorous.

Manufacturing or distribution, KODAK and ONLY Kodak is responsible.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I have Pro Packs of 120 Tmax 400 in my B&H shopping cart right now. Is there any reason I should cancel and wait until later to buy?

 

[RattyMouse]

I have Pro Packs of 120 Tmax 400 in my B&H shopping cart right now. Is there any reason I should cancel and wait until later to buy?

It's a crap shoot. I would not buy Kodak 120 film now with this issue going on. If this is a critical shoot for you I'd choose Ilford for sure.

TMAX400 is the most affected film but Portra 400 has also had reports of problems.

Use at your own risk. Kodak's new slogan.

 

[MattKing]

So, you are paying a premium, for a premium branded product, which is supposed to be tested in real world but it ain't... and now you are supposed to provide the mfg with data to fix their own mess?

What happened with “buy films from premium mfg like Kodak and Ilford and you will be fine”...?

When every other mfg films got issues report on APUG, it was because they are second, third grade tiers... but if it's Kodak you oughta help the big K duds fix their films, ehh?

That's BS.

Or Ilford?: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

People have been encountering problems with film damaged by environmental factors outside the manufacturer's control since film became available.

The only difference now is that:
1) the distribution and sale channels are much more fragmented; and
2) the internet allows everybody in the world with internet access to share details.

This happens rarely and in extremely small numbers. But when it does happen, it is much easier for a lot more people to find out about it.

If this were a manufacturing, packaging or labeling problem, it would be a much different problem, and there would be many, many more reports of it.

 

[RattyMouse]

Yes This happens to other film makers. The difference with Kodak is the frequency of reports of problems. Much much more frequent.

 

[markbarendt]

Yes This happens to other film makers. The difference with Kodak is the frequency of reports of problems. Much much more frequent.

Maybe that has something to do with their market share.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Everybody take a deep breath and count to 10. I'd be willing to bet Kodak already knows what the problem is, but might not know what has caused it. TMY 400 and Portra 400 has been made for a few years now and all of a sudden we have a "numbers transfer" problem? Think about it for a minute. Why haven't we seen this problem crop up before this with TMY2 and Portra 400? I'm pretty sure Kodak changed something in the line of production. Like paint, paper or whatever, but they just can't figure out what is causing the newly changed process/product to bleed. I say they should think seriously about reverting back to what worked before until they can figure it out. Otherwise many folks will be fleeing the theater because there is a fire and not just because somebody yelled fire. I'd be willing to go to work for Kodak Alaris for a salary of $135,000.00 per year to get the film division straighten out. Also, for that salary I would setup a customer relations moderator on all the analog film sites. What a deal! I won't hold my breath as the big yellow boat goes down while I'm waiting for my offer to be taken seriously of course! It really disappoints me that a company like Kodak can't have a representative on some of these forums/sites and that's what Rattymouse is getting at. On second thought I probably wouldn't make a good modern day CEO 'cause I care way too much. John W

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Okay, I bought my other items but not the 120 Tmax 400 roll film.

 

[georg16nik]

Or Ilford?: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

People have been encountering problems with film damaged by environmental factors outside the manufacturer's control since film became available..[]...

MattKing, the MF backing paper print transfer to film and the mediocre packaging are long standing issues and it seems mfgs can't or won't fix these anytime soon.

Let's refresh with a quote from the thread mentioned earlier by Raphael: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Dear Raphael,

This is called 'wrapper offset' : Where the printed information on the backing strip transfers to the film. Georg and Piu58 are correct, high humidity can affect the wrapper but its the red view window that is the usual cause...ensure it is covered.

I have seen more than a few posts where people 'complain' that the printing on our ILFORD wrapper is too feint.....its like that for a purpose it makes 'wrapper offset' a lot less likely.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Premium excuse for premium product - high humidity and/or red view window.

Let say high humidity is 60 - 90% and packaged film is exposed to it over a month or two. Well, all mfgs should develop impermeable packages and be done with it; and NO buts, it's 2015.
Same for “red view window” Ilford burbled or the “high heat” Kodak burbled about. Well, fix these too.
Nobody leaves their films in the oven before exposure or the camera with the red window facing the Sun, so let's be reasonable here - somebody is cutting corners and it's not the customer.

Improve your MF films or stop charging premium.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Nobody purposely sells bad product; if the problem can't be solved, the only other option is to stop selling it. How does THAT sound to you?

 

[railwayman3]

MattKing, the MF backing paper print transfer to film and the mediocre packaging are long standing issues and it seems mfgs can't or won't fix these anytime soon.

Let's refresh with a quote from the thread mentioned earlier by Raphael: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)



Premium excuse for premium product - high humidity and/or red view window.

Let say high humidity is 60 - 90% and packaged film is exposed to it over a month or two. Well, all mfgs should develop impermeable packages and be done with it; and NO buts, it's 2015.
Same for “red view window” Ilford burbled or the “high heat” Kodak burbled about. Well, fix these too.
Nobody leaves their films in the oven before exposure or the camera with the red window facing the Sun, so let's be reasonable here - somebody is cutting corners and it's not the customer.

Improve your MF films or stop charging premium.

In all the time I've used 120 film (from a school kid onwards), from Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, Ferrania, Fuji, and no doubt a few odd makes I've forgotten, in a variety of camera from a Brownie (red window!) to a Rollei, I've never seen this problem. Films bought from a variety of sources, some outdated, others long before fridge storage was thought of.

So evidently something has gone badly wrong here in either manufacture or distribution, and it shouldn't be difficult for a reputable manufacturer to put it right.